fund from the Government, for their private use? If that is to be the effect of the bill, it seems to me that it deserves some further consideration than it has yet received.

Mr. HUNTER. The design of the bill was to pay to California $300,000, which would, of course, come out of this civil fund which was raised. There was some division of opinion in relation to that, but on two occasions the committee agreed to report that sum. The State of California claimed the whole of the civil fund, which amounts to nearly $1,300,000. The committee did not agree to give the State of California the whole, but agreed to give her $300,000 in lieu of the outfit which is usually given to the Territories before they are received as States. Public buildings are generally erected, and other things are done, which may be called an outfit. In lieu of that outfit, and as California thought she had a right to this very large amount, a majority of the committee supposed it was fair and right to give her these $300,000.

is to pay for, and if that is a proper sum to meet those expenses, I should be one of the last men in the world to object to it.

as I think the passage of this bill is very important, not only to the Government, but to the officers whose accounts are to be settled, I am willing to Mr. HUNTER. There is another provision make this concession of $300,000. But I must in the bill, that the expenses of the government say, that if the grant of $300,000 was before the de facto, between the time of the promulgation of the Senate as a separate proposition, I should vote treaty of peace and the establishment of the State against it. I shall, therefore, hold myself in readiconstitution, should be paid. The expenses of ness to make what opposition I can to the propothe State convention were paid by General Riley sition which the Senator from California has given out of this civil fund. The money has already notice he shall insist upon hereafter. I think it been paid; and I believe it was paid (although I will be well for others, who take the same view of do not speak with certainty of that fact) under the subject, to be prepared to meet the claim when the order of the Executive. But, in addition to it comes up; and I will give my vote now, as the the expenses of the convention, there was a gov-Senator from California does, under protest, with ernment de facto; there was a judiciary, in order to regard to these $300,000. preserve the peace and order of society; and, as I said before, the question in regard to the expenses of the government de facto was a difficult one. But it seemed to us, that the only way of solving the difficulty was to recognize the existence of the government de facto, and to pay all its expenses, so far as they were confined to the object of the preservation of the peace and order of society in California. I believe it will be found that, con

Mr. BADGER. I desire to ask a little further explanation on this subject from my friend from Virginia. I understand from the Senator that the State of California claimed the sum of $1,300,000. Mr. HUNTER. Nearly that.

Mr. BADGER. That is the sum in round numbers. The claim is either well founded or ill

founded. But I understand that the committee neither reject the claim, nor do they allow the claim; but they say they will give the State of California the sum of $300,000. What I want to know is this: have the committee ascertained that the $300,000, which they propose allowing to the State of California, is really due to that State; and that the residue of the amount claimed is not due to her? Or have the committee had any difficulty in ascertaining what particular or precise sum is due to her, and have assumed $300,000 as an approximation? Or is the $300,000 proposed to be given merely because she claims $1,300,000? If that is the ground for granting this amount, then it would be a very convenient thing for my State to bring forward a very large claim.

Mr. HUNTER. I thought I had stated before that the committee were of opinion that the State of California was not entitled to this fund.

Mr. BADGER. Any part of it?

Mr. HUNTER. Not to any part of it. This $300,000 was proposed to be given by a majority of the committee as a gratuity. Doubtless they were disposed to be more liberal in measuring the gratuity from the fact that the State of California did think it was wrong to withhold from her the civil fund. She claimed the whole amount. But the committee put the appropriation upon the ground that the United States has usually given some outfit to the Territories before they have been brought in as States, and that it was much dearer to put up public buildings in California than elsewhere; and I think the majority of the committee, who fixed the amount at $300,000, thought they ought to provide something in the proportion of four to one. I think some estimate at least was made in relation to that matter.

It is due to myself, perhaps, to say that, in relation to that provision, I did not think California was entitled to it. But the committee have twice so decided, and I have acquiesced. I have given up as to that point; and the Senator from California has withdrawn his objections in order to enable this bill to pass; though he thinks his State is entitled to the whole of the civil fund. Under these circumstances, it seems to me it would be better that this bill should pass in its present form.

Mr. CHASE. I do not understand my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, as answering the question I put to him in regard to a portion of the fourth section. The fourth section, if I understand it, provides for the payment of the expenses of the convention which framed the constitution of California; and I am not aware of any other expenses incurred by that State preparatory to its admission into the Union. If there are any other expenses which this sum of $300,000

omalous state of things which certainly existed in California, that assumption of the principle is the only supposition which would enable us to solve the difficulty satisfactorily. It may require us to pay more money than we should have had to pay if there had been a regular government there."

