The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 343) for the relief of purchasers of lands sold for direct taxes in the insurrectionary States, respectfully report: That, in their opinion, said bill ought not to pass. In the opinion of the committee, the present provisions of law go quite as far in the direction of relieving purchasers and owners of lands sold for taxes in the insurrectionary districts of the United States as the public good or public justice can require The effect of this bill is to constitute the United States the substantial warrantor of title made under a tax-sale; to give to the purchaser the chance of the enormous gain which ordinarily he expects to and will make from the sale if it proves valid, while it is to re-imburse him if it shall prove invalid, thereby imposing upon the United States all the risks, and upon the speculative purchaser at such sales none whatever. It is well known, as a matter of business history, that almost all purchases at tax-sale, not made in the interest of the owner of the lands, are speculative ones, where the purchaser, with his eyes open to the fact that by the principles of law, no States or communities warrant the title under tax-sales, enters into the transaction as an enterprise of chance, so to speak, paying a sum of money small in proportion to the value of the property purchased, taking the risk of the adventure as in a lottery of gaining a large sum if his title shall prove to be good. There seems, therefore, no equitable ground upon which the Government making such sales should be called upon to re-imburse the purchaser for a failure of title. The law is perfectly well understood everywhere, that no warranty or guaranty of any kind is implied in such sales; that the contract of sale and purchase itself must be taken as with the knowledge of both parties to be a contract, where both parties act at their own risk. And under such circumstances, of course, no legal or equitable claim can arise in favor of the purchaser, who has obtained precisely what he bargained for, but who has failed to make profit from the transaction. And upon principles of public policy and administration, it seems to the committee clear that no government could, as it is believed no goverment has, undertaken to warrant the title or proceedings in tax-sales, where it is obliged to undertake through remote agents to collect money due for taxes by such disposition as it may be able to make with the lands of the owners. It is obvious that in every such case the principle of caveat emptor has always applied and always ought to apply. The committee, therefore, recommend the indefinite postponement of the bill. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 153) for the relief of Silas I. Field and the heirs of the late Samuel F. Dal ley, of the city of Little Rock and State of Arkansas, together with a memorial on the same subject, and sundry papers and affidavits, respectfully report: That, in the opinion of the committee, said bill ought not to pass. The bill is for the relief of Field and other sureties of the late John G. Halliburton, marshal of the eastern district of Arkansas. It appears that Halliburton was in default to the Government for some time prior to the breaking out of the rebellion; that in April, 1861, a convention of the State of Arkansas voted that all moneys in the hands of officers of the United States within said State should be held for the benefit of the State and turned over to the State treasury; and it is claimed that the balance due the United States from Halliburton was, in pursuance of such order of said convention, so paid into the treasury of the State of Arkansas, and the committee assume, for the purposes of this case, that such was the fact. But it also appears, from the testimony of the then governor of Arkansas and otherwise, that no force or duress was used to compel such payment, unless the same is to be found in the mere vote of this convention and in the state of public opinion at that time. There is no pretense in the papers or evidence that Field was unwilling to pay the money into the treasury of the State of Arkansas; and the absence of any proof or attempt at proof showing his loyalty to the United States, or his taking any steps or making any effort, or having any desire to preserve the money for the United States, furnishes to the committee a strong reason to believe that he paid over the money of his own free will, and that it was devoted to the purpose of hostility to the United States, according to his desire. The committee can find no ground upon which he or his sureties have any claim upon the United States for relief, and they therefore recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed. 1st Session. {No. 289. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 20, 1874.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. CLAYTON submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. 718.] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom were referred the memorial of the legislature of the State of Wisconsin and accompanying papers, asking the removal of the charge of desertion from George Schwartz, late a private in Company F, Fifth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report: It is shown by the papers before the committee that George Schwartz enlisted at Waukesha, Wis., into Company F, Fifth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteers, in May, 1861; that he served about thirtythree months in said company and regiment, and then re-enlisted as a veteran in February, 1864, and, not being in good health at the time of said re-enlistment, he went home on a sick-furlough of thirty days, which was further extended five days on account of continued illness; that, upon the 9th day of April, 1864, the said Schwartz, being still unwell but anxious to rejoin his regiment, left his home in Waukesha, Wis., for the purpose of rejoining his regiment. At Chicago, Ill., he procured from the proper officer an order of transportation from Chicago to Pittsburgh, and, after so procuring said order of transportation and leaving Chicago, the said Schwartz has never been heard from, and that he never rejoined his regiment. The papers further show that proper efforts have been made to find some trace of the said Schwartz, but have proved unavailing. Affidavits from responsible persons, showing that said Schwartz was regarded as an upright and honorable man, are also presented. The captain and lieutenant of said Company F, Fifth Wisconsin Regiment Volunteers, and the major of said regiment, all testify that the said Schwartz was a faithful soldier and upright man; and the second lieutenant of Company F testifies that the charge of desertion was made against the said Schwartz simply because he did not personally appear and answer to the roll-call, as was the invariable custom. These facts were presented to the legislature of Wisconsin, and that body, after consideration, adopted the following memorial: STATE OF WISCONSIN, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the legislature of this State has adopted the following memorial to Congress, No. 5, senate: |