House of Reps- 
24th Congress, 
Ist Session. 
[ Rep. No. 13. ] 
DR. WILLIAM BAKER. 
[To accompany bill H. R. No. 13.J 
December 13, 1835. 
Mr. Grennell, from the Committee of Claims, made the following 
REPORT: 
The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the 'petition of Dr. 
William' Baker, report: 
That the petitioner’s claim has been before Congress several years, and 
on the 9th of May. 1834, the then Committee of Claims reported a bill for 
his relief. This Committee concur in the report then made, and adopt it 
as a part of their own. A bill is herewith reported. 
May 9, 1834. 
The Committee of Claims, to which teas referred the petition of William 
Baker, report: 
That the petitioner asks compensation for services rendered wounded 
British soldiers, left by the enemy at Washington city, in 1814, during 
three or four days immediately after his retreat, and until they were taken 
care of by other surgeons employed by the commissary general of pri- 
soners of war. He says lie voluntarily rendered those services when there 
was no officer of Government present to provide for what justice and. 
humanity required, and that Dr. Ewell had placed the sufferers under 
shelter, and invited him to take the charge of them, and that he did so as 
to surgical treatment. He asks compensation at the rates of charges fixed 
by the medical profession in this city, in their private practice, and for each 
particular operation. The number of wounded is stated at forty-seven; 
each had a limb set, and each had his wounds dressed twice a day. This 
would amount to more than one thousand dollars, without any charge for 
travel and attendance. 
Reference being made to Dr. Ewell’s account of the capture of Washing- 
ton, in an appendix to a medical work published by him, the committee 
looked into that, and find by his account he took charge of these wounded 
British prisoners, and got the petitioner to help him; and that he com- 
plains that General Mason, commissary for prisoners of war, without much 
regard to his feelings, employed Dr. Worthington to take charge of these 
wounded prisoners, but that a satisfactory arragement was made between 
him and Dr. Worthington, by which he continued his services. The peti- 
tioner, in a letter to Matthew St. Clair Clarke, Esq. and filed among the 
papers, says, that Dr. Worthington offered to retain him also in this service, 
Blair & Rives, printers. Rep. No. 13. 
but that he, having been a surgeon in the United States navy in the war 
with Tripoli, treated the offer with disdain, as not consistent with his feel- 
ings to act subordinate to any man. 
The committee inquired at the War Department to ascertain what was 
the practice of the Government in affording medical services to the enemy 
when they have fallen into our power, and what the mode of compensation 
to citizens of the profession who are employed occasionally in the public 
service. Dr. Lovell’s reply to the Secretary of War, dated April 2, 1834, 
in answer to these inquiries, is received and referred to, and made part of 
this report. 
In further answer to these inquiries, Dr. Lovell states to a member of this 
committee, in a letter of the 3d of April, 1834, that Dr. Worthington was 
paid the compensation of a hospital surgeon, equal to $ 145 per month, and 
that Dr. Ewell was paid a compensation of hospital surgeon’s mate, equal 
to $7B per month. 
If the petitioner rendered those services under expectation of pay from 
the United States, it must have been subject, in amount and mode, to the 
usages and regulations of the Government, and not at the prices charged in 
private practice for each operation on each individual. The highest rate 
of compensation paid for these services, and which Dr. Baker could have 
expected, was less than five dollars a day, had he continued in the employ- 
ment a month or longer. The time he was employed did not exceed four 
days, and he declined further employment because he could not serve in the 
grade to which he thought himself entitled. 
He has rested nearly twenty years before he gave notice to the Govern- 
ment that he expected any compensation for his voluntary services. But 
he explains this in his letter to Mr. Clarke, before referred to, from an un- 
willingness to make the claim until his pecuniary circumstances, and the 
claims of his family, induced him to do it. The committee think the peti- 
tioner was entitled to compensation from the Government for the services, 
he rendered to the prisoners of war. Considering the nature of those ser- 
vices, the committee think he should be paid the highest compensation 
allowed citizens for professional services for short periods less than a 
month, which, by Dr. Lovell’s letter, appears in no case to exceed fifteen 
dollars per day. He was employed four days. The committee report a 
bill for his relief for sixty dollars. 
War Department, 
Sir: In answer to your letter of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor to 
transmit a report from the Surgeon General, which furnishes all the infor- 
mation in this department which can be useful in the case of William 
Baker. 
April 2, 1834. 
The papers are returned. 
