The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Benjamin Fish, setting up a claim against the United States for the loss of a liveryteam and hack, submit the following report:

There is nothing but the memorial in this case, an affidavit and power of attorney. The affidavit is made by Albert M. Weir, and the substance of it is that Captain Shaw, now deceased, was assistant quartermaster, on duty at Lexington, Mo., and that demand was made on him on July 29, 1863, by Major Smith, paymaster United States Army, to furnish transportation from Lexington to Marshall, and there being no suitable public transportation on hand, Captain Shaw was compelled to hire a hack, two horses, and harness from Benjamin Fish, who was proprietor of a livery-stable in Lexington, at the rate of $5 per day for their use.

The affidavit proceeds to show that on next day Major Smith started to Marshall in the conveyance thus procured, under a military escort, and that the escort reported that while on the road they were attacked by the enemy and the horses and harness captured.

It will readily occur that this claim cannot be recognized in this form as a valid one against the United States.

Not a word is said about Fish's loyalty except by himself in his memorial, nor is there any price set upon the property except by himself, nor is there any written contract in the case, nor any reason given why the contract was not written if made as alleged; nor is it shown why the paymaster could not hire his own vehicle, nor, if this was irregular, why the assistant quartermaster should not have paid Mr. Fish for the use of his team and hack if he really hired them; nor do we see any evidence which binds the United States to pay for the property if it was captured by the enemy as alleged. But upon the point of the capture what have we in the way of evidence? Simply Mr. Weir's affidavit that the escort reported the capture by the enemy of the horses and harness.

Neither the affidavit of the quartermaster nor that of the paymaster has been furnished. But it is true the memorialist swears that he has been informed that the quartermaster is dead, but when he died is not shown, nor is any reason shown why his affidavit was not procured while he was alive.

The committtee are unable to report favorably upon the claim, and ask to be discharged from its further consideration.

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Moses Googins, father of Andrew A. Googins, late a private in Company D, Thirty-first Maine Infantry Volunteers, have had the same under consideration, and report as follows:

Andrew A. Googins enlisted as a soldier in Company D, Thirty-first Maine Infantry Volunteers, for the term of three years. On the 17th day of May, 1864, he was captured by the enemy at the battle of the Wilderness, from which time no further intelligence can be obtained as to what became of him. Leaving neither wife nor children, his father, Moses Googins, by law became entitled to any back pay to which his deceased son was entitled, and on the 21st of February, 1873, he was accordingly allowed, by the Second Auditor, the sum of $262.49, for bounty allowed by joint resolution of Congress of January 13, 1864, and pay to 17th of May, 1864, the time of his capture. The Second Auditor, in making the allowance, added the following: "If proof of the exact date of death is furnished, pay to that date will be allowed."

Inasmuch as there is no evidence whatever as to what became of the soldier after his capture, his father, Moses Googins, claims that he ought to be paid for his son's services until the time when the company to which he belonged was disbanded. The committee cannot see why he should be paid for a longer time than he was proved to be alive. Any other rule would lead to great confusion and uncertainty in the settlement of accounts of soldiers under the like circumstances.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 23, 1874.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. PRATT submitted the following

REPORT:

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of sundry citizens of New Ulm, praying that Jacob Nix be placed on the pensionroll, submit the following report:

The Sioux Indians attacked the town of New Ulm, in the State of Minnesota, on the 19th and 23d days of August, 1862. There were no United States troops or State militia stationed at the town or in the vicinity at the time to repel the attacks. There was a small garrison at Fort Ridgely, but entirely inadequate to keep the Indians peaceable. This tribe lived on a reservation adjoining Brown County, became hostile, murdered their agent and traders at the agency, and killed nearly the whole command sent from the fort to the agency for the purpose of protecting the property of the United States and the lives of such citi zens as dwelt on the reservation. The citizens, however, rallied, were enrolled, and organized into companies, under the direction of the sheriff, and the said Jacob Nix was designated by him to take command and did so until the arrival of Hon. Charles C. Flandrau, after which Nix acted as assistant commander, and by his bravery and good conduct contributed largely to prevent the town falling into the hands of the Indians. While commanding he was twice wounded, losing the third finger of his left hand and receiving a gunshot wound in the muscles of the left arm, between the elbow and shoulder, by which he has been partially disabled from earning his subsistence. He was formerly prosperous, but by reverses in business is now poor. These are the grounds on which a large number of the citizens of New Ulm pray that he be granted a pension.

Several affidavits establish the foregoing facts. The case is clearly not within any rule by which a pension could be granted under existing laws at the Pension Bureau. Should Congress grant one?

How many persons were killed and disabled in these two attacks of the Indians is not shown. But clearly those disabled could set up a similar claim, while the widows, children, and dependent relatives of those who were killed or died of injuries received in the engagements could make a like claim, if this one be allowed.

The force assembled was of the State militia. The officers were civilians. No officer of the United States was in command.

The defense was conducted wholly by citizens, organized for the time being by the sheriff, in pursuance of a law of the State. No law had promised the men who obeyed the call of the sheriff and governor pensions in case of disability.

Whatever may be thought of the propriety of extending the law to such cases, it appears to the committee unwise to single out an isolated case which has no aggravated features. The committee, therefore, ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition.