Mr. EASTMAN. He may not have wanted it before.

Mr. FOWLER. Then I will inquire of the committee, whether they adopt the rule that, if a man thirty years afterwards becomes infirm, he is to be an applicant before this House?

Mr. EASTMAN. The rule we have adopted in relation to this question is, if the applicant can trace disease back to a cause, which commenced in the service of his country, then we report in favor of the applicant, unless there is a contradiction by competent testimony.

Mr. HEBARD. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. EASTMAN,] if he is not mistaken in saying that this is the first time the claim has been presented?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think I am not mistaken, although it has been some time since I prepared the report.

Mr. HEBARD. I think I reported a bill for relief in this case at the last session, which failed for want of time.

Mr. EASTMAN. If I am mistaken, I have confounded this with another case.

Mr. HEBARD. I am sure I am correct in this, that the bill was favorably reported upon, and only failed to receive the action of this House for want of time.

Mr. EASTMAN. It may be that I am mistaken. I know this, that it is a meritorious case. Mr. DUNHAM. If this is a new bill, as the gentleman who reports it to the House states it to be, it is in violation of a principle of action here, to which I wish now to call the attention of the House. It is very important, if we grant a pension to this man, to know whether it shall go back to 1846. I so understand the bill. I ask that it may be read.

The bill being again read

Mr. DUNHAM resumed. It is as I have stated. It does seem to me it is a strange thing to have this pension given by Government for current support to men for seven or eight years, and thus giving the applicant a little fortune to begin with. I call the attention of the House to that fact. If we pursue this course, and vote to him that pension, the consequences will be that we shall have brought before us all the invalid pension cases heretofore granted for arrears of pension. If they go to the Pension Office, they can get the pension from the time their application is completed. If they neglect that for a few years, instead of going to the Pension Office to have their pensions granted, they will come here for back pensions, when they could not get it there. It seems to me, if the object of Government is to give a support to those who have served their country, it is quite enough that we give a pension from the time that their cases first commenced in this House. I shall move to strike out 1846 and insert 1850. This is the time that I understand the case was favorably reported upon in the House.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. When the gentleman makes that motion I shall resist it. I understand the object of giving an invalid pension to be to give the means of support and maintenance to a man who has lost the ability to support himself by manual labor, by reason of disease contracted in the military service of the country. The rules adopted by the Departments, and, indeed, by the law that governs those Departments, require that the pension shall not go further back-or in other words, the pension shall commence at the time the applicant completed his testimony and made a demand upon the Government. Whenever he has made out such a case as this Government can act upon and allow, why then his pension commences. Take the case before the committee at present. Here is a man who presents a case meritorious in its character-a case where the applicant has lost the ability to make a support for himself, by reason of wounds received in the service of his country. He has demanded of this Government a pension, that you admit he is entitled to. He does all that is necessary for him to do to make out his case. According to the argument of the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. DUNHAM,] he is willing to allow him a pension from January, 1850, for and during his natural life. Then you make him a loser by your own laches and neglect to perform the duty

that devolves upon you. He demanded this pension in 1846, and made out such a case as you are willing to allow to-day. He did everything that was necessary for him to do towards completing his case. He proved every material fact that was necessary for him to prove. And because you have neglected to perform your duty to him-because you failed to take up the case he made out and give him what you are willing to admit was then his due, you will decide, I suppose, that he shall starve from 1846 up to this hour, and shall not receive what would have been due him-what he would have received every year since that time if this Government had performed the duties it owed him at that time. Then the Committee on Invalid Pensions have adopted this as an inflexible rule, controlling its action upon this question, that whenever the party has made out just such a case as we can allow at all, we will allow the pension from the day that he completed and perfected the proof in his case. If it be but yesterday, it shall commence then. If it be five or ten years ago, his pension shall commence when he perfected and made out such a case as we shall feel bound to allow at all, in order that our neglect to perform the duties we owe him-in order that our laches shall not run against him. That is the principle we have adopted; and the bill before the committee is founded upon that principle. I shall, therefore, when that amendment is offered resist it, for the reason that it is unjust to the petitioner to adopt any amendments upon that principle. If the principle be true, it will be the policy of this Government not to decide for or against a case of merit, but to delay, delay, until you have literally starved out the wounded soldier who has lost the ability to support himself. And, indeed, that principle has been already too nearly adopted by this Government. We are to delay in meeting the demands that have been made upon us by those cases which have merit in them. I trust the Government will abandon a policy so unreasonable and unjust.

for the consideration of this House, as meritorious as if they had served years in the regular army. For that reason these cases cannot be allowed by the Department-for that and other reasons, they ought to be allowed by this House.

Mr. OLDS. It will be recollected by the members of the last Congress, that this question in regard to the time at which these pensions should take effect, was discussed nearly a whole day in this House when we were in Committee of the Whole upon the private calendar. This very case was one of the cases acted upon. It being objection day, if any objection was made, the bill was compelled to go over, but the friends of this bill, as well as the friends of other bills, under similar circumstances, permitted a gentleman from New York [Mr. CONGER] to make an amendment similar to the one proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] that these pensions should take effect from the 1st of January, 1850. But when the bills were reported back to the House, then a contest was waged upon that very question. After a few days discussion the House determined that these pensions should commence at the time the papers of the applicant were perfected before Congress. The case now under consideration, was one of the cases then acted upon, and the amendmend then made on the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONGER,] striking out 1846 and inserting 1850, was rejected; and the original features of the bill were reinstated. The argument then urged is the same that is now urged. Why is it, if these men were entitled to a pension, and have perfected their papers, that the action of Congress is delayed year after year? In this very case a bill has twice passed this House, the 30th and 31st Congress granting to this very man a pension, and yet he has no pension; and why? Because there was no time for action upon this bill in the other branch of your National LegislaNow is it his fault, the bill having passed this House, that he is not receiving his pension? Why, then, would you cut him off the four or Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I wish to make an five years he is entitled to a pension, merely beinquiry of my colleague. There was a report cause there has not been time for his bill to pass made in this case, which has gone to the printer, both branches of the National Legislature. I am and we have not the facts of the case before us. sure my friend from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] The bill proposes to give a full disability pension acting upon the principles of justice, will see the for life. The inquiry I wish to make is, what are propriety of dating this case back to the time the the facts upon which this pension is to be granted, papers were perfected, and will withdraw any oband why it is that it cannot be granted at the Pen-jection of that kind, and let the bill pass. sion Office? Now, if he first received this disability while in service, and in the line of his duty, which prevents him from obtaining a livelihood by manual labor, then he can get his pension at the Pension Office. What is the defect in the proof of this case? Why is it? He would get it granted there.

