Although the total amount in this case is quite small, it is a question of very vital importance one that has occupied a great share of public attention during the past few years, and one that may occupy it still more during the coming year. Standing here, representing the State of Florida, I have to say, that perhaps that State is more interested at this moment in the question whether this Government is bound to pay interest on adjudicated claims, than any other State in the Union. I could refer to a very able opinion on that point, recently pronounced by a Federal judge; but it may not be pertinent to this question.

This sum has already been adjudicated upon by the consent of the country; and the question now is, whether the country will go behind the adjudication-go behind the verdict of the jury, in search of what it was that influenced the minds of the jury. I think the United States are concluded. They have submitted to the suit: they are, therefore, concluded. How can they inquire why it was that the jury found this sum? They must pay it. And then the question of interest comes up. Every Senator concedes that the Government is forced to do justice by paying the principal. The principle that the Government does not pay interest is based upon the principle, that she is always ready to pay; and that the neglect to pay arises from the laches of the claimant, from a delay to prosecute the claim in time.

I go further, and say that Congress has in no case set forth the doctrine that the Government will never pay interest. It is a mere rule of the accounting officers. The rule has been adhered to: but it is an unjust one. And one of the earliest cases where this rule was enforced, arose under the Florida treaty. By an article of that treaty, those individuals who had claims under the old Spanish rule of Florida-who had claims when Florida was under the Spanish flag-it was provided that, such should have their claims adjudicated by due course of law. The Government failed to provide a due course of law for their adjudication. Those claimants were kept out by no laches of their own, but clearly by the fault of the Government. And when a law was provided, it was temporary in its character, and insufficient to allow time to claimants to make their claims good. The law contemplated that the claim should be adjudicated or reported by the commissioner to the Secretary of the Treasury. He was to examine the evidence and allow or discharge the claim at his discretion. And at that time, shortly after the acquisition of Florida, in the year 1821, his discretion was to disallow interest; although interest was justly due to the parties, and they had suffered in consequence of the negligence of the Government. I apprehend that this doctine has derived additional strength from the position which the Secretary of the Treasury then took. 1 apprehend, therefore, that the question is not very clearly before the Senate, whether we ought or ought not to pay interest as a general rule. pay interest in this case, we do not establish a precedent for the payment of interest in all cases; and even if we did so, the bill should have my support.

If we

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, I am unable to agree with the Senator from Florida. I consider the rule denying interest a wise one, because the tendency always is, according to my observation in these claims, to delay them. The Senator takes a position to which I am perfectly willing to assent that the Government is always supposed to be ready to pay, and therefore does not pay interest because the principle is that the delay flows from the laches of the claimant. I say that that principle applies here with all its force. The claimant here had the evidence of his claim, arising from the verdict of a jury as early as the year 1841. Why then was not the claim presented to Congress long before this? If he chooses to let it be delayed, is the Government bound to pay interest in the interim? Has the Government not been able to pay in the interim? Has the Government not had any money which it could have disbursed for the purpose of paying the party when he had the full evidence of the character of his claim in 1841? Upon what principle, then, can he ask interest from us from the time of the rendition of the verdict? I submit, therefore, if this principle be true and I think it is sound-that where a party has a claim against the Government, the Government is supposed to be ready to pay it

if it is a good one; and if it is not paid, the presumption is that it arises from laches on his part; if he does not present his claim for ten years after obtaining full evidence, by the verdict of a jury, of its amount, he should be debarred from obtaining interest,

Mr. RUSK. Mr. President, the principle laid down by the honorable Senator from Delaware is, that the Government refuses to pay interest upon a sort of legal presumption. Now, cannot the legal presumption be removed by a state of facts adverse to it? It has been done in numberless instances of appropriations made by Congress for debts which were due. It is not by means of his laches that this claimant does not receive this amount of money; but it is because it is refused to him by the Department. They bring suit with his consent. He waives the jurisdiction, and allows them to bring suit in this District, where the testimony can all be obtained. This is certainly the prosecution of the claim, because he comes before the jury and submits proof of the validity of his claim. Does not this rebut that presumption?

the proof of the claim against the Government was made complete. In regard to the payment of interest which has been spoken of, it is a question which has been settled by the accounting officers of the Treasury. I suppose it is competent for Congress to determine in what case it will, and in what case it will not pay interest. I understand the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads to say that in this case, the committee did not even rely upon the verdict of the jury, but were fully satisfied by the evidence in the case, that the verdict of the jury was cor

rect.

