sioned officer, musician, or private, shall be disabled by wounds or otherwise while in the line of his duty, he shall be placed upon the roll of invalid pensioners of the United States." That is the whole of it; that was the contract under which General McNeill entered the army. Sir, this act was passed in anticipation of a war with Great Britain. It was published to the whole country by authority of Congress. And for what purpose was it published? It was published to induce brave and patriotic citizens all over the land to enroll themselves in our army. It was in view of the provisions of that act—in view of the bounties and promises therein set forth, that thousands of brave men rushed to their country's standard, and among them General McNeill, there to brave the dangers of war, and even death itself, in defence of their country's rights and honor. How did they understand this act? How did they understand this language? Why, as every other unsophisticated and sensible man would understand it. They understood it to mean what it said-nothing more and nothing less. The language is plain, direct, and imperative. The conditions upon which the disabled soldier was to be placed upon the invalid pension list were plain and unmistakably set forth. The claimant must be an officer, non-commissioned officer, musician, or private; and must have been disabled, and that disability must have been inflicted while in the line of his duty in the public service. That was all-all the conditions precedent; and I maintain that when they concur in behalf of the soldier, that his claim to be placed upon the pension roll of the United States is complete. It becomes an absolute right, a vested right, and the Government cannot absolve itself from performing its part of the contract without a gross violation of the rules of justice and plighted faith.

that all that it contemplates? Are stiffened joints and shattered limbs nothing? Is a decrepid and deformed frame nothing? Are severe sufferings and pains nothing? Are all the extra expenses which every officer so disabled must incur, from day to day, nothing? Does not the statute contemplate these things as a disability? Most surely, sir, in my opinion-most surely; and the most material part of the disability.

Sir, disability consists, in my judgment, as much in the deprivation of the enjoyments of life and the power of retaining property which an officer already has, as it does in the loss of physical strength and the power to acquire property. If I am right in this and I should like to have this argument noted-then do not these disabilities apply with equal force to an officer while in the army as it does while out of it? Is it the policy of this Government-was it ever its policy-to say to the brave and gallant soldiers of your army, so soon as you are wounded, so soon as you become disabled in consequence of fighting the battles of your country, however desirable and important it may be to retain your services there, yet you cannot receive the bounties provided for the disabled and wounded soldier until you resign your commission and retire to private life? Are these brave men, in the face of an unconditional statute, to be thus told? I hope not.

I will ask the attention of the Senate for a moment to another view of this case. I have said that the rule of the War Department, to which I have alluded, has not been a universal rule. While it has been enforced in some cases most rigidly, it has been dispensed with in others. The first class of cases to which I will call the attention of the Senate is that of officers who were disabled in the war of 1812-who were dropped temporarily from the peace establishment, placed upon the pension roll of the United States, and afterwards restored to the army. The Department says, in regard to that class of officers, that having once been placed upon the pension roll, the Department does not feel at liberty to strike them off, and so they have re

Sir, I maintain-it having been established that General McNeill was wounded while in the line of his duty in the public service-that it is a breach of the plighted faith of this Government to say to him, "Why, your right to a pension is not secure; it depends upon your profession, whether it be arms or civil life." Sir, whence did such a construction arise? It has arisen, as I have suggested, from the rule in the War Department declaring, "that no officer, so long as he remains in the army, shall be placed upon the pension roll of the United States." Sir, what is a disability, if that is a test? Why, by the provisions of that rule a disability is nothing more nor less than this: It is no matter how severely an officer may be wounded or disabled while fighting the battles of his country-no matter if he has lost an arm, a leg, or an eye-no matter, though literally riddled from head to foot, if he only survives-yet his right to a pension does not accrue to him. He must resign his commission in the army in order to make him a disabled man!

Now, sir, I am curious to know by what system of logic or process of reasoning a proposition so monstrous as that, so unnatural in its character, can be established? Am I told-for this is the only argument upon the other side-am I told that so long as a man remains in the army he receives all his pay as an officer, and thereby is enabled to obtain a livelihood, although disabled, but so soon as he resigns his commission he is unable to do so? Sir, this is presumption altogether-that an officer is not enabled to gain a livelihood, although disabled and out of the army.

No doubt, sir, that this law did contemplate a pension in the view that a disability would detract from the ability of an invalid to gain a livelihood. True; but did it contemplate anything more? Is

I do not complain of that. It is all right. They have received, in my judgment, nothing more than their legal rights. But what I complain of is this: that other officers, equally meritorious, who have been disabled, and who have not been dropped from the army at all, have been refused pensions for their disabilities and wounds. My judgment is, that if this rule means anything, it should apply equally to both classes. This construction of the statute this rule-is either a legal and true construction of that statute, or it is not. If it is the true construction, then it is the statute itself, and it cannot be suspended by the Executive except by a violation both of law and duty. If it is not the true legal construction of the act, then it is no part of it, is repugnant to it, and cannot be enforced without a like violation both of law and duty.