Mr. HARRIS. I will answer it with pleasure. As a general answer to his question, I will state, that whenever a case has been presented to the committee, and upon investigation they determine that it is such a case as can be allowed under the rules of the Department, we turn the petitioner over to the Department, because it is not a case which requires any special legislation. But in this particular case, the pension could not be allowed by the Department, for the reason that he had never been technically and formally mustered into the service of the United States. He was called out, as I stated in another case of the same character a few moments since, upon an emergency, when the army of the enemy was making a descent upon our forces stationed at Plattsburg. When a flag was sent through the country, and the information reached the State of Vermont that the little force we had at Plattsburg was likely to be overrun by the enemy rapidly descending upon them, volunteers from that State rushed to the scene of action; there was a large detachment that marched from all parts of that State, under the emergency of the moment. They were in that battle, and greatly exposed for a few weeks-for they performed efficient service to the country. Many of them lost their lives; others their limbs; others their health. While they were never technically and formally a part of the American army, they performed important and efficient service in the American army as soldiers. Their cases cannot be allowed by the Department, because they were not mustered into the service of the United States; yet they were in that service. They performed important duties, and made heavy sacrifices. For those services they present cases

ture.

Mr. MARTIN. There is one fact I wish to bring to the notice of the committee-that the rule adopted by the Committee on Invalid Pensions in regard to perfecting testimony, is the same rule that is practised upon in the Pension Office. Whenever the testimony is perfected, and presented in the Pension Office, from that time the pension dates. That is the same rule adopted by this committee, and is considered a very equitable one, although there are instances where the rule is apparently very hard. But upon a full hearing of the subject before the committee, we have come to the unanimous conclusion to adopt that mode, being determined to keep within the same lines. This is one of these cases. How came this man not to fall within the lines? He went to Plattsburg upon a proclamation issued by General Macomb, who was military commander there. Your humble servant was among the number who were there, under the call of that proclamation. We were never mustered into the service of the United States, and the men who remained there were severely exposed. This man produces irrefragable testimony that his health was destroyed in consequence of such exposure during that short campaign. These are the facts why he cannot apply to the Pension Office for a pension. I know the facts personally, for I was among the number who answered the proclamation. Our very excellent Governor of the State of Vermont at that time refused to order the military over, but we went in there by any mode of conveyance we could get upon that side of the lake. I hope and trust that this bill will not lie over, and that the poor old man, whose bosom must soon be covered by the clods of the valley, shall be remunerated eight dollars a month, from the time his testimony is perfected.

Mr. EASTMAN. I desire that the report of the committee made in this case on the 19th of July, 1848, shall be read.

The report was then read, as follows:

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom were referred the petition and papers of Sylvanus Blodget, report:

That it appears from the statement of the petitioner on oath, sustained by satisfactory evidence, that he was a private in the company of volunteer militia from the town of Jericho, in the county of Chittenden, State of Vermont, commanded by Captain Peter L. Allen, of said town; that

on hearing that the British forces were advancing upon Plattsburg, in the State of New York, early in September, 1814, the said militia company volunteered to defend their country against the invading foe, marched to Lake Champlain, which they crossed, and were actually engaged in the battle of Plattsburg; that the petitioner, while in the line of his duty as a private in said company in the defence of Plattsburg, by reason of fatigue and exposures, lying out on the ground in cold rainy nights without covering, took a severe cold and was subsequently carried home sick, with severe pain in his head, back and hips, and also a very sore throat and mouth; that he was then confined by severe sickness, by rheumatism in his hips, back, and right knee and ancle, about six weeks, and also severe inflammation in his eyes, which rendered them very weak and sore, gradually growing worse ever since, and has been able but a small portion of the time to perform manual labor; that for nearly twenty years past he has been too blind to do much labor; that ever since his return from Plattsburg he had been more or less afflicted with rheumatism, and at times very severely; that he has lost the use of one of his eyes, and can see but dimly with the other; that before he went to Plattsburg he was in robust health, but since his return his general health has been very poor; that he is fully satisfied that his afflictions came upon him by going to Plattsburg, as aforesaid; that he is poor and now about sixtyfive years old; and is dependent entirely on a son, who is in low circumstances, for a house to shelter himself and family. Therefore, in consideration of his services and consequent afflictions, the petitioner prays that Congress will grant him common soldier's pay during the remainder of his life.

The facts of petitioner's service and faithful performance of his duty as a private, as stated, are sworn to by his captain and colonel, and the fact of his being a healthy, robust, and athletic man previous to said service, is sworn to by his captain and several of his neighbors, who were well acquainted with him previous to and since his return from said service; and also his being brought home sick, and remaining sick for several weeks, and fully corroborating him in his statements as to his continued bad health, inflammation of the eyes, and subsequent blindness and poverty.

