REPORT TO CONGRESS ON AN EXTRACT FROM THE JOURNALS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
The Superintendent of Finance, to whom was referred an Extract from the Journals of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, begs leave to report;
That the said extract consists of two parts; the former whereof contains certain matters reported by a committee of that honorable House, in consequence of a conference held with the commissioner for settling the accounts of the said State, the which matters are reported by the committee, and appear to have been considered by the House as facts. The latter part contains reasonings upon the former, and resolutions in consequence thereof. Pursuing therefore the same line, the Superintendent of Finance must take leave to observe, that the former part of the said extract implies an inattention on his part to the orders of the United States in Congress, and an assumption of powers not delegated. He humbly prays to submit both of these charges to the wisdom and equity of Congress, who have long since had before them all the instructions given to the commissioners for settling accounts, together with a report on the reference mentioned in the extract; wherefore it is to be presumed, that if undue negligence or the arrogating of power had appeared, it would not have passed unnoticed.
It is further to be observed, that the doubts stated by the said commissioner and the difficulties under which he is supposed to labor, must have chiefly originated in circumstances peculiar to himself, because that such doubts and difficulties have not occurred to the commissioners employed in other States, and because they would easily have been obviated by a careful consideration of the Acts and instructions in his possession; excepting only in one point, viz., "Whether charges for buildings, fences, wood, &c. damaged or destroyed by continental troops, or militia, are to be allowed?" This question (which can only be resolved by special Act of Congress) is not to be found among twelve questions proposed by the commissioner to Congress; but among nine proposed to the Superintendent of Finance.
It is stated in the said extract, "that by the instructions from the Office of Finance to the said commissioner, he is enjoined a strict attention to the resolve of Congress of the 23d of August, 1780, touching all certificates generally; that this resolve introduces an entire new method of granting certificates; that to require those new forms in certificates, granted before they were instituted, is requiring an impossibility, or (in other words) is a refusal to liquidate any certificate given before the 23d of August, 1780." Were this the case, doubtless there would be sufficient cause of complaint and sharp animadversion; but the Acts and instructions, all which are in possession of Congress, will show the state of facts to be as follows. The Act of Congress of the 20th of February, 1782, speaking of the commissioner contains the following words; "That he be also fully empowered and directed, to liquidate and settle, in specie value, all certificates given for supplies by public officers to individuals, and other claims against the United States, by individuals for supplies furnished the army, the transportation thereof, and contingent expenses thereon, within the said State, according to the principles of equity and good conscience, in all cases which are not or shall not be provided for by Congress." Under this Act of Congress, the Controller of the Treasury issued certain instructions, which were approved of by the Superintendent of Finance, thereby directing each of the several commissioners "to open an account with the principal of each department, for the time being, and with every person who is properly accountable for articles purchased by or delivered to him. In which they must be changed respectively with all such articles, and for which they are to account with the commissioners appointed, or to be appointed to adjust the accounts of these departments respectively."
The Superintendent of Finance, in a letter to the commissioners of the 7th September, 1782, after referring to the Controller's instructions, calls their attention to two particulars, the former whereof is not material to the present point, and the latter is as follows; "In settling the accounts with individuals, you will consider that artful men have frequently taken advantage of the public, and that, in many instances, public officers have taken advantage of the weak and unprotected. You will therefore always remember that it is your duty to do justice." The two commissioners who were first appointed after considering the Acts of Congress and the several instructions given to them, proposed, among others, the following question, "Whether certificates given to individuals are to be taken as they stand, and new ones given for their amount; or whether they are to be re-examined and new prices affixed to the articles when they have been over or under charged?" The Superintendent and Controller entered into a consultation together, and the following answer was returned. "Certificates given by quarter masters or commissioners to individuals, must be re-examined, the articles shown, and their value determined, that the receiver of them may be charged and made accountable to the commissioners appointed for the respective departments." See resolutions of Congress of the 23d of August, 1780, relating to them, which must be strictly attended to."
This question and answer is regularly transmitted by the Controller to all the commissioners appointed to adjust the accounts between the individual States and the Union. The commissioner for the State of Pennsylvania, had therefore the matters above recited in his possession when he proposed to Congress the following questions. "Are certificates or receipts given by quarter masters, commissaries, their deputies, assistants, agents, or other public officers for supplies furnished, before the 15th of September, 1780, to be taken as they stand, and new ones given for their amount, estimated in specie? Are certificates issued agreeable to the mode prescribed by resolution of Congress, 23d of August, to be taken up and new ones given?" These questions were, among others, referred to the Superintendent of Finance; who thereupon informed the commissioner, that the answer thereto was in the Act of Congress, the letter from the Superintendent, and the question and answer above quoted. Surely there is nothing in either which requires the forms prescribed by the Act of the 23d of August, 1780, in certificates granted before they were instituted. The commissioner is indeed referred to that Act, and directed to pay attention to it; but the evident construction of this order, limits it to certificates issued under the Act. And even if that were not the case, yet when the whole of the instructions (or rather the answers) which are complained of, is taken together, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. For among the commissioner's questions to the Superintendent is the following; "How are claims for supplies furnished, or services performed by an individual, who is destitute of a certificate or any kind of voucher, having only a bare charge against the United States for the same, to be settled? Will the oath or affirmation of the claimant make the charge good?" And he shortly after asked Congress, "How are claims for supplies furnished for public use by an individual, who is destitute of a proper voucher, to be authenticated?" To both these queries the answer given by the Superintendent, (and which forms part of the instructions complained of) is as follows. "They relate to the same point, viz. What evidence shall establish claims? It appears, that the article passed in favor of the claimant must charge some other person, and that public notice is to be given of the times and places of settlement, that both parties may attend. Under these circumstances, if the demand is grounded on principles of equity, and the evidence produced satisfies the conscience of the commissioner, he is bound to pass it, by the Act of Congress." Now it must be remembered, that the commissioner is (by the Act under which he was appointed) empowered and directed to liquidate, &c. according to the principles of equity and good conscience, in all cases which are not or shall not be provided for by Congress. The answers therefore given by the Superintendent to his questions, are no more than applications of the Act, to the doubts which he had suggested. It is more than probable that if the honorable Assembly of Pennsylvania, had communicated with the Superintendent on this subject, they would not have assumed the same ground of reasoning which they appear to have done.
It is alleged in the said extract, "that certificates given for personal services, wages or hire, are rejected;" in answer to which it can only be said, that if the claimants are officers or persons acting in any of the departments, the certificates ought to be rejected by the commissioner for the State, because such accounts are to be liquidated by the commissioners of the departments respectively; but if other claims have been rejected by the commissioner, he must have been under the influence of some misapprehension.