I will call the attention of the Senate for a moment to a case directly in point. It is that of the gallant Colonel Preston. I call the attention of the Senate to it for two objects: first, to show that Congress has interfered, and has granted arrears of pensions in a case precisely similar to this; and, secondly, I refer to it for the purpose of showing that this rule, which has been construed one way to-day and another way to-morrow, which has given pensions to some disabled officers while it has refused them to others, was claimed by the Executive to be nothing more nor less than an executive regulation, not necessary to the original pension law, but a regulation which the Executive could at any moment suspend. Colonel Preston was an officer in the same war as General McNeill. He was wounded in November, 1813. He continued in the service until the army was disbanded, June 15, 1815. He was allowed by the Department his invalid pension from that time, but was refused it from the time he was wounded until the time he left the service, because, in the first place, he was an officer in the service, and received his pay as such from the time he was wounded, in November, 1813, to the time of his discharge, in June, 1815; and, in the second place, because he had made no application for a pension until after his discharge. He appealed to Congress to pay him the invalid pension for the period intervening between the time he received his wound and the time he left the service, although he

had received full pay as an officer during the same period. What did Congress do? On the 14th of July, 1832, they passed an act, the sixth section of which provided for his relief. What was the decision of the War Department thereon fully appears in a correspondence which took place between the then Commissioner of Pensions and the head of the War Department-the latter officer being my distinguished friend, the present Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] which I will read, because it goes to show that what I have stated in regard to this rule and the whole case is true: WAR DEPARTMENT,

PENSION OFFICE, January 3, 1833.

SIR: The act of 14th July, 1832, chapter 260, section 6, directs the Secretary of War to place the name of J. P. Preston on the invalid pension roll, as an officer of the late war, and to allow him the amount which would have been due him had be made his application at the time he received his wound. In November, 1813, when Colonel Preston was wounded, the practice of this Department was not to allow a pension to any officer while in the service. If Colonel Preston had, therefore, at that time applied, he could not have obtained a pension, agreeably to the existing rule, unless he had first resigned his commission, in which case the pension would have commenced at the time of his resignation.

Upon the principle adopted by the Department, Colonel Preston's pension was allowed from the time when his pay as an officer ceased. The Colonel remained in the service till the army was disbanded, on the 15th June, 1815, from which period his stipend has been paid. JAMES L. EDWARDS.

Hon. LEWIS CASS. To this letter the Secretary of War replied as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF WAR, January 3, 1833.

In the case of Colonel Preston, presented by Mr. Mason, I am of opinion that the pension allowed by the act of Congress of July 14, 1832, should commence from the day Colonel Preston received his wound, and in this opinion the Attorney General coincides. From the phraseology of the law, it is evident to me that Congress considered the day of the disability as the proper period for the commencement of the pension. He is allowed "the same amount which would have been due to him had he made his application at the time he received his wound." If the practice of the office, which did not allow the granting a pension to an officer while in service, could control the above provision, the period fixed by the legislature would be inoperative and

useless.

[I call the attention of the Senate to this portion which shall next read, to show that I have stated this matter correctly:]

That practice was not required by the original pension law. It was a matter of Executive regulation, and might at any time have been dispensed with by Executive authority. If Congress had intended it should have been adhered to in his case, the provision would naturally have been, Colonel Preston should receive his pension from the period when he quit the army. The reference to an earlier period must have had some meaning; and the only rational construction I can put upon the clause is, that Colonel Preston's pension should commence when his disability commenced-the object of the act being clearly to dispense with the application, and to fix itself the time from which the pension should be drawn.

It may be added that, subsequently to this time, instances occurred in which pensions were granted to officers of the army while they continued in service.

LEWIS CASS.

Here is the verification of all I have said: that the rule has not been an invariable one, but that it has been adhered to and suspended at the Executive discretion. But I have said enough upon this point to show that this case is precisely in point, and that the rule has been vacillating and not uniform. A few words more, and I have done.

I contend that this bill ought to pass, upon the ground of even-handed justice. I contend that disabled officers of the army should be placed upon the same footing as the gallant and disabled officers of the navy. Can any reason be assigned why a pension should be given to the officers of the navy from the date of their wounds, and not to the officers of the army? The same rule, I believe, applied to officers of the navy and army prior to 1837, when Congress passed a law for the benefit of wounded and disabled seamen. By the second section of that act of March 3, 1837, it is provided

"That the pensions which may have been granted, or which may hereafter be granted, to officers, seamen, and marines in the naval service, disabled by wounds or injuries received while in the line of their duty, shall be considered to commence from the time of their being so disabled; and that the amount of pension to which said officers, seamen, and marines may be entitled, shall be regulated according to the pay of the navy, as it existed on the first day of January, 1815."