There is also the testimony of two physicians, who certify that the petitioner is in the condition set forth by him, and that it is their opinion that the cause of his said complaints was in consequence of his exposures at the battle of Plattsburg.

Your committee, being fully satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief, report a bill accordingly.

It

Mr. DUNHAM. I do not intend to detain the committee long. When I made my motion I understood the gentleman on my left [Mr. EASTMAN] to say that this was the first application of the petitioner. In that he is undoubtedly mistaken, for I remember this as an old case. I maintain, however, that the principle is a wrong one. does seem to me that the same principle which requires us to pay back pensions-the back principal-would require us to pay interest also; for if we have improperly retained the money, we ought to pay interest upon it. But that is not the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government is to furnish a support to the individual who has been disabled in the public service from earning a livelihood by his own exertions, and it seems to me that that is all we ought to do. Suppose a case is brought before this Congress; we think that the claim is not sufficient and reject it. It comes before another House and they reject the claim, and so it goes on for eight or ten years. Finally, a House comes up that is favorable to the bill and passes it, reverses the decision of the eight or ten Congresses before, and gives a back pension. It is for the House to say whether that principle is correct. I do not think it is.

Mr. AVERETT. I rise to make an inquiry as to a fact. Is it a fact that there have been heretofore adverse reports and adverse proceedings of the House upon this case?

Mr. DUNHAM. I cannot answer that question, because the committee's reports are not before the House. We are legislating here without any of the facts of the case before us. The reports are not here and we can tell nothing about the cases. But I understand this case to have been here for several years. I understand the gentleman to have sent to the table the first report made, and that was in 1848, and I presume, therefore, that the case failed to receive the favorable action of Congress.

There is another suggestion which I desire to make. If there is a good claim against the Government, in this case, why is it here? Because the case does not come within the purview of the law, and consequently there is no valid claim against the Government. The claimant comes here to ask from us, not a matter of right but a

gratuity. His case comes not within the general law under which the Department is acting. I ask, then, with what propriety can it be said that because this case has been before Congress for five years, we are therefore bound, not to furnish the claimant with a current support, but to set him up in life with sufficient capital to begin with? I say that the principle is wrong. Before I take my seat, I will change my amendment and move that "1846" be stricken out and "1848" be inserted in lieu thereof.

upon general principles, and to apply these general principles only to particular cases. If it be right to place an individual upon the pension list who has been engaged in the service of his State, then, there ought to be a general law embracing those cases; and that is the decision to which the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to which I belong, has invariably come. There are now before us very many applications from different persons, asking that the benefit of the pension law may be extended to them. The widows of revolutionary soldiers are entitled to receive pensions if they married before the 1st of January, 1800. We have before us now, and there have heretofore

Mr. FOWLER. I wish to say that I objected to this case in the outset, for want of the facts. I understand now that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. EASTMAN] has introduced the sub-been, a great number of petitions asking that those stantial facts of the case, by presenting a former report. That report being authenticated, is satisfactory to me, and I state, by way of explanation of my objection in former cases to-day, that it arose solely from the want of light. That was the ground on which I originally objected to this case. I am now satisfied, because we have got a report.

Mr. HEBARD. I believe that the objection to this case is not with reference to the merits of the case, but merely with reference to the point of time at which the pension shall commence. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] has modified his amendment, and it is not a matter of very great consequence now, except as regards the establishment of a principle. It seems to me that when the gentleman yields the first point, as his amendment indicates, he yields the whole. The gentleman says this is a gratuity. That is very true; but it is a gratuity founded upon the merits of the particular case. I am aware that the principle has been established heretofore in granting invalid pensions, that we shall not go back to the time of service for the date of the commencement of the pension, but that we shall follow the rule adopted by the Pension Department, and allow the pension from the time when the case was made out. Now I understand this case to have been made out to the Pension Department in 1846. That department did not refuse to grant the pension because the case had no merits, but because they were acting under certain rules and regulations, and there were technical objections to their granting the pension. The committee, therefore, acting upon the rule that the pension should commence at the time when the case was made out, have fixed the period at 1846.

widows who were married since the 1st of January, 1800, may receive pensions from the United States. Those petitions have been invariably rejected, upon the ground, that if the Government chooses to extend the pension laws, it ought to be done by a general law applying to all cases-those cases to be adjusted at the Department, and not by Congress. But the committee have been unwilling to extend relief in a particular case when it would apply to a larger number of instances. I am expressing no opinion, at this time, as to the propriety of extending our pension system as far as is asked, but I think it is somewhat dangerous to legislate upon these particular applications when we may be committed to such an extension of the system as would be objectionable to the majority of this House. It is not, therefore, because I have come to any definite conclusion in regard to the subject under discussion, but because we are now at the commencement of our session, and because the principles declared to-day, may, if they do not control, at least embarrass our future action, and because we are legislating without the aid of those reports which are intended to give information to the members, that I suggest there should be some little delay at least, before we come to a conclusion which may lead to consequences somewhat formidable. I therefore move that the committee rise.

The question being taken, there was found to be no quorum voting.

Mr. HAMILTON demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. HAMILTON and MURPHY appointed.

The question being then taken, it was decided in the negative-ayes 43, noes 74.