Mr. HUNTER. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment. It is an important question. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. BERRIEN. I desire simply to ask of the chairman of the committee one question. I understand that the verdict of the jury was rendered in 1841-more than ten years ago. The information which I desire is, why has not this claim been presented before? Or was it presented to the proper Department immediately after the verdict was rendered?

Mr. RUSK. My recollection of the matter is, that it was presented to the Department immediately. This report was made two years ago, and as a matter of course, some of the facts have es

Mr. PRATT. I hope to be excused, Mr. President, for saying one word after the argument which has been made. The particular proposition here is, whether the Government is bound to pay interest on debts admitted by the Government, or ascertained to be due by the Government, to States or individuals. I think the sound legal mind of the honorable Senator from Florida will at once see the fallacy of the distinction which he attempted to draw between this and ordinary cases. The verdict of the jury does not decide the case; it only ascertains the amount of indebtedness. Conceding that the verdict of the jury only ascertains the amount of indebtedness, it only does that which the Senate ascertains in reference to every claim which is brought before this body. When the Senate decide in any one of the claims which are brought before them, we ascertain that upon a particular day a particular service was rendered, or a particular amount of money was due by the Government to an individual. The Senate's ascertainment of the fact of the indebtedness at the particular time, is as much an ascertainment of fact, as, is the verdict of a jury. You can, therefore, invoke this verdict only for the purpose of showing the indebtedness, on the part of the Government, at the time the verdict was rendered.

Conceding the indebtedness, the broad question comes up: Is the Government bound to pay interest? I am not committed to the policy of the Government heretofore. I believe that the Government, like individuals, is bound, when it owes an honest debt, and I insist upon its duty to pay interest upon it, as much as 1 would in the case of an individual. If the Senator assumes this broad doctrine, I can go with him; but there is no distinction between this and every other case in which the Government has paid a debt which has been due for any length of time. If the honorable Senator, therefore, will put this upon the broad ground, and the Senate will understand that we are deciding the broad principle that, whenever the Government of the United States owes a sum of money to an individual it is bound to pay interest on that sum, from the point of time when it becomes due, I will go with him. But there is no distinction between this and any other case.

Mr. BRADBURY. Mr. President, I understand that the proposition here is to pay interest from the time when the proof of the claim was made complete. In 1837, the claimant prosecuted his claim and made his proof complete. I know that some two or three years ago I had the honor of serving upon the Committee of Claims, and in sundry cases we undertook to adopt the principle that interest should be paid from the time when

the claim was presented and urged by these individuals immediately after the performance of the contract. It had been pressed more than once. Finally an understanding took place between them and the Department, that upon a claim of nine hundred dollars said to have been over paid to these individuals, suits should be instituted, and the whole matter should go before a jury. Whether application was made to Congress before the last Congress I do not know. I am inclined to think not; but I may be mistaken. My recollection is, however, that immediately after the verdict of the jury was rendered, they attempted to get their payment from the Department, but failed in that; and that they made application to Congress two years ago.

Mr. BERRIEN. My inquiry was, whether, after the verdict of the jury, application was made for the payment of this sum, and when? The United States has no inflexible rule in regard to the payment of interest. The opinion of the present Chief Justice, when he was Attorney General, is very distinct on that subject. The United States proceed generally in the payment of claims upon the principle that this Government is always ready to meet all just demands against it. Now, assuming the fact on which the chairman has relied, not resting exclusively upon the verdict of the jury-for the verdict of a jury against the United States is not always the purest criterion of the correctness of a claim-but assuming the fact which has been stated by the chairman, that the committee had examined the evidence upon which the verdict was rendered, and that it was satisfactory to them; then upon the rendering of that verdict there was a claim against the United States which is now ascertained to be

just, and the withholding of the payment of that claim would, in my judgment, subject the United States to the payment of interest on it. The important inquiry, therefore, is, when was the claim, after it had thus been ascertained to be just, presented to the proper Department?

Mr. HAMLIN. If the chairman will allow me to answer the honorable Senator from Georgia, I will do so. I cannot answer as to the specific time when the claim was pressed upon the Department, and I am not certain that the papers show it; but I can answer the Senator from Georgia, that immediately after the rendition of the verdict, within, at the furthest, a very few months, the matter was presented to the Department and urged upon them. The individual who was the contractor in this case was a contractor for other routes, and did other service. This was mixed up with other accounts, and he continued to press it to the day of his death. It has come equitably into the hands of the parties who now prosecute it as advancing the funds to support him in his contract with the Government.

Mr. BERRIEN. I do not mean to make the slightest distinction between the rights of the original claimant and that of the present claimant; but

presume that the report, better than the recollection of individual Senators, will show the facts

concerning the delay. I should prefer myself to take time to look into these matters. If the friends of the bill do not choose to fix upon a time when this claim can be ascertained to have been made upon the Government subsequently to the ascertainment of its correctness, that will impose upon me the obligation to vote in favor of the motion to

strike out.

The question being taken on the amendment, by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 28, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Bayard, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Clarke, Cooper, Davis, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Feich, Fish, Geyer, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, King, Mason, Miller, Pearce, Pratt, Seward, Smith, Spruance, Sumner, Underwood, Wade, and Whitcomb-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Bradbury, Brodhead, Dodge of Wisconsin, Downs, Gwin, Hamlin, Houston, McRae, Mallory, Morton, and Rusk-11.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended, the amendment made in committee was concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

EXTENSION of a patent.

The bill to extend the patent heretofore granted to John Schley, of the State of Georgia, was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole.

It enacts that the patent granted to John Schley, on the 27th of October, 1836, for a new and useful improvement on the cotton-gin, and the application of his machine to a new and useful purpose the packing and breaking of wool and grain, and seedless cotton, and dislodging and cleansing them from those substances which prevent them being properly dyed; also, for mixing cotton and wool together for carding purposes-be extended for the term of fourteen years after the expiration of the term for which such patent was originally issued, and be granted to the executors or administrators of John Schley, now deceased.

Mr. BADGER. I would like to inquire from some member of the Committee on Patents, whether that bill was reported unanimously by the committee?

Mr. DAWSON. It was.

Mr. NORRIS. The bill was agreed upon by the committee. No one dissented. The case, in short, is this: The original patentee died, and the heirs could not make an application seasonably at the Patent Office.

Mr. BADGER. I am satisfied.

Mr. DAVIS. I notice that this bill proposes to extend this patent for fourteen years. The law provides for the extension of patents only for seven years, and it has been the policy of Congress heretofore, I believe, not to create an inducement for people to come to Congress to get extensions by doubling the time, but to limit the time to the period fixed by law. I therefore move to strike out "fourteen," and insert "seven." The amendment was agreed to, and the bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The Senate concurred in the amendment made in the Committee of the Whole, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. On motion, the Senate then adjourned.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the Chair will take that course.

Mr. HOUSTON. I desire to make one suggestion in connection with this subject. I am as anxious as any one that these bills should be introduced and receive their proper reference; but if this course is taken, some of them will give rise to debate, and we shall consume our whole time with them.

Mr. STEPHENS. Not at all. There can be no debate.

tional clerk in his department, and he engaged Everett, under an agreement to pay him the same compensation as was allowed to other clerks for similar services. Everett served in that capacity, most efficiently and satisfactorily, from October to June, when he returned home. The Quartermaster paid him, according to the stipulation, some six hundred dollars. This was all right; but, upon adjustment of the quartermaster's accounts with the Department here, the sum which he had thus paid to Everett was disallowed, on the tech

The SPEAKER. Under the rule there can be nical ground that inasmuch as Everett was not no debate.

came up next in order.

The bill having been read through,

Mr. BISSELL. I desire to say a word or two in explanation of this bill. It was reported to the

actually discharged from service, he could, under no circumstances, receive for services rendered the Government more than a sergeant's pay. This decision of the Department being made known to Everett, he promptly, and from the most elevated motives, refunded to the quartermaster, Captain Ralston, the entire sum he had received from him, and he now applies to Congress, who alone have the power, under the circumstances, to do him justice.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I wish to inquire for I know nothing about this bill-if this gentleman was receiving pay also for his services in the Army while upon his furlough?

one.