Under this law, the officers of the navy drew pensions from the time they were wounded, though they held their commissions in the navy, and drew full pay during the same time.

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

PRIVATE CALENDAR.

Mr. EDGERTON. 1 now move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar.

The motion prevailed, and

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, (Mr. DISNEY in the chair.)

The first bill on the Calendar was House bill No. 97, being a bill for the relief of James McCormick, assignee of Robert A. Parker.

The bill proposes to pay to James McCormick, as the assignee of Robert A. Parker, the sum of $25,766 64, with interest thereon from the 9th July, 1850, the amount allowed said McCormick by referees duly appointed, as damages for a breach of contract entered into with Commodore Jones, acting under the orders of the War Department of the United States, for setting up and making a saw-mill in California.

The report states that during the war with Mexico, the honorable John Y. Mason, Secretary of the Navy, caused a saw-mill to be sent to the coast of California, which was placed under the direction of Commodore Jones, who, finding it impracticable to have the mill set up and worked on account of the Government exclusively, entered into a contract with Mr. Robert A. Parker, by which Parker was to set up and work the mill for eighteen months. The contract also provided that Parker should have the exclusive use of the mill for three months from the commencement of sawing. But in case the Government should require the steam-engines, mills, &c., for their own use, before the expiration of the contract, and in case the mills had not cleared all costs, &c., it was stipulated that a referee should be appointed to name the sum to reimburse the said Parker. The honorable John Y. Mason was succeeded as Secretary of the Navy by the honorable William B. Preston, who, not being aware of the contract entered into upon the part of Commodore Jones, ordered the saw-mill to be placed in charge of the Navy agent or purser at San Francisco, as Government property. This was before the expiration of the contract with Parker. A referee was accordingly appointed, who awarded to McCormick, as the assignee of Parker, the sum of $25,766 64, as the amount which he had expended in erecting the saw-mill, and putting it into operation, over and above his receipts. The committee think, therefore, that, according to law and justice, the said award ought to be paid.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I do not see the gentleman who reported that bill [Mr. BoCOCK] in his seat. I beg leave, therefore, to state, that from the evidence before the committee, it ap peared to them to be a clear case that the United States were bound by the contract entered into upon the part of Commodore Jones to allow the claim. But I have been informed by one of the members from California that there is a strong suspicion of fraud connected with it. I move, therefore, that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee of the Whole have no right to make that order; jt must first be reported to the House.

Mr. STANTON. Then I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

The question was put, and the motion agreed to. CORNELIUS HUGHES.

The next bill in order was House bill No. 98, for the relief of Cornelius Hughes, of Tennessee. The bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the roll of Invalid Pensions, the name of Cornelius Hughes, at the rate of $5 33 per month, dating from the 21st of February, 1848, and to continue during his natural life.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1852.

soldier; and that he marched thence by way of Forts Strother, Jackson, and Claiborne, to Mobile, being a distance of seven or eight hundred miles; thence across to Fort Boyer, and thence to Knoxville, where he was discharged in April, 1815. That in this march through the wilderness he suffered much, and from the hardships and exposures he was taken sick, became partial parar, om he was taken sick, became partially paralytic, and which he cannot recover. The physicians certify that he is two thirds disabled by reason of his injured health.

Mr. AVERETT. I rise to inquire of the honorable gentleman [Mr. ST. MARTIN] who reported this bill, whether the petitioner in this case is now living?

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. The gentleman who reported this bill is not now in his seat; but as a member of the committee from which this report comes, I will say to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. AVERETT,] that I am not aware whether the petitioner is at this time dead or alive. I suppose, however, that at the commencement of this Congress, or shortly before that time, he was living, from the fact that the representative from his district presented the papers in the case which were referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. That gentleman can answer the question, I presume, more satisfactorily than I can.

Mr. AVERETT. It was to that gentleman I particularly referred. I will state, that during my service on this committee in the last Congress, I found petitions referred as from living petitioners; but from certain papers connected with them, my suspicions were excited, that the petitioners were not living in 1850. And when I came to inquire into the matter, I found that in some cases the petitioners had been dead four or five years. I think that gentlemen in this House who present petitions, ought to be held responsible to the committee and the House, to see that the relief asked for does not go to lawyers, agents, or heirs.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I rise to answer the inquiry of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. AVERETT.] No longer ago than night before last, I received a letter from the petitioner in this case, who was a living person, and desires very earnestly that this claim shall be passed by Congress. He has been suffering for a long time. His papers have been presented here and reported on favorably two or three times. Bills for his relief have been passed by the House, but for want of time have failed in the other branch of Congress. I say again, that the petitioner is living, and stands greatly in need of the little pittance which it is proposed to give him.