So the committee refused to rise. It seems to me that we should be acting by a Mr. BISSELL. This application was made very artificial rule, if, in endeavoring to do jus- some time since-no matter how long ago-and we tice here, we should deny the first element of are about now, for the first time, to take action upon justice in the case. If this man was ever entitled it and decide it. There can be no doubt that we to a pension under any law, or according to any have the power to act arbitrarily in this matter, and principle of or analogy to law, it was when he had do just as we please in reference to it, but I do hold made out his case. I hope the House will not that in this case, as in all others, we ought to have undertake to act under any artificial rule or tech- some little regard to consistency. If we decide nicality, but will deal out a measure of justice by that this petitioner is entitled to a pension, we degranting to this very meritorious man, who has cide so upon the case that he made out and premade out a very meritorious claim, his pension sented to us some time ago, but which we have from the time the committee have recommended. not acted upon till now. There is no additional Mr. MILLSON. There are before the Com-proof presented to us at this time which was not mittee on Invalid Pensions, and before the com- before us when the application was first made. If mittee of which I am a member, a great many ap- he is entitled to a pension now, he was then; and plications for pensions, and it is very important if he was not entitled to it then, he is not now. If that the House should use some circumspection we vote him a pension at all, therefore, that penin establishing the principle by which they are sion ought to date back to the time when he made hereafter to be governed. out his case and presented his application. He made out his case and presented it long ago, and now when we are about to act upon it, what consistency or propriety is there in saying that he shall have a pension from this time? Remember that we must decide this case as it was presented to us at first. It has undergone no change-no modification. I will read to the committee a section of the act of 1822, which, I am this moment informed by a friend, covers this case. It is as follows:

I understand that the present application is to place an individual on the pension list, who is not entitled to be there by any existing law. I do not see, therefore, that the objection made in the Pension Office, is of the character described by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. HEBARD]-a mere technical objection. The claim was rejected, it appears, by the Commissioner of Pensions, not because of any technical objections, but because there was no existing law which authorized this individual to be placed upon the pension list at all. Mr. HEBARD, (interrupting.) With the permission of the gentleman, I will state that when I spoke of technical objections, I meant that the claim was not disallowed for want of merit.

Mr. MILLSON. Now, for aught I know, there may be petitions before this House, asking that the pension system may be extended to the State volunteers, as well as to the officers and soldiers of the regular Army, and it may be very well for this House to determine whether they will extend the pension system as far as that or not. But it seems to me to be somewhat dangerous to legislate

"The right any person now has, or hereafter may acquire, to receive a pension in virtue of any law of the United States, shall be construed to commence at the time of completing his testimony, pursuant to the act hereby revived and continued in force."

That is not only law, but it is reason and common sense; and it is clear that this claim ought either to be rejected altogether, or allowed from the time when the application was made and the case perfected.

Mr. SKELTON. I have but a few words to say upon this subject. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] says, that if this petitioner is entitled to a pension at all, he is entitled to one

from the time when he first made his application. Now, there is a principle involved in this granting of pensions, which the gentleman seems to have overlooked. We grant pensions in some cases upon principles of justice, and in other cases upon principles of humanity. If the petitioner claims his pension upon principles of justice, he is evideadly entitled to it for the whole time; but if he dans it on principles of justice and humanity, it sfully competent for us to decide on the extent of his claim. If we acknowledge the principle indieated by the gentleman from Illinois, we must give the pension back to the time when the services were rendered. Now, that is a principle which is acknowledged by no one here.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, (interrupting.) I desire to say one word of explanation. The principle of allowing pensions from the time when the testimony in the case was completed, does not necessarily carry back the allowance to the time when the services were rendered. It proceeds upon this principle: that if the applicant has neglected his rights and slumbered on them, he must take the consequence of having so done; but if, on the other hand, he has made out his case and Congress has neglected to act upon it, then we are bound to allow him his pension from the time when the application was made. In other words, the principle upon which we proceed is, that our neglect shall not prejudice his rights, while his own neglect shall prejudice that right.

Mr. SKELTON. The gentleman bases his proposition on the principles of right and justice, while I contend that these pensions are given upon principles of humanity, out of gratitude, on our part, for services rendered to the country, and that those persons claiming pensions have no right to come to us on principles of justice.

I shall vote for this amendment, because I am

opposed to this payment of back pensions, as I believe it to be prejudicial to the interests of the country, and a principle that ought not to be allowed in our legislation.

The question was then taken on Mr. DUNHAM's amendment, and it was not agreed to.

The next question being, "Shall the committee report the bill to the House with a recommendation that it do pass?" it was taken and agreed to. AMOS KNAPP.

The next bill in order was House bill No. 60, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions,

for the relief of Amos Knapp.

There being no objection to the bill, it was ordered to be reported to the House, with a recommendation that it do pass.

ARTEMAS CONANT.

The next bill that came up was House bill No. 61, for the payment of arrears of pensions to the guardians of Artemas Conant, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

No objection being made, the bill was ordered to be reported to the House, with a recommendation that it do pass.

The calendar having now been gone through with,

Mr. GOODENOW moved that the committee rise; which motion was agreed to.

The committee rose accordingly, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the Chairman reported that the Committee of the Whole House had had

under consideration sundry bills, from number 30 to number 61, inclusive, on the private calendar, and had instructed him to report them all to the House without amendment, and with the recommendation that they do pass.

The bills were then severally reported to the House by their titles.

The SPEAKER said the question on their engrossment would be taken in gross, unless gentlemen desired that it should be taken upon them separately.

Mr. DUNHAM asked that a separate vote be taken upon number 61 for the payment of arrears of pension to the guardian of Artemas Conant. Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, asked that a separate vote be taken upon number 60 for the relief of Amos Knapp:

The other bills were then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and having been engrossed, were severally read the third time and passed, as follows, viz:

A bill for the relief of the Virginia Woolen Company;

A bill for the relief of Edward Everett, late a sergeant of the United States army;

A bill for the relief of David C. Cash and Giles U. Ellis;

A bill for the relief of John W. Robinson;
A bill for the relief of Gardner Herring;
A bill for the relief of Silas Champion;
A bill for the relief of Philip Miller;
A bill for the relief of Albra Tripp;
A bill for the relief of Joseph Johnston;
A bill for the relief of Robert Milligan; and
A bill for the relief of Sylvanus Blodget.

AMOS KNAPP AGAIN.

The question then recurred upon the engrossment of number 60, being "A bill for the relief of Amos Knapp."

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. There has been no statement in regard to this bill as to what are its merits. I ask that it be read.

The bill was accordingly read.

Mr. MOLONY. For the information of the

House in relation to this bill, I will state, that the papers accompanying the report, and which were before the committee, show the fact of the discharge of Knapp from the service of the United States during the war of 1812. Knapp's declarations, made under oath, prove to the committee not only the fact of his service for the United States, but his disability incurred in that service; and that the disability has continued from the time it was incurred down to the time of his presenting his case to Congress. He states, furthermore, in that declaration, that he was not only disabled from taking care of himself by disability, but that he is embarrassed in his pecuniary conditionthat he is very poor. The declarations of Knapp are sustained, in the first place, by the certificates of nine citizens of Rochester, (the residence of Knapp,) indorsing his statements in relation to his disability, his poverty, and his being engaged in the service of the United States. The character of those nine citizens for high standing and for veracity is indorsed by the member of this House from Rochester, Mr. SCHERMERHORN.] The fact of Knapp', disability being incurred in

two fellow soldiers who enlisted and served in the war

with him-the depositions of those soldiers being taken before a judge of the county court for the county in which Rochester is situated, (Monroe,) judge is attested by the member of this House to and the official character and signature of that whom I have just alluded. The disability of Knapp is attested by two physicians, whose high standing and professional character is indorsed by the same member of this House. These are the material facts which sustain the claim of Knapp, and which were, in the opinion of the committee, sufficient to warrant them in giving a favorable report.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. I desire to ask the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. MOLONY,] now, what are the reasons for granting this claim? Í understand there is a general law authorizing the Commissioner of Pensions to grant pensions to persons wounded in the military service of the country. I wish to know why this case does not come within the provisions of the general law; and why is it that a special act is necessary?

Mr. MOLONY. The reasons are these: Knapp enlisted in the service of the United States. While

in that service he received bodily disability. It also appears that he is now very poor, and needs his rights at the hands of the Government. These are the reasons which have influenced the committee in giving their report.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and having been engrossed, it was read a third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT OVER.

Mr. GENTRY. I rise to a privileged question. In consequence of the request of some gentlemen on the other side of the House, who say they are fatigued, [laughter,] I move that when the House adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

Mr. LETCHER demanded the yeas and nays; and on a division they were not ordered. The House then agreed to the motion-ayes 99, noes 56.

ARTEMAS MOLONY, AGAIN. The question now being, "Shall bill No. 61 be engrossed and read a third time?"

Mr. DUNHAM called for the reading of the bill.

The bill was read.

Mr. DUNHAM. I think this is a very singular bill, to say the least of it; and it is due to this House, if nothing more, that the gentleman who reported it, should give an explanation of it. It provides for paying a pension to a guardian from 1830 to 1846, in violation of the principles upon which this Government has heretofore acted.

Mr. MOLONY. For the information of the gentleman last up, and of the House, I will give the facts upon which this report was made. I agree with the gentleman that upon the face of it, it has the appearance of contradicting the rules by which this House has been governed heretofore in granting pensions. It also has upon the face of it an appearance of contradicting the rules that govern the Committee on Invalid Pensions, as has been stated by the chairman of that committee. But it will only become necessary to lay open to the House, and to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] the facts as they are, and the prima facie evidence will be rebutted. The facts are, that this said Artemas Conant, in the year 1815, was put upon the pension roll at the rate of $5 per month, for services in the war of 1812. It appears that he continued to draw his pension regularly until 1830; that from 1830 to 1846 his pension was suspended, and for this reason: That the certificate of the physican required by law, and the rules of the Department, to wit-to the fact of the continuation of his disabilities-was not, from 1830 to 1846, rendered to the Department. Hence, according to the rules of the Department, if not according to specific law, the Department refused to give him his pension. In 1846, and from that time to the present, application was successively made to the Department. Accompanying that application was a certificate of a physician, required by statute, of the continuation of the disability upon which the pension was originally granted. The question naturally arises in the minds of gentlemen now here, why this suspension of a pension to 1846, and why did not a certificate of a physician accompany the applicathe reason, as appears the fully, that said Conant was violently in evidence

violent that he would not, and did not, submit to the necessary examination by a physician for the certificate to be rendered. In 1846 his insanity became partially relieved, so much so that he was made to understand the necessity of an examination by a physician, and of a certificate, in order to procure his pension. He submitted to that examination. From that time a certificate has been given, and he has drawn his pension.

Mr. DUNHAM. I wish to inquire if he is still living?

Mr. MOLONY. He was a short time since. Mr. DUNHAM. Then I move, so far as I am concerned, simply to amend this bill by inserting after the word "guardian," the words "for the use of said Conant."

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to.

The question was then taken upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time, and it was agreed to. The bill having been engrossed, it was then read the third time and passed.

Mr. GOODENOW. I ask leave of the House fairs. When that committee was called the other to report a bill from the Committee on Naval Afday, I did not hear it at all. I am anxious to report a bill, that it may be put upon the calendar.

Mr. ORR. The committees will be called in a day or two again. I move the House adjourn.

Mr. VENÄBLE. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his motion, for the reason that there is a communication upon the table which, I think, is in answer to the call which emanated from the Committee on Territories. I hope the House will not adjourn until that communication be opened and read. The public feel an interest in it. I take an interest in it, and I think the House does.

