| Report of the 2nd Auditor on claims of Ala & Fla
Rail - Road Company, for Iron Seized by CS Officers and agents |
| |
| This claim was referred to the 2nd Auditor by the
Secretary of War, on the 13th of April 1863, endorsed "Examine
& report" on the 23rd. I made my report recommending trial --
if the claim was adjudged good -- the time be fixed at which the value
of the iron is to be ascertained -- whether the date of the order --
the actual seizure -- or subsequently -- reference is hereby made to
that report as part hereof, for it embraces a description of the claim
as shown by the evidence then on file. On the 24th, the Secretary of
War, endorsed on the papers this opinion viz "It seems to me the
equitable principle of settlement in this case, would be the value of
the iron taken up at the time of the seizure of the road for the
purpose of removing the track -- yet it is even more clear that the
price the Government should pay ought to be reimbursed by the road to
which the iron was transferred. Don't the settlement made with that
road preclude such reimbursement in full" on the 27th, the
Secretary gave a memorandum to Mr Avery President of the road as
follows "The Q Master Genl has been instructed to present such
evidence to the Auditor as he can conveniently procure as to the value
of the iron at the time of its seizure -- a reasonable time must be
allowed for the presentation of that evidence when the Auditor must
settle and report the case -- The auditor may prescribe what he
considers such reasonable time" and on the 8th of this month, the
Secretary made this order "The Auditor, if the time which he
fixed as reasonable for the exhibition of proof in the matter of this
Rail Road iron had passed, should proceed on the evidence existing in
the case as offered by the parties, to make up his settlement and
report" It therefore appears that the question is narrowed down,
to ascertaining 1st The time of the seizure of the road for the
purpose of removing the track, and 2nd The value of the iron at that
time. It is true that the Secretary in his first opinion suggests that
the price the Government should pay ought to be reimbursed by the road
to which the iron was transferred -- and intimates that the settlement
made with that road by the Quarter Master General might preclude such
reimbursement in full. Yet I take it from his subsequent orders above
quoted that he did not intend that question to have anything to do
with the settlement of this claim -- but, that this was to be reported
upon and settled on evidence in the case and to be filed as to value
at the time of seizure -- and 1st as to the date of seizure -- The
evidence shows the seizure for the purpose of removing the track --
and the work of actually removing the rails, to have been in the month
of May 1862, from the 5th to the 29th. See orders of Genls Forney and
Jones and telegram of Gen Forney. I therefore report May 1862 as the
date at which the value of the seized iron is to be estimated. |
| 2nd. What is that value? In addition to the evidence
referred to in my report to the Secretary of War -- the Q M Gen'l has
filed two letters from G G Griffin, Esq Prest Ala & Miss RR,
showing the prices paid for iron purchased and seized for his company,
a part of which is the very iron for which this claim is made, and
expressing the opinion that the prices there given by purchase and
valuation were the ruling prices and full valuation at the time the
purchase and seizures were made. These prices were referred to in my
former report, and reviewed in connection with the other proof on
file. I was and am now of the opinion that the prices paid for the
iron of the Cahaba Marion & Greensboro RR Co and the Montgomery
and Eufaula RR Co, would not be a fair price for claimants iron. The
additional testimony filed by the claimants, consists of a letter from
J. R. Anderson & Co of the Tredegar iron works, showing that
though they were neither purchasing or selling Rail Road iron, yet by
comparison with other descriptions of iron, which they were selling to
the Government from May to October 1862, they would have charged for
Rails $120 per ton that their prices however were below market rates,
and from $125 to $150 would not be excessive. Certificates of Mr.
James Dunlap showing the relative difference between Rail Road &
Bar iron -- of Messrs Gilliams & Dunlap as to price of Bar iron in
May 1862, of C O Sandford Engineer of Petersburg RR concurring in
their views, and of H D Bird Genl Superintendent of Petersburg &
Lynchburg RR {South Side RR}, showing the
scarcity of iron at the time. From all the testimony I am of opinion
that $100 per ton for this iron would be a fair valuation in May 1862
-- that the iron could have been sold for more money than this, owing
to the scarcity of the article, and the great demand and is
unquestionably but it does not seem to me that the price to which an
article can be forced up to by the necessities of the people, is the
correct standard to measure just compensation as between the
Government and citizen for impressments and seizures made by that
Government -- to add to its means of defense against the enemy seeking
its overthrow. While I report $100 as the price, I confess that I do
not consider the testimony as altogether conclusive that it ought not
to be greater -- though I think the weight of it favors that view. I
therefore beg of the Comptroller a thorough review of all the papers
and testimony in this case. With regard to the price for the chairs
spikes I consider the price as established by the settlement of the Q
M Gen'l fair and just -- at least so far as the testimony shows. In
the letter from Mr. Griffin the Hon F. S. Lyon, filed by Q M Genl --
it is stated that Col. Tate -- the Military Superintendent who made
the seizure under the order of Gen'l Bragg, would be shortly in
Richmond and that it would be advisable to take his testimony in
regard to this matter -- but under the order of the Secretary of War I
have thought that no further delay ought to take place, all of which
is respectfully submitted to the Comptroller for his decision. |
| Treasury Department |
| 2nd Auditors Office |
| May 28th 1863 |
| Albert Ellery |
| Acting Auditor |
|