I

Mr. VENABLE. I have examined the case very minutely, and there was never a case for a pension before the House better sustained. move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. The motion was agreed to.

FRANCIS TRIBOU.

The next bill on the Calendar was House bill No. 99, being a bill for the relief of Francis Tribou. The bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Francis Tribou, on the roll of Invalid Pensions, at the rate of $4 per month; to date from the first day of January, 1848, and to continue during his natural life.

The report states that the petitioner enlisted in the month of April, 1813, as a private in the thirty-fourth regiment, United States Infantry, in the company under the command of Lieutenant Thomas Johnson, in the service of the United States, in the late war with Great Britain. It also appears from the affidavits of a number of soldiers, who were present and knew of the accident, that the petitioner, being cook of the mess, while engaged a making a ladle with which to skim the pot, in obedience to the orders of the surgeon, cut off two fingers from the left hand, at the second joint, and injured a third so that it is still troublesome. A surgeon who has examined the petitioner, pronounces him one half dis

NEW SERIES.....No. 39.

Mr. ANDREWS. These papers were taken from the files by myself, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. I would not say a single word in relation to this case, were it not that the individual member of that committee who reported the bill is absent at this time. I believe all the principal facts are stated in the report, and I know tra that the facts, so far as they are therein stated, are The individual named in the bill lives in the town in which I formerly resided, and I have no doubt that he is entitled to a pension at the hands of Congress. I believe the case to be strictly within the rules, and I believe, too, that the committee were unanimously of that opinion at the time the examination of the facts in the case was before them.

Mr. KING, of New York. I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass. Which motion was agreed to.

The report of the Committee on Invalid Penof the United States six months, in the years 1814 sions shows that the petitioner served in the Army

and 1815, and that, while on a forced march and on short allowance of provisions, he was attacked with epileptic fits, to which he had never before been subject, but has been ever since.

is unnecessary to make any lengthy statement Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I presume it about the case. I am conversant with all the facts, and know the petitioner himself. There have been some three or four favorable reports made in this case, like the one accompanying this bill. Bills for his relief have been passed by this House two or three times, but they were lost for want of action upon the part of the Senate.

Mr. HAMILTON. Is the petitioner living? Mr. JOHNSON. He is, I suppose. As far back as 1840 a bill passed this House in his favor. I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass. The motion was agreed to.

JOHN KERBAUGH.

The next bill that came up in order for consideration was House bill No. 101, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, for the relief of John Kerbaugh. This bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of John Kerbaugh, of the State of Tennessee, upon the roll of Invalid Pensions, at the rate of $5 33 per month, from the first day of January, 1848, and to continue during his natural life.

The report of the Committee in this case shows that the applicant enlisted in the Army of the United States on or about the 25th day of July, 1813, and immediately thereafter marched to Knoxville, where he was mustered into service of the twenty-fourth regiment of infantry, which, in a short time thereafter, marched to join the army at Detroit, under General Harrison; that the army then marched down to Buffalo, where the petitioner, with others, was stationed by General Harrison in Fort Niagara, to guard that fort; that the fort was taken by the British, and the petitioner taken prisoner, and the next morning taken across the river to Fort George, on the Čanada side; that the weather was severely cold, and upon entering the boat to cross the river, the petitioner was ordered to shove off the boat, which he attempted to do, but could not, it being frozen to the bank; and failing to shove off the boat, he was knocked down by a non-commissioned officer, and fell against the gunwale of the boat and mashed and injured his hip very much; that he caught cold in his hip and wound, and was laid up in hospital from that time until he was exchanged,

about five months thereafter. After he was exchanged, he was taken to Plattsburg, where he lay in hospital six weeks under the care of Doctor Grove, when he obtained a furlough and started for his home, which, after a long time, he reached, depending upon and receiving charity by the way. After reaching home he was confined about two months, when the news of peace arrived, and he having enlisted for and during the war, he was discharged by his officer in a disabled condition, wholly unfit for any kind of business. That he has, from that time to this, been able to do but little, and much of the time unable to do anything, suffering much pain, and grows worse as he grows older; that he is now sixty-six years old, and almost totally disabled from doing anything for his support; is very poor, and needs the assistance of his country.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I will state, for the satisfaction of the House, and to answer the standing interrogatory of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. AVERETT,] that this petitioner is living, and if there ever was a deserving case presented to the Congress of the United States, this is one. I will say that this man would have had his pension twenty-five years ago, to my knowledge, had he not always protested against applying to his Government for relief, so long as he could make a subsistence with his own hands. He now makes this application at the urgent solicitation of his friends, and upon the pressure of his urgent necessities. I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

The motion was agreed to.