The committee had a great deal of difficulty with this subject, from the fact that there was no means of ascertaining with precise accuracy what was due, or what ought to have been paid. They have therefore left it to the discretion of the President, in the settlement of these accounts, to admit such vouchers as are proper, and such charges as he might think come within the legitimate sphere of the government de facto. But these expenses are provided for in a different section of the bill. This sum of $300,000 covers nothing of that. It is, as I said before, a gratuity-an outfit, as the Senator from Maryland called it-to the State of California.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and it was subsequently read a third time and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

A message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting, in compliance with the law of the 11th of August, 1848, the copy of a dispatch from the Commissioner, ad interim, of the United States at Canton, together with the copy of certain rules and regulations for masters, officers, and seamen of vessels of the United States at the free ports of China, which accompanied vision of Congress; which were read, and ordered said dispatch, and which are submitted for the reto be laid on the table and printed.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS.

A message, from the House of Representatives, was received by Mr. FORNEY, its Clerk, announcing that it insists on its amendment to the bill to make land warrants assignable, disagreed to by the Senate, and asking a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and stating that it had appointed managers at the same on its part, viz: Mr. GEO. W. JONES, Mr. GEORGE BRIGGS, and Mr. WILLIAM H. BISSELL.

The Senate proceeded to consider the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill last mentioned, insisted on by that House, and it

was

Resolved, That the Senate insist on its disagreement to the said amendment and agree to the conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Ordered, That the committee of conference, on the part of the Senate, consist of three members, to be appointed by the President of the Senate.

And Mr. SHIELDS, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. FELCH, were appointed accordingly.

Mr. BORLAND. I am in favor of the passage of this bill; but I wish to call the attention of the Senator from California to one point. I understood from the remarks of the Senator from Virginia that this bill, in its present shape, was a sort of compromise between the United States and the State of California of certain matters in dispute. I understand from him that the Senator from California is willing to withdraw his objections, as the representative of California, for the present; and that the Committee on Finance, representing the United States as the other party, are willing to allow $300,000 to California. Well, if it be a compromise-if the United States are to make a positive grant of $300,000 to California-I think it would be but fair for the Senator from California, Mr. SUMNER presented the memorial of shipon the part of that State, to withdraw all further owners, merchants, and others, of Salem, Massaclaim, and let the compromise be the final settle-chusetts, praying that further aid may be extended

ment of the account.

Mr. GWIN. I was opposed to the last section of the bill, because it did not give us the whole of the civil fund, and I intended to contest its passage before the Senate. But I have given up my intention to do so, to have these accounts settled. I give notice to the Senate, however, that I intend hereafter to urge the payment of the whole of this civil fund to California. But the other provisions of this bill are highly important. These accounts are unsettled. Here is the sum of over $1,200,000 of this civil fund unaccounted for. It is absolutely necessary that this bill should pass in order to settle the accounts of the officers who collected it; and I am told that some of the money is perhaps in jeopardy. I want these accounts to be settled; and to accomplish that purpose, I have withdrawn my opposition to the bill. I was the only member of the Committee on Finance who was opposed to reporting it in its present form; and I have with- | drawn my opposition for the present for the purpose of having these accounts settled. The other question is before the Committee on Finance, and will be brought up hereafter; and I give notice that I will contend for the whole of this civil fund as belonging in right and justice to California, and will not give up the contest until we get it.

Mr. BORLAND. When a proposition was formerly before the Senate, granting or conceding the amount of $300,000 to the State of California, I and a good many others were opposed to it; but

PETITIONS, ETC.

Mr. PRATT presented the memorial of shipowners, merchants, and others, of Baltimore, praying that further aid may be extended to Collins's line of steam-ships; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

to Collins's line of steam-ships; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. FISH presented the memorial of ship-owners, merchants, and others, of New York, praying that further aid may be extended to Collins's line of steam-ships; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, the memorial of Alexander J. Atocha, praying satisfaction for damages in consequence of having been expelled from Mexico, and his claim having been improperly rejected by the late Board of Commissioners; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa, presented the proceedings of a meeting of citizens of Iowa, held at Israel Trumbo's, in Bremer county, recommending the establishment of a land office at Cedar Falls; which were referred to the Committee on Public Roads.

Also, the proceedings of a railroad meeting held at Quasqueton, Iowa, in favor of the construction of the Dubuque and North Red River Railroad; which were referred to the Committee on Territories.