Very respectfully, 
Your most obedient servant, 
LEW. CASS- 
Hon. Rufus Mclktire, 
Committee of Claims, Home of Representatives. Rep. No. 13. 
3 
Surgeon General’s Office, 
Sir: On the communication to the department of the 28th ultimo, from 
the Committee of Claims of the House of Representatives, I have, agreeably 
to your ins . ructions, to report that, by the usages of war, the British soldiers 
referred to were entitled to medical attendance from the United States, as 
appears from the employment'of Dr. Worthington by the commissary ge- 
neral of prisoners. On inquiry at the Treasury Department, it appears 
impracticable to ascertain what was paid to Dr. Ewell, or whether such 
payment, included the services of Dr. Baker, as his assistant. The prac- 
tice of the Government, so far as I am informed, in paying private physi- 
cians for medical and surgical aid in hospitals, or to a body of soldiers, has 
been to allow either the pay and emoluments of a surgeon or assistant sur- 
geon, as the case may be. or a specific sum per day or per month, and not 
for specific charges, as in private practice. The highest sum paid in ordi- 
nary cases, requiring the exclusive attention of the physician, has been 
from $ 100 to § 150 per month, or from ten to fifteen dollars per day, for a 
shorter period. The communication and papers accompanying it are here- 
with returned. 
April 2, 1834. 
Very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 
JOS. LOVELL, 
Surgeon General- 
Hon. Lewis Cass, 
Secretary of War. 
Surgeon General’s Office, 
April 3, 1834. 
Sir : I have this morning found the accounts of Doctors Charles Worth- 
ington and James Ewell, for attendance on the British prisoners, in 1814, 
from which it appears that the former received the pay and emoluments of 
a hospital surgeon, equal to $145 per month, and the latter, the pay and 
emoluments of a hospital surgeon’s mate, equal to $7B per month. 
Very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 
JOS. LOVELL, 
Surgeon General, 
Hon. Rufus Mclntire, 
House of Representatives, U. S. Washington. 
Dear Sir ; I herewith send, according to your request, the whole of 
the account of the “ Capture of Washington,” published by Doctor Ewell, 
byway of appendix to his “Medical Companion.” You will perceive it 
is a kind of fireside, garrulous account of that important event. The 
abstract I made from it was done simply to prove that I did set those men’s 
limbs and dress their wounds as stated. It was the fact of having done so 
I was anxious to prove to the committee. 
Washington, February 16, 1834. 4 
Rep. No. 13. 
I hope the committee will be pleased to bear in mind, that I first saw 
those men on the 26th, in the morning, the enemy having decamped on the 
night of the 25th of August. I never did, myself, see one of the British 
officers : they had all gone, and these men were left behind. 
It is well known that Doctor Ewell, however good a physician, was not 
at all a surgeon, and he expressed to me the most lively satisfaction at 
having the surgical part of the treatment confided to me, alleging his want 
of facility in this branch of the profession. Dr. Ewell’s attentions to these 
men were of a different character. They were supplies from his table 
and medicines from his shop, prompted by that generosity and philan- 
thropy for which he was remarkable. Ido not know that he ever received 
compensation, /most certainly never did. The 26th of August was the 
first day of my attendance, and the 29th the last. On the 30th a new 
measure was adopted. Doctor Worthington asked me if I would consent 
to continue my services ; I declined, and withdrew, for this reason, to wit: 
that, having had the honor to serve in the navy of the United States, in the 
war with Tripoli, in 1804 and 1805, in my professional capacity, I could 
not descend to a subordinate employment under any man. I, therefore, 
withdrew. I was not then in the navy, having resigned seven or eight 
years before. If it be asked why I have not put in my claim sooner, my 
answer is, that I did not stand in need of it, until now that I am reduced in 
my fortunes, with a large family of children to maintain, I have felt it in- 
cumbent on me to apply to the justice and liberality of my country lor ser- 
vices rendered to those prisoners of war. 
A gentleman now an officer of the House of Representatives, Mr. Over- 
toil Carr, if the committee deem it necessary, would be able to give them, 
I think, some recollections of those transactions, because I know lie was 
well acquainted at the time with the voluntary assistance I extended to 
those unfortunate prisoners, and they were afterwards exchanged for 
American citizens. John S. Skinner I think was the flag officer. 
I am, very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 
To Matthew St. Clair Clarke, Esq. 
Washington. 
W. BAKER.