ICHABOD WEYMOUTH.

The next bill that came up in order for consideration was House bill No. 102, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, for the relief of Ichabod Weymouth. The bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Ichabod Weymouth upon the roll of Invalid Pensions, at the rate of $8 per month, to commence on the first day of January, 1850, and to continue during his natural life.

By the report of the committee in this case, it appears that the petitioner enlisted in the year 1814, in the forty-fifth regiment of the State's infantry; that, in the year 1815, while stationed at Phipsborough, in garrison, and with a body of recruits for discipline, one of the soldiers deserted his post, and threatened to kill any man who would attempt to arrest him. A detachment, in which petitioner was included, was ordered to arrest him; in approaching him for that purpose, he made a thrust at the petitioner and ran his bayonet into his side to the depth of five inches. That this is a permanent injury; has given him much pain, and has caused a permanent affection of the lungs; and that at this time, from its effects, he was partially deprived of the ability to labor.

Mr. EASTMAN. From the papers in this case it appears that this disability has become permanent, and that the petitioner is totally unable to perform any manual labor. I know that he is a worthy person, and know the time when he was wounded. I know also all the persons who have testified in the case, and I have no doubt it is a meritorious one. I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass.

The motion was agreed to.

JOHN MCINTOSH.

The next bill that came up for consideration was House bill No. 103, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, for the relief of John McIntosh.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of John McIntosh on the roll of Invalid Pensions, at the rate of $8 per month, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1848, and to be continued during his natural life.

The report of the committee in this case shows that the petitioner enlisted as a soldier in the year 1813. After his enlistment he marched to Seneca, in the State of Ohio, the headquarters of General William Henry Harrison; from thence a forced march to Lower Sandusky; thence to Canada; and thence to the Thames, and was in the battle at that place. The petitioner was afterwards transferred to a company commanded by Captain Johnson Magowen, and at the expiration of twelve months, the term of his enlistment, was honorably

discharged. He was a faithful soldier. During the period of his service, and whilst he was in the line of his duty, on the forced march referred to, he received an injury in his right leg, producing rupture of the muscle, from the effects of which he has never recovered, but which continues to grow worse as he advances in life. That the petitioner's discharge was burned, together with his other papers, in the destruction of his house by fire.

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

RICHARD CHANEY AND OTHERS.

The next bill that came up in order for consideration was Senate bill No. 42, for the relief of Richard Chaney and others.

The bill authorizes and directs the land officers

in the district of Fairfield, in the State of Iowa, to examine and adjudicate, under certain restrictions, the claims of the petitioners, under the preemption act of 19th June, 1834, to the lands on which the towns of Fort Madison and Burlington are situated.

Mr. CLARK moved that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. AVERETT. To that motion I object. I understand this bill has never been before a committee of this House; and, therefore, move that it be laid aside and reported to the House, with the recommendation that it be referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I trust that this bill may not be committed. I do not think there is any necessity whatever for it. This is a Senate bill, which was reported by a Senate committee to that body, duly considered and passed there, and reported to this House. I will make a brief statement of the facts in the case, and I apprehend gentlemen will be as well prepared, after that statement, to pass upon this bill, as they will after it has been reported upon by a committee. The facts are simple and easy to be understood.

"As the laws of 2d July, 1836, and the 3d March,1837, took away from settlers on these lands the right of preemption, and appropriated the same as town sites, I think they are equitably entitled to the value of the lands of which they were deprived; and in view of the particular condition of this and other claims, I would recommend the passage of an act giving to those who were really the actual settlers on said land, and who but for the town surveys would have obtained the land settled on, an equivalent in money for said land, at the actual value of the particular tract, (independent of any other improvements thereon not made by such settler,) at the date when the entry could have been perfected, deducting therefrom the amount which, at the minimum price, would have had to be paid on the entry thereof; the right of preemption to be determined in the usual mode by the land officers, subject to a review by this office, and the value of the tract as above mentioned, to be assessed by the same officers, after due examination into all the necessary facts, to enable them to arrive at such value."

ant.

Now, this bill proposes to constitute the officers of the proper land office arbitrators, to determine upon evidence to be submitted, the value of the improvements put upon this land by the claimThat is the effect of this bill. Ít proposes to give him what these officers shall determine he is entitled to for the improvements put upon the land after hearing the evidence in the case. Is not this equitable and just? Congress appropriated that land for a town site, sold it for town lots, and unquestionably derived much more for it in that way than they would have done had a preemptor entered the land and appropriated it in the usual manner. There is but one point in this bill, and that is to enable the land officers at Burling ton to determine what this claimant is equitably s entitled to by reason of the improvements put upon the land. That is the whole of it.

Mr. EDGERTON. With the gentleman's permission, I will ask if the site of the town of Burlington is also included in this bill?

Mr. CLARK. Not at all. The act of Congress laying off certain towns included that of Burlington. There were some four or five towns, but this land is that upon which the town of Mad

ison is situated.

Mr. EDGERTON. And not the town of Burlington!

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. AVERETT. I must persist in my objection to this hasty action upon this bill. I doubt not the sincerity of the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. CLARK.] But we should set a bad exampleestablish an unsafe precedent, in passing a bill of this sort, without subjecting it to the scrutiny of one of our standing committees. The gentleman has, no doubt, given his views of it honestly, but I doubt whether one third of the members present have been sufficiently informed by his remarks to vote understandingly upon it. I must insist upon my motion, that it be laid aside, with a recommendation to the House that it be referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims. The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. CLARK, and it was disagreed to.

The question then recurring upon the motion of Mr. AVERETT to lay the bill aside to report it to the House with the recommendation that it be referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims, it was agreed to.

CHARLES S. MATHEWS, CHARLES WOOD, AND

In 1833, the claimant in this case settled at a point on the Mississippi river, on a tract of land, which was afterwards laid out and called Fort Madison. The claimant went to that point under the influence of the preemption law. It is known to you, sir, that the policy of the Government by its preemption laws was to invite settlements of the public domain. Under the influence of these laws the claimant in this case settled at that point in 1833. In 1836 and 1837, Congress provided for the laying off of certain towns then in the Territory of Wisconsin, upon the Mississippi river, and amongst others of the town of Fort Madison, upon which the claimant in this case had settled. The Territory of lowa was organized in 1838. There was no land office there until after the organization of the Territory. Well, whenever this claimant presented himself at the land office for the purpose of entering his land under existing preemption laws, he was met by the act of Congress laying off that same tract of land into a town, and, therefore, his claim was not entertained. It was believed that the act laying off the town conflicted with the preemption laws to that extent, and therefore the land officers at the proper office rejected his claim. They would not suffer his land to be entered, because of a more recent act, to wit, the acts of Congress of 1836 and 1837, which appropriated that very land for the town site. It was actually appropriated in that way, and the Government sold the lots. In the mean time this claimant had made improvements upon the land. There is a volume of evidence upon the subject taken by the officers of the land office, to whom application was made for the purpose of entering the land. The evidence shows that this claimant had made valuable improvements upon that land Mr. DANIEL. I reported that bill, and, with before the act of Congress had appropriated it for the consent of the committee, will state the prina town site. And now the simple question is this: cipal facts of the case. It is a claim which origin whether he shall be paid for these improvements, ated under the contract made with these gentlemen or not? He went there, as I have said, under the influence, under the settled policy, the standing in-house at New York. They were to be furnished to supply materials for constructing the custom vitation of the statutes which invited the settlement with the patterns for the cutting of the marble, of the public lands, to wit, the preemption acts. and after they had entered into the contract and Now the question is, whether he shall be deprived gone to the quarry where they were to prepare the of the value of the improvements which he put materials, they were detained for some consider upon that land by his labor and his money? I able time at that place with their hands, horses, wish to read briefly from the report of the Commis- oxen, &c. This was in consequence of the failure sioner of the General Land Office touching this of the agent of the Government to supply the models, and they claim damages in consequence

case:

JAMES HALL.

The commitee next proceeded to the consideration of House bill No. 135, for the relief of Charles S. Mathews, Charles Wood, and James Hall.

This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the above-named persons the sum of $12,119 47, in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States for and on account of damages sustained by the claimants under a contract to furnish marble for the custom-house at New York city.

of the delay thus occasioned. When the case was first before the Committee of Claims, the testimony did not enable them to see very clearly the facts of the case, and the committee deemed it proper, therefore, to refer the matter to the Solicitor of the Treasury, to ascertain the facts and the opinion of that officer under the facts and circumstances, whether they were entitled to anything and what amount. The testimony was taken on the part of the Government, and in behalf of the applicants. It is quite voluminous, and the report of the Solicitor follows the report of the committee. According to the report of the Solicitor, although they failed to deliver the materials precisely at the time stipulated in the contract, he says that the Government sustained no injury in consequence of it; but it was rather an advantage to the Government. They had to deliver the wrought marble, &c., it is true, in the public streets of New York, convenient to the custom-house; and as they had to leave space for them to pass with their carts and vehicles along the streets, they could only, therefore, deliver certain quantities of marble where they could work it. Although it was not delivered in pursuance of the terms of the contract precisely, yet it was delivered in accordance with the requisition of those who were engaged upon this work. That is the whole violation, if any, on the part of these contractors. The Government did fail to supply these models, and did keep them considerably longer than they otherwise would have had to remain there, for the purpose of cutting the marble, and quarrying materials for the custom-house. The Solicitor reports these facts; and according to the testimony taken on both sides, he says there ought to be paid to these contractors, in consequence of the injury they had sustained, $17,430. The Solicitor was warranted by the testimony which was taken; but the committee believed that the estimate in regard to some of the items was extravagant. Where they believed, from their own knowledge of the facts which were proved, that they were extravagant, they curtailed those items, and reduced the amount to $12,119 47, the amount mentioned in the bill. We made a curtailment in several items, and the committee think, under the facts and circumstances of the case, that the amount ought to be paid to the claimants. I hope the bill may be laid aside, and reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass.

