not extend. But if the swords were given, as the resolution directed, to those who had distinguished themselves on that occasion, it was as necessary to the object of the vote that their names should be known as that the swords should be received. He therefore proposed a resolution, substantially as follows:

Resolved, That the president of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this house a statement of proceedings had under the resolution of congress of the 3d March, 1805, whereby the president of the United States was requested to cause a gold medal to be presented to commodore Preble, and swords to the officers, &c. and that he be requested to cause to be stated the names of the officers who received these distinctions, and stating the manner in which the appropriation of twenty thousand dollars, made for this object, was expended.

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed to wait on the president, who, in compliance with the resolution, transmitted to the house a report of the secretary of the navy on the subject. The secretary stated in his report, that, in pursuance of the resolution of congress of the 3d of March, 1805, a gold medal, emblematical of the attacks on the town, batteries, and naval force of Tripoli, by the squadron under commodore Preble's command, was presented to the commodore, accompanied by a letter from Robert Smith, then secretary of the navy, requesting him to receive it as a testimony of his country's estimation of the important and honourable services rendered by him.

The secretary further stated, "That one month's pay was allowed, 'exclusively of the common allowance, to all the petty officers, seamen, and marines of the squadron, who so gloriously supported the honour of the American flag, under the orders of their gallant commander in the several attacks:'

"That no sword has been presented to either of the commission officers or midshipmen, who distinguished themselves in the several attacks:

"And that it is not known to this department, that there ever was made by congress a specific appropriation of twenty thousand dollars for the purpose of carrying into effect the resolution referred to.

"With respect to that part of the resolution which 'requests the president to cause a sword to be presented to each of the commission officers and midshipmen, who distinguished themselves,' it is presumed that the president saw what to his mind appeared difficulties of great delicacy, from the peculiar language of the resolution. By the resolution he was requested to present swords to such only as had distinguished themselves; and all 0

VOL. I.

having been represented to him as having acted gloriously, he could not, in justice, draw with precision a line of discrimination. He felt, it is presumed, a repugnance to the making of a selection which, by imputation, would necessarily have cast an unmerited reproach upon all not therein included. A degradation of that kind might have greatly injured the service, and could not possibly have been grateful to the honourable feelings of the favoured officers."

This message was referred to a committee of seven members, who, on the 26th of February, made a report to the house, accompanied with a correspondence with the navy department on the subject.

"From these letters and documents it appears," say the committee, "that in a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee of ways and means, dated the 16th December, 1805, and in explanation of the 'causes why the expenditures of that branch of the public service had so far exceeded the estimates and appropriations for the same,' the then secretary of the navy did transmit an estimate of expenses defrayed' by the navy department, containing an item declared to be 'for expenditures under a resolution of congress for the 3d of March, 1805, for which objects no appropriations have been made: they have therefore been defrayed out of the appropriations for the support of the navy for the year 1805, twenty thousand dollars.

"Upon this statement, an act passed on the 22d of January, 1806, making an additional appropriation to supply the deficiencies in the appropriations for the naval service during the year 1805, in which was included the above sum, thus stated to be a deficiency incurred by an expenditure which, to that amount, had been defrayed by the navy department.

"It now appears, by a letter from the secretary of the navy, dated the 2d of February instant, that the item above mentioned, instead of being, as it was stated to be, for expenditures which had been defrayed' by the navy department, was, in fact merely an item stating 'a deficit,' which resulted from ‘an estimate that the objects contemplated by the resolution would, if carried into effect, cost the sum of $20,000.'

"From the preceding statement, it therefore appears to your committee, that the sum of twenty thousand dollars had not been 'defrayed out of the appropriations for the support of the navy for the year 1805,' as was alleged to have been done in the item annexed to the letter of the secretary of the navy of the 16th December, 1805.

"It also appears to your committee, that the above sum of $20,000 has never been expended for objects specified in the

item annexed to that letter, and on account of which that sum was included in the appropriation made by the act of the 22d of January, 1806; the sum of $ 6,941 32 cents only having been expended for objects specified in that item, there remained an unexpended balance of that item of appropriation of $13,058 68

cents.

"In relation to this balance it appears, that it is not known with certainty at the navy department, whether that balance has been applied to other objects of navy expenditures; any farther than from the circumstance that, at that time the warrants of the navy department 'upon the treasurer were drawn upon the appropriations indiscriminately,' and the 'whole amount of the appropriations having been expended,' it is presumed or supposed, to follow irresistibly that this balance was merged in the general navy expenditures.'

"Inasmuch, therefore, as the amount of this item of appropriation was obtained under the suggestion of an actual and defrayed' expenditure, when, in fact, it was merely an estimated and undefrayed expense, and inasmuch as it appears that it has been expended for objects to which it was originally not destined by law, your committee are of opinion that a farther examination is required into the real objects, to which this unexpended balance, obtained under that suggestion, has been actually applied.