Mr. STOCKTON presented the memorial of John Duff, for himself and his late partner, Joseph Gonder, jr., praying that a suit brought against him by the United States for an alleged violation of a contract to furnish stone for the dry dock at Brooklyn, may be discontinued; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, a memorial of citizens of Philadelphia, praying a modification of the bounty land law; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Also, a petition of Hugh N. Page and others, officers in the Navy, praying additional pay for the time they served in California; which was ordered to be laid on the table.

Also, a memorial of ship-masters, pilots, and others, of Philadelphia, praying the construction of piers and harbors in the Delaware river and bay; which was referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

Also, two petitions of citizens of Bridgeton, New Jersey, praying an increase of the duties on iron and glass; which were referred to the Committee on Finance.

Also, a petition of citizens of Essex county, New Jersey, remonstrating against the further extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Also, a petition of citizens of New Jersey, remonstrating against the renewal of Parker's patent for improvements in the water-wheel; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Also, the petition of citizens of Erie, Pennsylvania, praying the establishment of a naval depôt or navy yard and dry dock on the Lakes; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. SEWARD presented resolutions of the corporate authorities of the city of New York, in favor of the adoption of measures to obtain from the British Government the release of William Smith O'Brien, and certain other natives of Ireland, now suffering imprisonment in Van Diemen's Land; which were ordered to be laid on the table.

of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

REPORT FROM A STANDING COMMITTEE. Mr. MANGUM, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the memorial of Mrs. Ann Robinson, asking payment for certain negroes carried away by the British in the war of 1812, reported a bill for her relief; which was read and passed to the second reading.

MEXICAN INDEMNITIES.

Mr. PRATT. I am instructed by the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the memorial of Don José Maria Jarero, a citizen of Mexico, to ask to be discharged from the further consideration of that memorial, which claims compensation out of the fund appropriated under the Mexican treaty, and to ask the reference of these papers to the select committee recently appointed by the Senate to take charge of all matters relating to this subject.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have a minority report on that subject which I wish to present. The majority of the committee have reported a resolution to refer this case to the select committee upon this subject. I have a minority report to present, concluding with a joint resolution. I do not know what has been the practice of the Senate in such cases, but I design, when the majority report comes up for consideration, to move to strike out all after the word "resolved," for the reasons stated in the minority report, and insert the resolution accompanying the report which I offer. I move the printing of both reports.

which Mexico can claim that fund. I do not intend to enter into the discussion of this question now; but I must say that the matter appears to me to be so plain that "He who runs may read;" and in that treaty there is no stipulation which would entitle Mexico to the balance of that fund, after we have discharged the claims which we are forced under the treaty to pay. It is upon this ground, and on this ground alone-that the party has no claim founded upon the rights of the Mexican Government to this fund-that the Committee ask to be discharged. The ground of proposing the reference to this select committee, is simply that we know that memorials of this character have been so referred; and we think it right and proper, as this claim was rejected by the commission on the ground that it was not an American claim, that it should go before that committee. It seems to me inscrutable, if this was originally a claim of an American citizen, that because a Mexican was the holder of it the commission should have rejected it. I cannot conceive on what principle they could arrive at such a result. At all events, I think the matter is worthy of a reference to the select committee. What may be the result of their investigation is another question.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I understand there is but one memorial. I only make a report with regard to one. I will not now undertake to discuss the question. It is a question of the construction of the treaty. I have discussed it in the minority report, which I have submitted to the Senate. The only question is, what is the proper course to pursue to dispose of this minority report, and what is the proper way to bring the subject to the attention of the Senate. I ask the opinion of the Senate as to the proper construction of this treaty. The question has been presented by the memorialist. It is a question of construction, and of con

Mr. JAMES presented a petition of citizens of Providence, Rhode Island, remonstrating against the further extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. DAVIS presented the memorial of Charles Gordon, praying compensation for services as draughtsman to the Committee on Public Lands; which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate.

Also, a memorial of merchants, ship-owners, and others, of Boston, praying that further aid may be extended to Collins's line of steamships; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. BADGER presented a petition of P. K. Dickinson & Co., praying that Woodworth's patent for a planing machine may not be renewed; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. SHIELDS presented the petition of Joseph H. Marsh, only child of Samuel Marsh, deceased, late a soldier during the Mexican war, praying an increase of pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, the memorial of citizens of Washington, D. C., praying certain amendments to the city charter by the removal of certain restrictions on the right of suffrage; which was referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

Mr. UPHAM presented the petition of Jonah Brooks, assistant marshal for taking the Seventh Census in Vermont, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SEWARD presented the petition of citizens of the State of New York, praying that pensions may be granted to widows or children of officers and soldiers of the revolutionary war who have never received pensions; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. DODGE, of Wisconsin, presented the petition of residents on the Menominee purchase, praying the removal of the Indians therefrom; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

PAPER WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED.

On motion by Mr. DOWNS, it was
Ordered, That the memorial of Maria Taylor, on the files

possession of the Senate. There would, therefore, be nothing before the Senate to which the minority report of the Senator from Pennsylvania could refer.

Mr. PRATT. When the select committee shall report, if the motion which I have made should prevail, it will be in the power of the Senator from Pennsylvania to offer a substitute in the shape of the report he now holds in his hand. I would suggest to that Senator, that if the papers are referred to the select committee, the whole subject will come under the consideration of that committee; and the majority of the Committee of Claims have thought it better that it should be referred to the select committee untrammeled, than that the question should be prematurely discussed here.

Mr. BRODHEAD. The minority of the committee entertained the opinion that this claim should be paid; in other words, that the balance of the $3,250,000 of the Mexican indemnity fund should be paid to the Mexican Government, or upon the order of the Mexican Government to any person that Government might choose to authorize to receive it. I am, therefore, of opinion that this case should not go with the others to the select committee; and for that reason I trust the matter will go over, and that the minority report will be considered. I suppose that is the proper course to pursue in such a case.

go to the select committee. If the construction is as I contend, then the memorialist will receive the money. If the construction should be as contended for by the Senators from Delaware and Maryland, then I agree that the memorial should go to the select committee.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that there is no report from the committee. They simply ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial, and that it be referred to the select committee. The report of a minority of a committee cannot be received without the unanimous consent of the Senate. The question is now whether the Senate will discharge the com mittee from the further consideration of the memorial, and refer it to the select committee on Mexi can Claims.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I hope, then, the committee will not be discharged, or that the unanimous consent of the Senate will be given for the introduc tion of this minority report. All I ask is that the Senate will examine the subject.

The PRESIDENT. There is no majority report.

Mr. BRODHEAD. The majority ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, and a reference to the select committee. I ask that the whole subject may be laid on the table, and that the report may be printed.

Mr. BADGER. Why? I shall certainly object to the report being printed.

The PRESIDENT. What report? The com

the memorial referred to another committee, as the Chair has already stated.

Mr. BADGER. Why should they not be dis charged?

Mr. HAMLIN. If I understand the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania aright, he asks that the report which he has submitted be received and printed, whether there be any majority report or not. I beg leave to inquire of the Chair if the paper which is submitted by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania may not be received with the unanimous consent of the Senate, and be printed?

Mr. BAYARD. I hope the motion of my friend from Maryland will be adopted, and that the Committee simply ask to be discharged, and to have mittee of Claims will be discharged from the further consideration of this memorial. Whether the claim is referred to the select committee or not, is, in my judgment, not a subject of so much moment. The case is a very simple one; and it is a matter of some surprise to me that the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania should doubt the construction to be put upon this treaty. This memorialist claims the right to some forty odd thousand dollars, which is the residue of the $3,250,000, after the payment of all the claims under the commission appointed by virtue of the treaty with Mexico. There is this balance remaining to the United States, which the Government stipulated to pay on a certain class of claims. General Jarero claims this balance on the ground that the Mexican Government have given an order for its payment through their minister-claiming thus that this balance belongs to the Mexican Government. I have looked into this question attentively, and I cannot find the least shadow of a ground on

The PRESIDENT. Most certainly.
Mr. HAMLIN. Very well; I hear no objec-

tion.

Mr. BADGER. I object.

Mr. HAMLIN. The Senator from North Carolina objects. Then the question recurs on adopting the motion made by the committee, which is to be discharged from the further consideration

of the memorial, and its reference to the select committee.

Mr. BADGER. Certainly.

Mr. HAMLIN. I understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania has submitted at length, in writing, his reasons why that committee ought not to be discharged.

Mr. BADGER. Very well. We will hear them now, if he will offer them.

Mr. HAMLIN. I think we could appropriate the time of the Senate to better purpose, and that it would be better to let the report be printed, and the matter remain for the present where it now is until it is printed, and then we can judge whether we will discharge the committee or not. If the committee is discharged, we shall not have the benefit of the matter which is proposed to be submitted by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that the Senator from Pennsylvania can present in his individual capacity as a Senator anything which will throw light upon this subject, or give any information to this body; but that he cannot present such a paper now as a minority report.

Mr. BADGER. I will state some reasons why the minority report should not be received. In the first place, this is a case of the first impression of the Senate. The committee to which the subject has been referred direct a member of the committee to move that they be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial, not upon the ground that the claim is not meritorious, not upon the ground that they have considered and decided the case-it is not in the nature of an adverse report-but simply that it may be referred to another committee, which they think is more appropriate to take charge of the subject

Mr. PRATT. Which the Senate has appointed to take charge of this whole subject.

Mr. BADGER. I understand it. Now a member of that committee brings in what he calls a minority report, and upon what? Upon the merits of this claim; undertaking to show in this minority report that the claim is a valid one, and ought to be paid. Now, that is not the question before the Senate, and I do not want the Senator from Pennsylvania to preoccupy that question by presenting a report here which he calls a minority report, while at the same time we are sending the subject to a committee which we wish to be entirely untrammeled by any previous action.

Mr. BRODHEAD. One word, if the Senator pleases. I undertake to show that the reasons which are introduced in the minority report are reasons which go to show that the memorial should not be referred to the select committee.

Mr. BADGER. Whatever they may be, I understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania presents what he calls a minority report, there being no majority report in which the merits of this claim are investigated. I do not see where we shall be led, if the Senate adopts a system of that kind, admitting one gentleman on a committee to which a particular question was referred to bring in a report investigating the merits of the whole case and have it printed. I cannot conceive why any petition, memorial, or claim, which grows out of the Mexican treaty, or the proceedings of the late Mexican Board, should not be referred to the select committee of which the honorable Senator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] is the chairman. I think the whole subject is one that properly comes under the consideration of that committee; and if there be any reason why relief should be given to this claimant, although that reason does not extend to any other, that committee is perfectly competent to make a report in favor of this claimant, although it reports against all others. It is as competent for that committee to investigate the construction of the treaty as it is for any other committee to do it. And why not? They are to determine and present to the Senate what they think ought to be done in relation to the subject-matter of the claims which are alleged to exist in consequence of what are considered the wrong or mistaken decisions of that Board. Now, whether these wrong decisions relate to the construction of the treaty or anything else, the whole matter will be before the committee. Therefore, it is not with the slightest disrespect or unwillingness, to accommodate the Senator from Pennsylvania, that I must interpose an objection to having the paper presented and printed. I am totally unable to understand why the memorial should not go to the select committee which the

Senate have raised expressly to take charge of this subject.

Mr. PRATT. I do not consider that it is at all necessary to go into the consideration of the question which will be presented whenever a report shall be made; but I wish to say a single word, that the Senate may understand the position assumed by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania. The late commission omitted to expend or appropriate some $42,000 of the $3,250,000 which were originally appropriated for the purpose of paying the liabilities of this Government, under the treaty with the Mexican Government. The Mexican Government now claim this $42,000 which are unappropriated, as belonging to that Government under the treaty, and they have given an order to the petitioner in this case, directing the payment of that $42,000 to be made to him. Now,

suppose that the select committee which has been raised would necessarily have under its consideration, for its decision, that very question, under the treaty, which is made by the Government of Mexico. It will be one of the first preliminary questions to be settled by this select committee, with reference to the residue of this fund claimed by Mexico, and to which a majority of the Committee of Claims believe that Mexico has no just right. The claim which General Jarero sets up to this money in the memorial he presents, is on account of the order he has received from the Mexican Government that the money shall be paid to him. The Senator from Pennsylvania is member of the select committee, and there can be no difficulty in bringing his peculiar views before that committee with reference to the rights of Mexico. If the select committee are of the same opinion as the Committee of Claims, he can present his report there as well as here. It seems to me that the whole subject will then come up properly in the report of that committee, and not till then. I hope the Senate will discharge the Committee of Claims, and suffer the memorial to go to the select committee.

a

Mr. BAYARD. I will suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania, that certainly the construction of that treaty must come before the select committee. They cannot enter upon the performance of their duties without considering its construction. It is essential to the examination of the claims. Any views which the Senator entertains can be brought before that committee; and if they agree with him, they will report accordingly, and if they disagree, it will be competent for him to bring in a minority report, in which he can present the whole subject. Or if the Senator pleases, he can, at a subsequent day, introduce a bill for the relief of the claimant, or adopt some course of that kind.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I admit that this is a subject which can be considered by the select committee; but it was referred to the Committee of Claims, and I think it was properly so referred, and that the question should have been considered by the Committee of Claims. Why, therefore, refer it to the select committee? It is a memorial upon which a select committee would not have been raised. I think the select committee was raised for an entirely different purpose. Hence it is that I consider it my duty to oppose this motion. It is, however, quite immaterial to me.

Mr. RUSK. It seems to me that to take this minority report, in the present state of the case, would be to prejudge the whole question.

Mr. BADGER. Certainly it would. The PRESIDENT. The Chair has already stated that there can be no minority report presented now.

Mr. RUSK. Then it seems to me that there ought not to be the least objection to the motion of the Senator from Maryland-that the Committee of Claims should be discharged from the further consideration of this memorial, and that it should go to the select committee on this subject. I do not believe that there is the slightest foundation for this claim, even admittting in advance that the commission have provided for the payment of all the debts to which this fund is properly liable. But

to act upon this claim now, and to determine that $40,000 are due to Mexico, under the provision made for the payment of the creditors of the United States, before that committee acts in any way, would to all intents and purposes be anticipating the action of that committee, which would not be proper. Besides, it may be ascertained that the sum we have to pay may be a much larger amount

than is claimed, or it may be much less. As the matter stands now, I can see no reason why this balance should be paid to Mexico. But it is clear to me, that to take any action now in reference to this report, which might go by implication to prejudge the claim in favor of Mexico, would only be equal to precluding the select committee from acting at all.

The question was then taken on the motion to discharge the Committee of Claims from the further consideration of the memorial, and it was agreed to.

Mr. PRATT. I now move that it be referred to the select committee appointed to take charge of these matters.

The motion was agreed to.

ADVERSE REPORTS.-DAVID L. DAVIS. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the adverse reports upon the President's table. The first was the report of the Committee on Pensions in the case of David L. Davis. The report states that the petitioner was employed as an assistant in a Government survey, under the late survey of Mr. John M. Smith, in the State of Arkansas, from the 20th of May to the 24th of July, 1851; that, while a party of men were encamped on the day last named, a tree was blown across the camp by a hurricane, which killed two men instantly, and seriously injured the petitioner so as to prevent his ability to perform manual labor.

The committee recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be rejected.

The report was concurred in.

SAMUEL SPALDING.

The next report was from the Committee on Pensions in the case of Samuel Spalding.

The report was read, from which it appeared that the petitioner had been upon the pension-list for about seventeen years, and that he asked for arrears of pension from the date of his discharge in 1814, stating as a reason for his not applying for a pension previous to the year 1834, that he had been informed, on what he supposed to be good authority, that he would be allowed a pension from the date of his discharge. It further appeared that the petitioner was discharged on account of the expiration of his term of service, and not on a surgeon's certificate.

The committee report that the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

The report of the committee was concurred in.

LOUISIANA VOLUNTEERS. The Senate next proceeded to the consideration of the report of the Committee on Military Affairs on the memorial of the officers of the first regiment of Louisiana Volunteers, for indemnity for loss by the wreek of the ship Oudiska, on the coast of Mexico.

The committee reported that it was not expedient to grant the prayer of the petitioners; and the report was concurred in.

ADAM HAYS.

The Senate next took up the report of the Committee on Pensions in the case of Adam Hays.

It appeared that the petitioner had served during the war of 1812 as an army surgeon, and that from exposure he had contracted a severe disease of the lungs; that in the year 1838, he received a pension of $22 50 per month, and he now asked for arrearages of pension from the year 1815 to the year 1838, when he was discharged.

The committee reported adversely, and the report was concurred in.

GEORGE W. SEVIER.

The Senate next proceeded to consider the report of the Committee on Military Affairs in the case of George W. Sevier.

The report set forth that the petitioner claimed compensation for hogs said to have been destroyed in Texas by troops of the United States.

The committee reported that, in their opinion, the claim was sustained by no proof under any principle which should bind the Government, and concluded that the prayer of the petitioner was unreasonable, and ought not to be granted. The report was concurred in.

WILLIAM A. DUER.

The PRESIDENT announced, as next in order, the report of the Committee of Claims, on the petition of William A. Duer, administrator of William Duer.

On the motion of Mr. SEWARD, on account of the absence of the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. MILLER,] who introduced this bill, its further consideration was postponed to Friday next.

THE PRIVATE CALENDAR.

Mr. PRATT. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we are occupying the time of the Senate very unnecessarily in reading over all these reports of cases, on which the several committees have reported adversely. I move that the reading of these reports be dispensed with, where there are no minority reports, and that they all be concurred

dar.

Mr. SEWARD. I hope not; we will soon get through these reports.