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

GENERAL JAMES C. WATSON. The next bill in order upon the Calendar was House bill No. 136, for the relief of the legal representatives of General James C. Watson, late of the State of Georgia. This bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the legal representatives of General Watson, the sum of $14,600, with six per cent. interest from the 8th day of May, 1838, being the amount paid by said Watson to the Creek Indians for certain slaves captured by those Indians from the Seminoles.

Mr. SACKETT. This claim is to recover FOURTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS that the petitioner claims. General James C. Watson, in 1838 paid to the Creek Indians for one hundred and three negroes claimed by them as their captives, taken, and as the Creeks allege, by them from the

Seminoles in the Florida war, while they (the Creeks) were engaged in the service of the United States under the agreement of the 28th of August, 1836, hereinafter stated. The sole claim of the Creek Indians to these negroes was made on the ground that they were, when taken, the SLAVES and property of the Seminoles.

The general facts of this case are these: General Jesup, in the prosecution of his command in the Florida war, in 1836, by John D. Campbell entered into a contract with the Creek Indians, to furnish certain forces to the United States to be employed in that war. By the agreement, it was agreed on the part of General Jesup, that the Indians should be entitled to the plunder they should secure or capture from the Seminoles during their services in behalf of the United States. These are the precise terms of the contract. I wish the committee to bear in mind the terms were, that the Creeks should be entitled to the plunder they might capture from the Seminoles during the time they were in service in the war, because in the various reports and in the prior consideration of this subject, there has been a very common error committed on

the part of those who have advocated the passage of a bill to pay this claim, and that error has been this: they have uniformly stated it to be a part of the contract that the Creeks should have the slaves and property that they might take from the Seminoles during their engagement. There never was any such contract. The United States, through its agent, General Jesup, never entered into such an engagement. I have the contract before me, and perhaps may be well, for the purpose of having the committee understand distinctly the terms of that contract, to send it up to the Clerk's desk and have it read:

The State of Alabama, Tallapoosa County:

This contract, entered into between the United States of America on the first part, and the Creek tribe of Indians on the other part, witnesseth:

That, upon the consideration hereafter mentioned, the party of the first part agrees to advance to the party of the second part the sum of thirty-one thousand nine hundred dollars, to be applied to the payment of the debts due by the Creek nation of Indians. And the party of the second part hereby covenants and agrees to furnish from their tribes the number of from six hundred to one thousand men for service against the Seminoles, to be continued in service until the same shall be conquered; they to receive the pay and emoluments and equipments of soldiers in the Army of the United States, and such plunder as they may take from the Seminoles.

And the party of the second part releases, transfers, and assigns to the party of the first part all their right, title, claim, interest, and demand, in and to the annuity granted by the party of the first part to the party of the second part, for the year 1837.

In witness whereof, I, John A. Campbell, on the part of the United States, do hereby set my hand and affix my seal, the 28th of August, 1836.

JOHN A. CAMPBELL, [L. S.]

In witness whereof, we, the chiefs and headmen of said tribe, on the behalf of said nation, do hereby set our hands and affix our seals, the 28th of August, 1836.

[L. S.] [L. S.]

HYPOTHLE YOHOLA, his X mark. LITTLE DOCTOR, his X mark. TUCKABATCHEE MICO, his X mark. (L. s.) YELKA HAYO, his X mark. Attest: EDWARD HAWICK,

BARENT DUBOIS.

[L. S.]

This claim is to recover the money paid for one hundred and three negroes, claimed as the slaves of the Seminoles, and alleged to have been taken by the Creeks while engaged under their agreement, upon the ground, and the only one which has been contended for here, that it was a part and parcel of the contract, that slaves Creeks, as property, as plunder, for the uses and were to be delivered, if taken by them, to the purposes of slavery. It will be seen, that what they were entitled to by the terms of the contract, was the plunder which they might take from the Seminoles during the time of their engagement. It is to make these slaves a portion of that plunder, and to recover pay for them as plunder, that this claim is brought.