Mr. BISSELL. Assuredly so. It is always the case. I hope there will be no further opposition to the bill. I know it to be a meritorious I know it of my own personal knowledge; besides, the proofs before the committee were ample and satisfactory. Any man who will pay any attention to the subject, will be satisfied that he is entitled to what he asks, as much so as any man was ever entitled to a cent for services rendered.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I well know it is an ungracious task to oppose any private claim in this body. Very early in the history of this Government, we adopted certain rules, and more recently we are disposed to trample those rules under foot. As early as 1804, this identical question, now urged upon us, was particularly before this body, and before the other branch of the Legislature. It was then decided, that in no instance should we allow a man double pay; that when a man enters the service of the Government, it is a contract by which he is bound to bring with him his ability to perform the duties that shall be assigned him, within the scope of his engagement. Here is a sergeant, as I understand the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL,] entering the service and pay of the United States, being wounded, and while receiving the compensation for which he engaged to serve, and by which he bound himself to bring with him all the energies and powers which he

possessed

House by the Committee on Military Affairs, by whom all the facts connected with the subject were fully investigated. A precisely similar bill passed the Senate at its last session, was reported favoraMr. BISSELL, (interposing.) I still have the bly upon by a committee of this House, and failed here only for want of time. The bill provides for floor. I wish to say to the gentleman from Ohio, the payment of the claim of Edward Everett, for as well as for others, that in this case he is not services as clerk in the Quartermaster's Depart-paid twice. The bill by its operation deducts ment during the Mexican war. Everett was a sergeant in the first regiment Illinois volunteers, in General Wool's column of the Army, and while in the discharge of his duty at San Antonio, Texas, received a pistol-shot wound in the knee, which permanently disabled him. But before proceeding further, I would inquire of the Chair whether the report of the committee in this case has been printed? If so, its reading will aid me in the explanation of the case.

The CHAIRMAN. The report has not been printed.

Mr. BISSELL. The main column of the Army moved forward into Mexico, but Everett's wound compelled him to remain at San Antonio. On the surgeon's certificate of permanent inability, Everett forwarded an application to the Commanding General, now far in Mexico, for a discharge, to which he was clearly entitled; but in consequence of some misapprehension on the part of his friends who took charge of the application, there was returned to him, not a discharge, but a furlough for the balance of his term of service. This furlough gave him the right, of course, to the use of his own time during the remaining portion of the term for which he had enlisted. He had a perfect right, then, to return home or go whithersoever he pleased-a perfect right to the avails of such labor as his crippled condition might enable him to perform. This is clear.

It so happened that Captain Ralston, the United States quartermaster at San Antonio, was at that time in pressing need of the services of an addi

from his pay as a clerk, what he received as a sergeant. I hope that it is understood, and that it will obviate the objection of the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FOWLER. I wish to inquire of the honorable gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL,] whether the individual named in this bill is drawing a pension? It was stated by a gentleman, that he was receiving a monthly pension, if I understood him. I wish to know whether he is receiving a pension, or whether he is an applicant for

one.

Mr. BISSELL. I do not know personally whether he is, or is not. I know he ought to be, because he is disabled for life, having a stiff knee, from a wound received while in discharge of his duties. But that certainly constitutes no reason why he should not receive a fair compensation for services performed under the circumstances already explained. I repeat, that this bill does not propose to pay him twice. It deducts from what he was fairly entitled to as a clerk, that which he received as a sergeant. Is the gentleman's difficulty obviated?

Mr. GIDDINGS. Is the gentleman through? Mr. BISSELL. I prefer, while I am upon the floor, to answer any objections that may arise.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I have no objection to state what I was about to remark. I have no intention to occupy the time of the House long. I am in a minority upon this floor, and the responsibility is with the majority. I shall give my vote according to the known and established rules which

DAVID C. CASH AND GILES U. ELLIS. House bill No. 51, for the relief of David C. Cash and Giles U. Ellis, reported from the Committee on Military Affairs, next came up in order for consideration.

The bill having been read,

Mr. WILCOX. I desire to submit a few remarks upon the questions involved in the passage of this bill. It seems that during the Seminole war, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Cash, the one as a private and the other as a lieutenant, received for distribution certain public property from R. R. Crum, a legally authorized quartermaster of the Government. They distributed that public property under proper regulations and orders of their commanding officer. In the reception of this property they would sign their vouchers as acting assistant quartermasters, and regularly appointed quartermasters of the Government. At the conclusion of the war, they made an application to the Government for whatever pay might be due to them, the one as a private and the other as a lieutenant upon the musterr-roll. They were denied what they considered their just dues by the Government, from the simple fact, that from an inspection of the papers which were returned from the quartermaster's department, they found a deficit in the public property; and the Government now seeks to hold them responsible for the distribution of the same. There seems to be a failure, so far as the quartermaster is concerned, to make his return to the Government, thereby throwing a seeming liability upon Cash and Ellis, who were his agents. The Government refused to pay them what was their due, from the simple fact that they signed their vouchers, as acting assistant quartermasters.

law, or any other officer of the staff, had any power either to appoint an agent or an assistant to act for the United States in the Quartermaster's or Commissary's Department, or had power to delegate his own authority to another, for "the true doctrine," as stated by Story on Agency, p. 17, " to be deduced from the decisions is, (and it is entirely coincident with the dictates of na'tural justice,) that the authority is exclusively personal, unless, from the express language used, or from the fair presumptions growing out of the particular transactions, or of the usage of trade, ' a broader power was intended to be conferred on 'the agent.

་

equally in point with the reference on page 412 of same volume:

"When the agreement in writing is expressed in short and incomplete terms, parol evidence is admissible, to explain that which is per se unintelligible, such explanation not being inconsistent 'with the written terms;" and on same page he adds: "To ascertain the meaning of these words, '(the words used in the written instrument,) it is 'obvious that parol evidence of extraneous facts ' and circumstances, may in some cases be admit'ted to a very great extent, without in any wise infringing the spirit of the" general rule excluding parol evidence of the language of parties.

It is not contended that any such broad power The admissibility of parol evidence being estabwas given to Mr. Crum, either directly or indi- lished in these particular cases, as well as the prorectly. Of course, therefore, he could substitute priety and necessity of its application thereto, it no one to perform his official duties and to be only remains to refer to that adduced in support accountable in his stead to his principal, the of the application of the memorialists, consisting, United States. He might employ sub-agents, and independently of the testimony of the parties inthis was all he could do. With this, however, the terested, (Ellis & Cash,) and also of that of Crum, Government (the principal) has nothing to do. the officer for whom they acted, of the affidavits It neither enjoins, nor forbids, their employment. in Ellis's case, of six credible and competent witIt is a matter purely between the officer and his nesses, and in Cash's of that of the commanding agent. If he deems it necessary for the perform- officer of the detachment in which Cash also was ance of his duty, he has the right to employ all an officer-all explaining the true meaning of the necessary means for the performance of that duty, writing by supplying what was absolutely necesand whoever he may employ is responsible to sary to make the instrument intelligible and perhim, unless there is privity between the Govern-spicious, or, indeed, to give it any practical use ment (his principal) and himself, concerning the employment of the sub-agent.

The law on the subject is stated in Story on Agency, p. 486, to be," that if an agent employs a sub-agent to do the whole, or any part of the business of his agency, without the knowledge or consent of the principal, express or implied, there, inasmuch as no privity exists in such a case between the principal and the sub-agent, 'the sole remedy of the latter is against his imme

to him.'

In all these and the like cases, parol evidence is 'admissable of any extrinsic circumstances, tending to show what person or persons or what things 'were intended by the party, or to ascertain his 'meaning in any other respect; and this without *any infringement of the rule, which, as we have 'seen, only excludes parol evidence of other lan'guage declaring his meaning than that which is 'contained in the instrument itself." The above quotations are from Greenleaf's Evidence, vol. 1, p. 412, where will be found numerous authorities in support of the same doctrine.

Now, the only question is, What was the meaning of Giles U. Ellis and David C. Cash in signing themselves, the former as "Assistant Quartermaster at Fort Gilleland" and "Acting Quartermaster at Fort Gilleland," and the latter as "Acting Assistant Commissary" and "Acting Commissary of Subsistence?" and this meaning we are to deduce according to the rule laid down, not by the addition of other language than that expressed, but by explanation of the language actually used, by its consideration in connection with the circumstances with which the transaction is connected. Neither Ellis nor Cash were agents of the United States in the Quartermaster's or Commissary's Departments. This position is incontrovertible, for the United States did not appoint them as such, nor were they so recognized by act of Congress; and Crum, the quartermaster, had, of course, no power to appoint them agents of the United States in either of those Departments.

