To James Madison from Richard M. Johnson, 19 December 1816
From Richard M. Johnson
City of washington House of Rep. 19th. Dec 1816
Sir
Such is my opinion of your wisdom, justice & humanity, that I must call your particular attention, to the decision of Mr Lee which makes a deduction of 40 Cents from those under Gov. Shelby after the 20th of Oct. till their final discharge which tirminated after allowing every 20 miles as one day. I am happy to find that this decision is contrary to the opinion, of the late Sec of War, instead of arising from any instruction from him. I find it also against the opinion of the Commissioner himself, & also it seemed to be against th[e] opinion of th[e] acting Sec; of War when I conversed with him. I say Gov. Shelbys’ Corps, because it will principally operate upon, that altho some other cases will be embraced by it.
It is a matter, too little for the enquiry of the Govern[m]ent.1 Indeed the enquiry which must be involved if Such construction Should prevail will “cost more than it will come to” I mean the enquiry whether the party remounted after the Death of the horse or not. This reduction which will not involve ten thousand dollars will produce more than ordinary excitement & what is a hundred thousand dollars to the govt when distributed among those who have maintained th[e] honor & Glory of the Country & who look up to you, as th[e] Father & Protector of those who Suffered in the cause. I saw the letter upon which th[e] deduction was made. It came from Mr Hagner who no doubt thought it his duty to make the Suggestions for I know him to be a valuable officer With the highest re[s]pect & with the greatest confidence your Ob Sert
Rh: M: Johnson
NB. the interest on the value of each horse from the death, to the time of payment, would be more than, or equal to, the deduction, besides the great trouble of taking evidence to Substantiate the claim &c.
RMJ.
The deduction of 40 cents is predicated, upon the assumed fact, that the owner did not remount himself—an implication which could be repelled by positive evidence in more than ¾ of the cases, that the owner did remount & this resort will be made by the Mounted volunteers if compelled by an unexpected inference against them. For no testimony has ever been required to that effect. Those who have been eye witnesses to the trial & suffering & losses of these men cannot believe for a moment that any deduction from the value of the horse is correct, or just, or politic—& it is not desireable to Legislate again on the Subject.
RMJ
RC (DLC). Cover docketed by JM.
1. Immediately following the receipt of JM’s 6 Dec. 1816 message recommending the suspension of the ninth section of the 9 Apr. 1816 law authorizing “payment for property lost, captured or destroyed by the enemy while in the service of the United States,” the House of Representatives referred the matter to the Committee of Claims, and John Forsyth of Georgia offered three resolutions: the first, requesting the president to lay the proceedings of the commissioner under the act before the House; the second, requesting the president to suspend “the further execution of the said act” until the House had disposed of the matter; and the third, requesting the president to inform the House whether the judgments made by the commissioner had been paid by the Treasury and by what authority and from what fund. In the ensuing debate Richard M. Johnson spoke against suspension, arguing that the law “ought to have a liberal construction,” including the cases of “horses lost.” Johnson mentioned that he had “superintended three hundred cases of claims, to come before this Commissioner, the aggregate amount of which was not fifteen thousand dollars—not a peppercorn to the claims from other parts of the United States.” He defended the commissioner, Richard Bland Lee, as “a man of integrity, and beyond the reach of any imputation of corruption.” On 17 Dec. 1816 the Committee of Claims issued its report and recommended that sections nine through fourteen of the 9 Apr. act be repealed, that all claims that had been allowed by the commissioner be examined by the additional accountant of the War Department, and that the value of property lost or destroyed be ascertained by “the best evidence which the nature of the case will admit of, and which shall be in the power of the party to produce, and the amount thereof, when so ascertained, and the decision thereon approved by the Secretary of War, shall be paid to the sufferer or sufferers, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated” (, 14th Cong., 2d sess., 245–52, 278–96, 298–301).