·

"With respect to that part of the resolution of the 3d of March, 1805, which requests the president to cause a sword to be presented to each of the commission officers and midshipmen who distinguished themselves in the attack on the town, batteries, and naval force of Tripoli,' in the execution of which, the secretary of the navy states, that it is presumed that the president saw what to his mind appeared difficulties of great delicacy, from the peculiar language of the resolution;' your committee cannot but regret that the terms of the resolution should have been such as to prevent the officers and midshipmen of that squadron from receiving the decreed and well deserved marks of their country's gratitude and honour. It is, however, apparent to your committee, that congress, by passing the resolution of the 3d of March, 1805, did decide that some of the officers and midshipmen, engaged in that service, were entitled to and should receive the destined testimony of the nation's sense of their merit. If, as is suggested in the letter of the secretary of the navy, the nature of the service and the equality of desert make discrimination difficult, your committee are of opinion, that, under such circumstances, it is better and more worthy of the national character, that all should receive the

destined reward, than that it should be withheld from all. The universality of distribution (should, in the opinion of the president, all have acted gloriously') will be a testimony of general merit, and to each individual an evidence of his having been a partaker of the glory of that service. A total neglect of such distribution, after so distinct and public an acknowledgment of the title of some, is, in the opinion of your committee, doing justice to none. Under these impressions-considering that the conduct of the squadron under the command of commodore Preble, in the harbour and before the batteries of Tripoli, constitutes one of the most brilliant portions of our naval history; considering that the resolution passed on the 3d of March, 1805, raised just expectations in the officers and midshipmen engaged in that service, of receiving some distinct tokens of their country's favour; considering, also, the great importance, at this crisis of our affairs, of not discouraging the spirit of our naval commanders, by withholding rewards, to which they have already been declared, by a solemn resolution of congress, to be entitled; your committee have deemed it their duty to recommend a renewal of the appropriation, to the amount of the unexpended balance above stated, to enable the president of the United States to carry into full effect the resolution of the 3d of March, 1805."

This report was not acted on during the session.

§ 17. On the 23d of December, on motion of Mr. Quincy, a committee was appointed by the house of representatives to enquire into the principles and practice adopted by the treasury department in relation to the revenue laws, and to the mitigat ing and remitting the fines, penalties, and forfeitures accruing under the same. On the 27th of February the committee reported, that they had had an interview with the secretary of the treasury, and examined such papers as they deemed necessary for the due execution of their trust; and that they had addressed a letter to him, and received one in reply, on the subject, which accompanied their report. The committee stated, that, as far as they were enabled to judge, the remitting and mitigating powers had been used in a manner liberal and just. The committee, in their letter to the secretary, make the following enquiries:

1. Whether, in cases of "intention of fraud” existing, the department deems itself authorized either to remit or mitigate? 2. Whether, in cases of wilful negligence' existing, the department deems itself authorised either to remit or mitigate?

3. Whether, in cases where neither one nor the other exists, the department deems itself at liberty to inflict the whole penalty or any part of it?

4. If the department have deemed itself at liberty, in cases where no "wilful negligence," and "no fraud" has existed, to inflict the whole penalty or forfeiture, or any part of either, by what general principles has its decision, in such cases, been regulated? particularly, whether the department has deemed itself confined, in relation to such cases, to such a mitigation of the penalty, or forfeiture. as might include the mere incidents of the prosecution, and the "terms and conditions," on which, having reference to such incidents, it should be made to cease: or whether, in relation to such cases, it has deemed itself at liberty to take into consideration other circumstances, such as the profits of the treasury, the gains of the individual, the like, or other considerations, in estimating the amount of the penalty or forfeiture to be exacted?

5. The committee having perceived that, in certain cases where "wilful negligence and fraud" were stated not to exist, the condition of release has been on the payment of "costs and charges, and a certain per centage, for the use of the United States, in addition to the duty established by law," inquire by what principles this levy has been regulated? to what cases it has been applied? and what has been the gain to the United States by such payments of per centage?

The committee also request a general statement of the fines, penalties, and forfeitures received by the treasury department, since the date of the establishment, and the expenses which have occurred on prosecutions for them.

To these queries of the committee it was answered:

1. That the secretary of the treasury does not consider him-self authorized either to remit or to mitigate in cases where, in his opinion, there has been either intention of fraud or (statute) wilful negligence.

2. That he does not consider himself authorized to inflict the whole penalty, in cases where, in his opinion, there has been neither intention of fraud, nor (statute) wilful negligence.

3. That he does consider himself authorized, when, in his opinion, necessary and proper, to enforce a part of the penalty in some, and to require the payment of costs in all the cases where, in his opinion, there has been neither intention of fraud, nor (statute) wilful negligence.

4. From what has already been stated, it follows that if by "incidents of prosecution," and terms and conditions connected therewith, the payment of costs only be meant, the treasury (with the exception of a few cases of great hardship) has required such payment in all cases of remission or mitigation, and has not deemed itself confined to such payment in those cases