Mr. ORR. I will withdraw it for that purpose. Mr. MILLER. I ask the consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which previous notice has been given.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I move that the House proceed to the consideration of the business upon the Speaker's table.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The motion is not in order.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order if objection is made.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consept, then laid before the House the following communication from the President of the United States, viz:

To the House of Representatives:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representa tives of the 15th ultimo, requesting information in regard to the Territory of Utah, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred. MILLARD FILLMORE.

WASHINGTON, January 9, 1852.

[For which documents see Appendix.]

Mr. POLK. On account of the voluminous character of the documents accompanying the communication from the Executive, I move that their reading be dispensed with, and that they be printed.

Mr. KING, of New York. Let us have it. Mr. CLINGMAN. If the gentleman will allow me, I will move to amend that motion.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I move

Mr. CLINGMAN. I wish to ask the gentleman from Utah

Mr. POLK. I have not yielded the floor. If the gentleman wishes to propound a question I will yield.

Mr. CLINGMAN. My question is simply to request the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] so to modify his motion that, in addition to the motion to print, there may be one of reference to the Committee on Territories, who have called for this information.

Mr. POLK. I move that the communication from the President of the United States be printed, and referred to the Committee on Territories. I consider it a matter of great importance. We have had rumors from that country, and the National Legislature should take some charge of them if they are true.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I move that the communication of the President of the United States, and accompanying report, be read and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary-as it involves some grave legal questions-and that it be printed.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman can perhaps || facilitate his object by taking the question on the motion that the communication be read. Cries "Mr. Speaker!" "Mr. Speaker!" all over the House.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Utah has the floor if discussion arises.

Mr. BERNHISEL. At an early day I shall ask for a commission to be appointed by the Speaker of this House, or by the President of the United States, to proceed to the Territory of Utah, under authority and with instructions to take testimony to be laid before Congress and the committee touching the matters contained in the report referred to; and in the mean time I bespeak a suspension not only of Executive action based on this report, but of the opinion of the members of this House and the people of this country in relation to the Governor and people of Utah, and the libelous report preferred against them, and on file in the Department of State. After the reference, I shall ask leave to offer a resolution, that the committee to whom it is referred shall have power to send for persons and papers, and to send a commission to Utah to take testimony to be laid before Congress in this case.

I renew my motion that the communication be read, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. POLK. I desire to inquire of the Chair if the motion I made is not first in order? The SPEAKER. It is so considered by the Chair.

Mr. STUART. I only wish to say a word or two before this question is submitted to the House. I will simply remark, that this is a communication derived from the Executive through the action of the Committee on Territories. A resolution was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN,] under instructions from that committee, of which I have the honor to be a member, and which was adopted at a former day. This communication is a response to it, and I know of no reason why it should be referred to any other committee.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I do hope the House will refer this question to the Committee on the Judiciary, as it involves grave legal questions.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I have individually no preference in relation to this matter, but I feel it to be my duty, as I do not see the chairman of our committee the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. RICHARDSON]-in his seat, to say that he regarded it as a part of the duties of the committee, and the whole committee were of the opinion that we should have this information. It is the duty of our committee to recommend appropriations for, and also what laws are necessary to be passed for the good government of the Territories. It will be found, therefore, that the resolution which the committee instructed me to offer is very compre

Mr. Speaker, before the reception and reference of the report addressed to the President of the United States, by the three disappointed and returning officers of the United States for the Terri-hensive. It calls for all information in relation to tory of Utah, containing, as I am informed and the present condition of that Territory, to enable us believe it does, grave and grossly-exaggerated, not to determine whether the existing laws are suffito say false and perverted statements, impugning cient for its good government-to protect our citithe conduct and character not only of the Gover- zens there; also to ascertain what has become of nor, but the whole people of a new and distant the public money heretofore appropriated, and Territory whom I have the honor, as a Delegate whether these charges of misapplication are true, on this floor, to represent. From my own knowl- and various other matters I do not now propose edge in part, and from others, I know and am in- to go into. It cannot act until it has this informaformed, and venture to assert, that if time and tion. For one, sir, with the impressions upon opportunity should be given for that purpose, the my mind, I will not be disposed to recommend committee to whom the reference shall be made any appropriation for that Territory to this House, will be furnished with ample evidence of the grossly nor will I vote for any appropriation to the Terriexaggerated, shamefully perverted, and apparently tory of Utah until I ascertain what truth there is misrepresented facts, statements, and detailed oc- in these allegations. It was therefore that the currences contained in the report. Unable to com- committee made the call; and in the absence of the municate at this season of the year with the Gov- chairman, who understands the question better ernor and people of that distant and dependent than I do, perhaps better than any member of the Territory, loyal as I know them to be to the Gov-committee, I thought it courteous and proper that ernment and Constitution of the United States, the information called for by the committee should assailed and aspersed as they are in that report in go to them. Individually I would prefer that the their official, moral, and religious character, and Judiciary Committee should take charge of the charged with crimes and misdemeanors of such matter. It would relieve us from the labor of enormity and character as to challenge credulity the investigation. I make this statement in behalf and stugger beliefof the chairman of the Committee on Territories, who is absent. I now call for the previous question.

Mr. HEBARD. I rise to a question of order. It is whether it is proper to refer to the sentiments of that report when it has not been read, and we know nothing about it?

The SPEAKER. It is in order upon a motion to print to refer to the body of the report. Mr. BERNHISEL. I ask for the reading of the report.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman from North Carolina withdraw his motion for a moment? I will renew it.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I have no objection. Mr. GIDDINGS. There is much force in the argument of the gentleman from North Carolina.

I am also a member of the committee to which he belongs, and I have not, nor has that gentleman any personal desire to take jurisdiction of this matter. These people are a distant people. They are represented upon this floor by a representative who is certainly a young member here, and who desires these charges should go to the Committee on the Judiciary. I, as a member of the Committee on the Territories, am perfectly willing and desirous they should go to that committee. I do not know but it is certainly as proper as that it should go to the Committee on the Territories. It is for an infraction of the laws. The people of the Territory are charged with violating the laws of the United States, and it appears to me these questions are appropriate ones for the Committee on the Judiciary. I have thus spoken solely because the gentleman from Utah [Mr. BERNHISEL] is a young member here. He feels anxious these charges should go before that committee, and to gratify him and that distant people, I hope it will go to the Committee on the Judiciary. I will now move the previous question.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I wish to say a word. The call for the previous question was withdrawn.

Mr. C. I have no preferences in the matter. I do not care what the House does. If it judges this to be more appropriate for the Judiciary Committee, let it go there; but our committee took a different view of it. The chairman is not here. I regard it as falling properly within the duties of that committee. I am not aware of any reason why that committee would not just be as likely to do justice to the gentleman, whom I never saw or heard of until he became a member of this House. I presume no member of the committee has any prejudice against Utah. I have none upon the subject; but if there was, I do not see why that should change our action here. I doubt whether they knew these charges would be preferred at the time that gentleman left home. He may have some reason for referring it to the Judiciary Committee, but he has not assigned any. If the House think it proper, let it go there. renew now the call for the previous question, because I regard debate as unnecessary.

Mr. LOCKHART. I ask for the reading of the 95th rule.

The rule was read by the Clerk, as follows: "It shall be the duty of the Committee on the Territories to examine into the legislative, civil, and criminal proceedings of the Territories, and to devise and report to the House such means as, in their opinion, may be necessary to secure the rights and privileges of residents and nonresidents."

Mr. CLINGMAN withdraw the call for the previous question at the request of—

Mr. McLANAHAN, who said the question whether this matter be submitted to one or the other of these committees is one of serious importance. It seems to me the reading of that rule ought to be sufficient to convince the House that the proper reference of the question is to the Committee on Territories. As a matter of courtesy, the disposition of some members of that committee seems to be to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary. It is a question that originates under the organic law of that Territory, and it is the peculiar duty of the Committee on Territories to see that the organic law, coming through their hands in its original form, should be fully, fairly, and honestly carried out. Doubtless, sir, questions of constitutional law may arise; but it is not to be presumed, because such questions are involved in this case, that therefore no other committee of the House is capable of attending to them except the Committee on the Judiciary. If the House think proper to impose the duties upon that committee, I trust we will discharge them with fidelity; but, under the rules of the House, as well as considering the committee from which this investigation has originated-the committee who had the resolution passed, and to whose inquiry this is a response, I think, as a matter of courtesy as well as of parliamentary duty, it belongs to the Committee on Territories. The Committee on the Judiciary do not claim it as a right; they cannot claim it as a right, whether arising out of courtesy or under the rules of the House; but for the reasons I have suggested, I think the House would act with great propriety in referring it to the committee in which the resolution of inquiry originated.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I will withdraw my mo tion to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary.

3 CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

Mr. McLANAHAN. I call for the previous question.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I renew my motion to have the document read and printed.

The SPEAKER. During the pendency of the call for the previous question, the gentleman cannot submit the motion to have the document read. Mr. HOUSTON. It has never been read. If the House will agree to pass this subject over until morning, the communication will appear in the morning papers, and then we can all tell whether this matter ought to go to one committee or the other, and it will supersede the necessity of rea ding an immense amount of matter.

[Cries of "Question!" "Question!"] Mr. CLINGMAN demanded the previous question.

Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman has a right to ask that a document shall be read at any time. I think the rule so states, that the question shall be put to the House as to the reading, and when a paper is before the House that has not been read, I understand that the rules authorize any member to have it read at once.

Mr. CLINGMAN. Is this in order upon the call for the previous question?

The SPEAKER. It is true, under the rules any gentleman of the committee, or any other member, has a right to have all papers accompanying the President's message read as a matter of course, which must be done independent of the call for the previous question.

Mr. HALL asked for the reading of the 57th rule.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee, moved that the House adjourn; which was not agreed to. The 57th rule was then read.

Mr. HENN. I wish to ask whether the motion now before the House is debatable? The SPEAKER. It is not.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, which was upon referring the communication to the Committee on Territories, and ordering it to be printed.

to.

The question was then taken, and it was agreed

Mr. BERNHISEL. I beg leave to offer the following resolution, and 'send it to the Clerk to

be read.

[Cries of "I object!" "I object!"] The SPEAKER. The resolution may be read for information.

The resolution was then read, as follows:

Resolved, That the committee to whom has been referred the report of the three returned officers of the United States for the Territory of Utah, addressed to the President of the United States and communicated to this House, have power to send for persons and papers, and to send a Commissioner (to be designated by the Speaker of this House) to Utah, duly instructed and commissioned to take deposi tons in writing touching the matters contained in said report as are of public concern, and to return and report the same to said committee; and that the Delegate in Congress from that Territory have authority from this House to retain counsel to conduct the proceedings in this case before said committee.

Mr HALL objected, and the resolution was not received.

Mr. KURTZ had leave to withdraw from the files of the House the petition and papers of Henry Miller, praying for a pension; and on his motion, the same were referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the War Department, transmitting, in compliance with the acts of April 21, 1808, and March 2, 1809, statements of what contracts have been made under the authority of this Department during the year 1851.