The principal in these cases (the Government) had no knowledge of the appointment of sub-agents, and gave no consent thereto; nor, as heretofore stated, was there any appointment to them, or any legal recognition of them in any form as the direct agents of the Government. Whatever their authority was, therefore, it was wholly and exclusively derived from Crum, the quartermaster, and could be, as has been shown, derived from no other source, and their accountability is likewise wholly and exclusively to said Crum as his subagents.

This conclusion is irresistible from the nature of the case itself, and without resorting, to sustain it, to the rule respecting evidence, which is laid down in the books, and referred to in the first part of this paper, to wit: That it is competent for a party to adduce parol evidence to explain his written instrument, in order to arrive at its just meaning and true intent, which is always to govern.

But if recourse is had to the legal rule referred to, it will surely serve to confirm this conclusion, and to remove every doubt as to the sub-agency, and as to the accountability of the sub-agents. Each of these parties signs himself as "assistant," "acting assistant," or "acting" quartermaster or commissary. The words "assistant," " acting assistant," and "acting," clearly imply an agency that the parties thus signing are not acting for themselves, or in their own right, but for another. But it is nowhere stated who they are agents for, and certainly there is nothing in the writing to furnish that information. Still less is there an implication even, that they are agents of the United States.

Now the rule of evidence comes in to explain whose assistants or agents the parties are. (See authority before adverted to for admitting explanatory parol evidence, Greenleaf, vol. 1, p. 412.)

Without this explanation the writing is incomplete and unintelligible in respect of the important item as to whose agents the parties are. For the rule is, that the meaning of the writing must be ascertained from "the meaning of the words" parties "have used" in the writing itself, and the duty of the court is merely a duty of interpretation;" "that is, to find out the true sense of the terms as the parties used them. (Greenleaf, vol. 1, p. 399.) Now the writing is incomplete, for wherein is it made to appear therefrom for whom Ellis & Cash acted? and this being unquestionably its state of incompleteness and consequent uncertainty, as Greenleaf has it in another place (vol. 1, p. 405)

||

or effect.

This testimony, it is conceived, is sufficient evidence that the present applicants were sub-agents, accountable alone to their immediate principal, R. R. Crum, and of course (and what we wish to establish by this argument) that they cannot be held liable or accountable by the United States for the public property received by them as the agents of Crum, which it is proved they were.

In conclusion, sir, permit me to say, that R. R. Crum, in his affidavit, says that these, his agents, acted in good faith, and accounted to him faithfully for all the supplies which they received from him as Quartermaster or Commissary of Subsistence that they turned over to him all their receipts, papers, and vouchers. It is plain, then," sir, that he is the only party responsible to the Government, and that Ellis & Cash should be relieved from liability, and paid whatever may be due them on the muster-rolls for their servicesthe one as private and the other as lieutenant in the Seminole war.

I thought it proper upon this occasion, in sheer justice to the gentlemen concerned, to submit these remarks.

The bill was then laid aside, to be reported to the House, with a recommendation that it do pass.

JOHN W. ROBINSON.

Robinson, reported from the Committee on InvaHouse bill No. 52, for the relief of John W. lid Pensions, coming up in order, was considered, and laid aside, to be reported to the House, with the recommendation that it do pass.

GARDNER HERRING.

House bill No. 53, for the relief of Gardner Herring, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, coming up in order for consideration, was read through by the Clerk.

Mr. FOWLER. I would like to have the report accompanying this bill read. 1 The CHAIRMAN. The reports are not printed in any of these cases. They were sent to the printer.

Mr. FOWLER. I would like to hear the reasons for it.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. The report in this case shows the petitioner was disabled in the military service during the war of 1812. It is a case that has been before this House for a number of years. It is my belief that at every session of Congress since it has been here reports have been made favorable to the claim. Bills have repeatedly passed, but failed between the two Houses, as private bills too frequently do. There has never been a report made against it. The proof in the case clearly shows his disability and his service. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Have bills passed this House?

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. They have. Mr. FOWLER. Why has not this case been presented to the Pension Department?

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. In consequence of the fact that the party is unable to make the proof in compliance with the strict rule required