The PRESIDENT. It is utterly impossible for the Chair to determine which case is reported upon favorably, or which unfavorably, until the report be read by the Secretary.

Mr. BADGER. There is no adverse report on the Calendar, and every private claim on the Calendar is a case in which a bill has been reported for the action of the Senate. If these reports could be all disposed of at once, we could get along very well, and I think my friend from Maryland is right in this respect. The bills we pass have to go to the House and be acted upon, whereas these reports present no subject for action beyond the mere concurrence of the Senate in the recommendation of their committees. I think it would be better to go to the Calendar and take the bills. up The PRESIDENT. A number of these reports are favorable, and a number of them are unfavorable. If it be the pleasure of the Senate to postpone the consideration of these reports to take up the Calendar, all very well. The Chair can have no objection.

Mr. RUSK. I move that these reports be passed over, and that the Senate take up the Calendar.

Mr. GWIN. Some of these cases which have been unfavorably reported upon I desire to test before the Senate.

The question was then taken on the motion to take up the Calendar, and it was decided in the affirmative.

JOHN F. CALLAN.

The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of the bill for the relief of John F. Callan, administrator of Daniel Renner, deceased.

The bill provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to cause the claim of John F. Callan, administrator and surviving partner of Daniel Renner, deceased, arising out of the alleged burning of a rope-walk in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, in the month of August, 1814, to be settled upon principles of justice and equity; provided that in no case the sum shall exceed $6,744.

Mr. BAYARD. I dissented from the views of the committee as to reporting that bill. Before it is sanctioned by the vote of the Senate, I should like to have a former report read. This claim was before the House of Representatives some thirty years ago, and was allowed as to the personal property, but was refused as to the house; and the claim is now made for the real estate. The Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] I believe, has a thorough knowledge of the circumstances of this case. The claim is this: During the last war, wherever the British troops landed and obtained a foothold in this country, their depredations were excessive. The ordinary rules of civilized warfare were put at defiance by them throughout the whole country wherever they went. Claims were made by citizens from all quarters of the country after the peace, for remuneration for their losses. The principle on which these claims should be allowed was established, after much discussion, by acts of Congress passed in 1816 and 1817, and subsequently settled in 1825. This principle involved the propriety of payments to this extent, and no further: that wherever the destruction was made by the enemy contrary to the rules of civilized warfare, Government should not pay the citizens

for their losses, as it was one of those exigencies of war which the citizens must themselves sustain.

In this particular case the claim was based upon this ground: The parties were the owners of a rope-walk in the city of Washington, in which there was a parcel of cordage and a quantity of rope which were destroyed by the enemy, together with the rope-walk, in 1814, when the British took possession of the city of Washington. The claim was allowed by a committee after an adverse report against the whole claim in 1818. A second committee allowed that portion of the claim which applied to personal property, on this ground, that the petitioners had provided the means of removing their personal property out of the city of Washington, and out of the reach of the enemy, and on the distinct ground that the Government took away the wagons they had and appropriated them to its own use. Therefore it is claimed that

Government is liable for the destruction of their personal property. At that day, the claim was never based on any other ground. The claim now made is for the burning of the rope-walk. That could not be removed.

The ground on which I have differed from the majority of the committee, is this: They say the inference is, that the enemy having destroyed the cordage and burned the building with a view to the destruction of the ropes and cordages, it rests upon the Government to show that the rope-walk would have been destroyed if the material, which is called munitions of war, I think, in the report of the committee, had not been there. In my judgment, according to the report of the former committee, there was not the semblance of anything like munitions of war which would authorize the enemy to destroy this property. These parties had a private rope-walk. They may have had contracts with the Government, and they may have supplied the Government with cordage sometimes, but no cordage of the Government was there at that time. That was not the ground on which the claim was made, but simply on the ground that the means of removing their personal property were taken away. Therefore, whether their property was destroyed according to the rules of civilized warfare or not, they claimed they would be entitled to remuneration to the extent to which they were prevented from removing their property on account of loss of their wagons and carts which were taken by the Government.

When a party

The present report of the committee is made somewhat on the ground that these articles were a species of property which the enemy would be justified in destroying, or if not justified in destroying them, it seems reasonable to conclude that the enemy would have destroyed the ropewalk whether this property was in it or not. The argument upon the other side is, that it is for the Government to show that such would have been the result. I think it would not. makes a claim here, he should show that there is sufficient ground to sustain that claim. The Government did not prevent him from removing his rope-walk, because he could not remove it. They have paid him for property which he could have removed, but was prevented from removing by the impressment into the service of the Government of the means of its removal. He now asks payment for that which he could not remove. think the claim ought not to be granted.