Also, a communication from said Department, under the act of 1809, transmitting a statement of the expenditures from the appropriation for the contingent expenses for the military establishment; which communications were severally referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, laid before the House a communication from the Navy Department, transmitting, in com

LAWS OF NEW MEXICO.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House

copies of the acts, resolutions, and memorials of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico, beginning in June, 1851; which was referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed.

The SPEAKER begs leave to present the laws of the Territorial Council of Minnesota. I ask leave to remind the House, that there was a letter presented in connection with this subject, and laid upon the table.

Mr. SIBLEY moved that the copy of the communication, with a copy of the acts, be referred to the Committee on the Territories; and it was so ordered.

Mr. HENN asked leave to withdraw certain papers; which was objected to.

Mr. STUART. I wish to inquire if the acts sent from New Mexico are now printed? The SPEAKER. According to my best recollection, the laws of New Mexico were ordered to be printed.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I will move to reconsider the vote taken a few minutes since; and I desire to say a word upon it. I would be glad that any one would show me when the Territories send copies of their laws here, why we should order them to be printed. I would be glad to have any one give me a good reason why we should print a mass of legislative matter, with a great deal of which we have nothing to do, and which is entirely and wholly an unnecessary expense. If the Committee on Territories shall think that they want any portion of these laws printed for the purpose of action by this Congress, then they can apply to this House and have them printed. But to print the entire body of these laws, seems to me too absurd an idea to consider.

Mr. SIBLEY. I wish merely to state to my friend from Arkansas, [Mr. JOHNSON,] that by the order of the House all these communications come to the Committee on Territories, and it is from them that any action of the House emanates. There is no necessity for printing an additional number of laws that may come here. Those from Minnesota are already printed; and those from New Mexico are in manuscript.

The SPEAKER. There is no order to print the laws from Minnesota. There is one to print

those of New Mexico.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that there is a separate order to print the laws of New Mexico. I move to reconsider the vote, so that the printing shall not be ordered. The code as it now stands, with slight change, was printed years ago. Now, under the organization of these Territories, Congress has jurisdiction of all the laws which have passed there. We have the veto power if we choose to exercise it. There is not one act out of a hundred which Congress would be disposed to take hold of or consider at all. Under these circumstances, why shall we order the whole of these acts to be printed? The committee can tell, in nine cases out of ten, by reading the title of an act through, whether it is necessary to look into it at all.

Mr. STUART. 1 wish to make a suggestion to the gentleman. If he will let the question to reconsider stand over until the chairman of the Territories can have a moment to look at it, there will be no difficulty about it.

Mr. KING, of New York. When was this motion made to print?

The SPEAKER. Only about ten minutes ago. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I have but very little more to say upon this matter. The very gentleman who made the motion says upon reflection he will consent to a reconsideration.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia, (interrupting.) I will not consent. Will the gentleman give way for explanation?

Mr. BAYLY. I do not want to explain. I wish to reply to the gentleman.

Mr. JOHNSON. I well know what the gentleman wants. I know him full well, and I know that he is an economist of the first water. I like the gentleman exceedingly for his most excellent and kindly deportment in this House, and I would be glad to vote with him, if he can show me what there is in these laws which require that we should print them, and which the committee cannot read in manuscript. The laws now proposed to be printed relate to the local legislation of that Territory, and every trifling and insignificant act. The printing of them will be wholly and entirely an expense without a consideration. The acts are of every character, class, and variety-everything, from a premium for a wolf-scalp out. Why does that gentleman wish to get at these laws? It has some relation to the fugitive slave law, I take it. Why, such an object can be attained by the Committee on Territories making ordinary examinations of these laws in manuscript, and if proper for our consideration they can present them by their titles to this House with a request that they shall be printed, accompanied with such resolutions or recommendations of action as they may think proper.

Mr. BAYLY, (again interrupting.) Will the gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no doubt the Speaker will assign the floor to the gentleman as soon as I am through, and it will give me great pleasure if he will do so.

I would be glad to know why the gentleman supports a motion to print the laws that have been enacted by these Territorial Legislatures-which they have not seen fit to print for themselves, or at least have not seen fit to send here in the printed form? I am certain that in times past, when these laws have been referred to the Committee on Territories, there has never been issued-at least where there has been any debate or consideration upon the subject-an order of this House to print the entire laws of the Territories. These laws are too local and inconsiderable in their character for it to be necessary for us to print them. For one I am opposed to it, and I hope the House will

reconsider and vote down the motion.

Mr. BAYLY. I care little about this matter, but the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. JOHNSON] has asked me what particular laws of these Territories I want printed. I do not know one word about any one law that either of these Territories have passed, and for the very reason that I know nothing about it, I want these laws printed that I may see what they are.

Mr. HALL. I understand that nearly all of these laws have been printed by this House, and are now bound up in one of our Executive documents of four or five years ago. The Legislature have reenacted the Kearny code.

Mr. BAYLY. There is a species of economy that I have never been the advocate of, though my friend from Arkansas has seen fit to pronounce a eulogy upon me as an economist, in which, of course, he referred to me in my public capacity, and not in my private capacity. Well, in one sense I am an economist. But I am not for that sort of economy by which we may save a few hundred dollars and keep ourselves in darkness in reference to matters of important public concern.

Now, the Congress of the United States has already reserved to itself a veto over the legislation of the Territory. To enable us to act understandingly in this capacity which we have reserved to ourselves, it is proper that these laws should be printed, so that we can know what they are.

It is for the very reason that I do not know what a solitary one of these laws is, that I desire to have them printed. The expense of printing is

a small matter.

The gentleman from Arkansas says that they have sent these laws here in manuscript-that they have not printed them themselves. Well, that supplies a very good reason why we should do it.