This is a true statement of this case. The Committee of Claims of the Thirtieth Congress adopted the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs made in 1842, and the Committee of Claims of the present Congress adopt the language of that report as to the terms of the contract entered into between the Creeks and the United States. This has been the common error of those who have sustained this claim. This report thus adopted in the Thirtieth and this Congress, made by the Committee on Indian Affairs, was first made to the Twenty-fifth Congress, and was the first report that was made upon this subject. This is the language of that report in relation to the above contract, viz:

"In the year 1836, General Jesup, then in command of the troops of the United States in Florida, agreed with certain Creek warriors, whose services re thus engaged against the hostile Seminoles, that they should be entitled to all the slaves and other property of the enemy they might capture. The said warriors, in pursuance of this engagement, among other things, captured a large number of negroes, about one hundred and three of whom were slaves of the Seminoles, and became, under said contract, the property of the Creek warriors."

Here is the language of the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs in 1842, and the language which has been adopted by the Committee of Claims in relation to this claim. The first point I make, then, is this: That there never was such a contract as the one described in that report, that the Creeks should be entitled to all the slaves they might capture from the Seminoles; and to sustain that point, I present the contract itself. The terms of that contract are, that the Creeks shall be entitled to what plunder they take of the Seminoles, but not to the slaves they take; and there I leave this point. Next I call upon those who are to advocate this claim, in the first place to establish the fact that the Creeks took the negroes in contro

versy. Upon that point, and upon this whole matter, the evidence is very voluminous, and it is impossible to state it here; but I deny that there is sufficient evidence in the case, derived from the facts, and not from this extraordinary report of 1842, to prove these negroes were taken by the Creek warriors. I will admit that report so states in the very start. It alleges the facts to be, that the Creeks took these negroes, but I deny that the facts justify or authorize that allegation. It appears in the proofs that a part of these negroes were taken, or came in, in the winter and spring of 1838. Now, the Creek soldiers were mustered out of the service in the fall of 1837, so that part of these captives they never had anything to do with. Without going into the detail of that evidence, I call upon the advocates of this measure to establish the fact, that the Creek soldiers ever took one of these negroes. This is among the many errors committed in the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Twenty-fifth Congress.

I call upon the advocates of this claim to establish another fact-a fact not recognized by the laws of nations, not recognized by our own Constitution and laws, except so far as applicable to certain rights maintained in a portion of our own States. I call upon them to establish the fact, that the institution of slavery existed among the Seminoles at all. I deny that fact. Where is the evidence that these humble negroes, taken in the heat of battle, fighting for their rights and liberties, nobly sacrificing their lives in the defence of their country, in the defence of their homes, their firesides, in defence of their nationality, were slaves? By the law of nations-the universal law governing mankind, with only exceptions which but tend to establish the general principle-every presumption, is that these men were free. The whole law of the case, every legal intendment is, that these men were free citizens of the Seminole nation. Let the advocates of this claim establish these points before they ask to pass this bill: first, that slaves are embraced in the contract; next, were these negroes captured by the Creeks; and next, under the law, the law of nations, the law of this nation, or by the law even of that savage Indian nation let them show, if they can, that the institution of slavery existed among the Seminoles at all. I deny it-deny each of these propositions.

There is another point which I think is worthy of consideration, and I am not prepared to say that I am entirely right in the conclusions I have arrived at in regard to it. I do not see satisfactorily that this money was ever paid at all.

It is said that General Watson contracted here in Washington to pay $14,600, and that he placed the money in the hands of a common agent, Major Armstrong, who was Indian agent, and, by the purchaser himself, made agent to pay this money, not to be delivered to the Indians till they had arrived at their own country west of the Mississippi. It is a fair inference that the money was placed in the hands of an agent to be delivered upon the receipt of the negroes. Now, the negroes were never delivered to General WatHe never had possession of them; and I am, at least, justified in asking the advocates of this claim to show that this money ever passed into the hands of the chiefs or authorized agents of the Creeks, or that it ever passed out of the hands of General Watson's agent.

son.

There is another view of the case, and one which, I think, should be entirely controlling, if there was no other point in it. It is this: If these negroes were property at all at the time the purchase was made-if they were property according to the laws of property among the Seminoles, or of the States where they were held, they were property of the value of $60,000 or $70,000. This will not be disputed. General Watson, too, knew all about the condition of that property; he was familiar with the whole matter; he was himself engaged in removing Creek Indians, and the contingencies of the property he well understood; he knew all about the claim of the Seminoles, if they had any, and of the Creeks, if they had any, to this property; he was probably more intimately acquainted with it than any officer of the Government. This whole transaction was after the treaty of Camp Dade, made 6th of March, 1837, by which it was agreed that at least a part of these very negroes should go with the Seminoles to their home in the West, which Watson well knew.