I

By turning to the former report of the committee, to which this matter was referred, I think the Senate will be satisfied that the claim ought not to be allowed. On page 442 of "The American State Papers," under the head, "Claims,' we have the following report:

'porting the troops across the Potomac, which were kept in the employment of the Government until after the invasion of the city. On the 20th of August, the petitioners applied 'for the boats according to contract, for the purpose of removing their property, when they were informed that they 'were impressed. It also appears to the committee that on the 22d of August, the petitioners employed a wagon and 'nine or ten carts for the purpose of removing their property; but the wagon and two or three of the carts were impressed by the officers of the Departments to remove the pubile pa'pers and property, and that seven of the carts employed, after taking loads from the rope-walks out of the city, re'fused to return to haul any more for the petitioners, apprehending that, if they did so, they would be impressed into the employinent of the Government. It is also stated and 'believed that, after that day, and before the enemy entered 'the city, carriages were not to be had in the city to remove the property. The loss of the petitioners, exclusive of the price of the rope-walks, is estimated at about $34,800. They ask of Congress to be reimbursed to the amount of

'their loss.

"The committee are of opinion that the Government is ' under no obligation to pay for the property. The destruc 'tion of private property by the enemy, in the progress of the war, is much to be regretted and highly to be deprecated; 'but when it does happen it is to be considered between the 'Government and its citizens as one of the calamities of war. 'It may be presumed that the circumstance of the boats, wagon, and carts being impressed by the Government to 'perform services valuable to it, may create some equitable 'consideration in favor of the petitioners. It is, however, believed by the committee not to be sufficient to authorize 'them to allow the claim. They, therefore, present to the House the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners ought not 'to be granted.""

That was the first report in 1814. The claim was again presented for the loss of the rope-walk, and the report of the committee will be found in the same book, under the date of January 17th, 1817. The report was adverse: "That the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be granted." I think there was a third report made to Congress on the 16th of March, 1818, and the report stated that the petitioners asked for compensation for the real estate, the rope-walk, as well as the persona property. The committee allowed the claim as to the personal property, estimating it at what they conceived to be proper, but reported against the claim as to the rope-walk; and they based their report entirely on the ground of the impresament by the Government of the means of removing their personal property. I will read a part of the

report:

"Your committee are of opinion that the allegations of the petitioners are fully supported by testimony, that the intervention of officers of the Government in wresting from the claimants every description of means provided by them for the removal of their property was the cause of the movable part thereof being destroyed by the enemy. The conduct of the petitioners, at the period aforesaid, suf ficiently shows what was the opinion generally entertained by our citizens, at that day, as to the destruction of private property of this description by the enemy. In this case no claim is set up of military deposit or military occupation, as is the pretext for payment in many other cases where property of a like description was destroyed by the enemy, The claimants seem to have been well aware what would be the fate of their property in case the enemy did invade the city, and made great exertions to save it; and it would not be presuming too much to say that they would have effected that object but for the intervention of the officers of the Government in taking from them the means of doing so.

It is believed that the exertions of the petitioners in pro curing the means to remove their private property, brought within the reach of the officers of the Departments the means whereby records, and documents, and papers of the nation were saved of great value, and ought not to be neg lected for any individual interest, and that the petitioners have a reasonable and just claim on the Government for the removable part of their establishment, consisting of rope, spun yarns, and hemps, deducting therefrom what would reasonably have been the cost of transporting the same to a place of safety, and back to the rope-walk, after the danger ceased, and damage done to the materials by such removal, with, perhaps, some deduction from the prices at which the articles are charged.

"Included in the sum stated of their loss is $5,650, es timated as the value of the rope-walk which your commit tee think ought to be rejected, as the same would have been burnt by the enemy if the materials of cordage and hemp had been removed therefrom. The balance of the claim ($24,767) is stated by the claimant as follows:

[Then come the several items, and the committee thus conclude.]

"Should it be satisfactorily proged that the above quantity of cordage and hemp was destroyed, the committee are of opinion that the latter sum would be no more than a rea sonable compensation; but they have not been able to sat isfy themselves as to the quantity. They, therefore, recom mend the passage of an act authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to pay for whatever quantity may be satisfactorily shown to have been destroyed, not exceeding in amount the above sum of $19,813 60, and for that purpose report a

bill."

That amount was allowed to the petitioners. Having claimed for their personal property at that time, they now claim for the destruction of the real estate, and I wish the Senate to understand that the difference between myself and other ment