Report on the Petition of Barent I. Staats, [27 February 1794]
Report on the Petition of Barent I. Staats
[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794
Communicated on March 3, 1794]1
[To the President of the Senate]
The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the Senate the petition of Barent I Staats2 respectfully reports thereupon as follows
The claim of the petitioner appears to be one of those, for the due consideration and adjustment of which, provision is made by the Act passed the 12th of February 1793 relative to claims against the United States not barred by any act of Limitation and which have not been already adjusted.3
It appears therefore adviseable that the Petitioner should be left to the Course of relief prescribed by that Act.
Which is respectfully submitted
Alexander Hamilton
Secy of the Treasy
February 27th 1794
DS, RG 46, Third Congress, 1793–1795, Reports from the Secretary of the Treasury, National Archives.
1. , 68.
2. On November 21, 1792, the “petition of Barent I. Staats was presented [to the Senate] and read, praying compensation for services rendered the United States during the late war, which is stated to have been delayed by reason of a mistake in the officer appointed to liquidate the public accounts.
“Ordered, That this petition be referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, to consider and report thereon to the Senate.” ( , III, 616.)
Staats’s petition may be found in RG 46, Third Congress, 1793–1795, Reports from the Secretary of the Treasury, National Archives.
3. 301–02. See “Report on the Petition of Stephen Porter,” February 12, 1794, note 4.
This claim was presented to the auditor on April 30, 1794. The auditor’s report states that the claim was founded on a note of hand of January 3, 1780, given by John Harrison, who was assistant to the deputy quartermaster general of New York, Udny Hay. Accounts and papers of both Hay and Harrison were allegedly destroyed by fire. The auditor concluded by stating that he objected to all claims of this type on the ground that “the Treasury … possessed no … documents showing the bills to have been issued for valuable considerations” (
, Claims, I, 173, 178).