heard no one say so. Every one has said that the bill is to be paid. All this declamation about honor is to mean something or nothing. What does it mean? Every one admits the bill is to be paid; but is it incompatible with honor that there should be some party to inquire whether it is reasonable or not? It is simply the bill of a hotel keeper

Mr. DAVIS. If the Senator alludes to me, I will beg to make one remark. I spoke of my own individual feelings, and of those of no other person.

Mr. PRATT. I do not know what was the use of saying it would be dishonorable to do this; and that, if the gentleman had been present and heard this debate, he would have put his hands into his pocket, and paid the bill himself. No man has made the question whether the nation is not to pay the bill-to pay what is right; but still, the question is made, whether there cannot be an inquiry instituted as to the amount of the bill. A hotel keeper has presented a bill to a committee of the Senate, and they say that that bill is to be paid without examination. That is the proposition on one side; and the proposition upon the other side is, that it is not incompatible with honor that we should inquire into the items of that bill-that somebody should inquire-some accounting officer-whether the bill is right or wrong.

Mr. BADGER. My friend from Maryland has fallen into a singular error. The resolution expressly requires that what is to be paid, is to be paid upon the approval of the committee. I believe that is the usual course of the Senate.

Mr. PRATT. We do not differ at all. If this committee is to inquire first into the items of the bill, if they are to be invested with the power of ascertaining the correctness of the bill, I shall be satisfied. But I am not speaking of what that Senator says; I am replying to the argument made. on the other side, which is based on the hypothesis that it is dishonorable to inquire whether the bill is right or wrong, and that it must be paid now.

Mr. SHIELDS. I had not the intention of charging anything like dishonor upon the Senator from Maryland. I only felt that it would be a little wanting in dignity to go into an investigation, in the Senate, of the little items of this bill. I believe he would be the last man to do it. I do not at all mean to impute any wrong motive to the Senator.

Mr. BORLAND. I have not, from the beginning of this discussion, objected to the payment of this bill; nor have I heard any one, as the Senator from Maryland remarked, object to it. I proposed, for the single reason I stated, that the further consideration of the resolution should be postponed; not that I was not prepared to vote upon it, and for the payment of it, now. The Senate having decided that they will not postpone it, I am prepared to vote now. But, sir, I wish to say, in regard to a remark which fell from the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] that I do not understand how it can be considered a small affair, or a very small matter, unworthy to be introduced here. The Senate did positively refuse, upon a substantial proposition, to include any one in the invitation extended to Louis Kossuth but himself, after full discussion on the subject. The proposition having been brought forward to provide for the entertainment of those who were to accompany Kossuth, and it having been rejected, I do not see how the Senator can think it an immaterial, small, or irrelevant matter, to be con.sidered in this connection. It will be recollected, also, that this very proposition was not only made, but carried without opposition, to the objection then made to this business of receiving and entertaining Mr. Kossuth, without the concurrent action of the other House. It was expressly stated by a late Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. FOOTE,] when I made a proposition to include an appropriation for the purpose of paying these expenses, as an objection to that, that its going to the other House as a joint resolution would defeat it. The same apprehension seems to be entertained now. Gentlemen are afraid to trust the other House. They are afraid to send the matter there, as the House might investigate it. I conceive it can be for no other reason. Putting the two circumstances together, it seems to me to make out a case which leaves us ground for the suspicion, at least, that the object of making this appropriation out of the contingent fund of the

Senate is to avoid the discussion which it will undergo in the other House, and the chances of being there defeated. In appropriating money out of the Treasury of the United States for any purpose whatever, I am not for avoiding the investigation of the other House. I think it is right that, not only in a case of this sort, but in every case, such a proposition should undergo the scrutiny of both Houses. The Constitution requires it; former legislation requires it; and, I think, the experience of the country justifies it; and everything adds to the force and propriety of the requirement; and for these reasons I wish to adhere to it.

Mr. BADGER. I wish to say one word to my friend from Arkansas. If the whole House of Representatives were, to a man, opposed to the payment of this bill, it would furnish no reason why it should not be paid, and would not relieve this Senate from their responsibility to pay it. Mr. Kossuth came here, and was received by our committee, acting under our joint resolution; he was by them placed in the quarters which he occupied. He was placed there upon their authority and their responsibility as our representatives; and he had been there, I believe, some ten days before any committee was appointed for the purpose of receiving him by the House. No committee of the House ever joined in the action (by which he was put in those quarters, or assumed any responsibility) on the part of the House for making the compensation. Therefore, say it would be wrong for us to submit this question to the House. What our committee has done, we are bound to see respected and carried through by the power which we possess of doing it. That is the view I take of the

Mr. BORLAND. question.

think the Senator from North Carolina is mistaken. It has been clearly shown by the Senators from Rhode Island [Mr. CLARKE] and Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] that Mr. Kossuth was not invited here, and not received here, and not entertained here upon the invitation of the Senate alone; but by a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress.

NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell. Brooke, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Fish, Hamlin, Jars, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mangum, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Stockton, Sumner, Underwood, and Wade-21.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. MORTON called for the yeas and nays on the resolution; and they were ordered.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I wish to say that I was opposed to this whole proceeding from the beginning. I was opposed to the reception of Louis Kossuth by the Senate. But the Senate having thought proper to treat him as they have done, and to incur the expense, as my friend from Massachusetts has observed, I regard it as a duty on the part of the Senate to pay the bill-just as much so as if a war should be declared by both Houses of Congress, against which I voted, and then a proposition were made to defray all the expenses that might have been incurred by its pros

ecution.

Mr. BORLAND. Before the vote is taken, I desire to say one word. I shall vote against this resolution. Not that I am opposed to paying the bill, but because I do not think this is the proper way of paying it. I vote against the mode, and not against the amount or the proposition to pay.

The yeas and nays being taken on the adoption of the resolution, resulted-yeas 31, nays 6; as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Bradbury, Brodhead, Brooke, Chase, Davis, Dodge of Wiseos. sin, Dodge of lowa, Downs, Fish, Geyer, Hamlin, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, King, McRae, Mangum, Rusk, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soule, Stockton, Sumner, Underwood, Upham, and Wade-31. NAYS-Messrs. Borland, Cass, Clarke, Mason, Mortos,

and Pratt-6.

So the resolution was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS.

Mr. MASON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive business.

Mr. JONES, of lowa. I hope the Senate will not agree to the motion of the Senator from Virginia. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS) has the floor to-day on the lowa land bill. Iun

half an hour; after which time there will be abund ant opportunity to go into Executive session and do what business may be brought before the Sen ate. I hope the motion will not be agreed to. I am confident that the Senator from Michigan will not speak more than half an hour, and then there will be more time left than is usually occupied in Executive session.

Mr. BADGER. There is no sort of inconsist-derstand he does not wish to occupy it more than ency in that. I know there was a joint resolution, somewhat in the French style-The American people give to Louis Kossuth a cordial welcome to the capital and the country." I know that that was so. It was a flourish. But this Senate, before he arrived here, appointed a committee to receive him, without any action of the House; and they placed him in the lodgings where he remained until he left the city.

Mr. SEWARD. That is exactly the fact. No committee had been appointed by the other House when Mr. Kossuth arrived in this city. He was met by us, and taken by us, to the hotel, and received by its keeper upon the contingency of provision being made for the payment of his expenses. And before Kossuth left the city, he offered to pay the expense himself, but was instructed by the committee not to do so.

Mr. BORLAND. I ask for the yeas and nays upon the question of so amending the resolution as to make it a joint resolution.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SOULE. I wish to ascertain distinctly the fact, whether these expenses were incurred under the responsibility of the committee appointed by this body?

Mr. SHIELDS. They were solely and wholly incurred under the responsibility of the committee appointed by the Senate. The committee of the other House had nothing to do with it; in fact, they were not, at the time, appointed.

Mr. SOULE. That being the case, I submit to the Senate, whether, under any circumstances, we can exonerate ourselves from the responsibility accruing out of that fact? As the Senator from North Carolina just now has properly remarked, let us suppose, for a moment, that there be a difficulty in the House about appropriating a sufficient sum of money to satisfy this bill, how would the Senate stand? I cannot hesitate, myself, in the solution of this question. We are bound to pay it; and, being bound to pay it, I shall vote for the resolution as it stands.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, on the adoption of the amendment, resulted-yeas 16, nays 21; as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Borland, Bradbury, Brodhead, Cass, Clarke, Davis, Downs, Geyer, King, McRae, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, and Upham-16.

Mr. CASS. It is a matter of the most perfect indifference to me. I have not much to say, and I have no wish, one way or the other, whether I shall go on now, or at some other time.

Mr. BORLAND. I hope the motion will not be adopted. The Senator from Michigan is willing and prepared to go on to-day, although he says he is indifferent, and would as soon speak some other day. But the interests of this Iowa bill, which has been a long time postponed, call upon the Sen ate with a great deal of force, for consideration, and, if possible, for a vote upon it at this time. I hope, therefore, that as the Senate is now full, and will probably be so for an hour or two to come, and, as the Senator from Michigan does not prapose to occupy the Senate a very long while, his remarks may be heard now; and that, afterwards, we may bring the bill to a vote.

to

Mr. MASON. There is an urgent consideration why the business to be done in Executive session should be transacted at once. Senators who were present yesterday when we went into Executive session, know the propriety of doing 80. I would not ask the Senate to go into Execu tive session, if the Senator from Michigan wished to-day to occupy the floor. But I understand that it is indifferent to him whether or not he goes on to-day. Only a remnant of the day is left, and I think we cannot employ it better than in Executive session.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. It has been heretofore agreed in this body, that we are to come here on Tuesday next prepared on that day to take the vote upon the Iowa land bill. I know there are about four or five Senators who desire to be heard on the bill before the vote is taken. That will necessarily consume the whole of Monday and of Tuesday, and therefore we shall not be able to take the vote on Tuesday at the usual hour of adjournment; and I fear we shall have to sit until late in the evening.

Mr. BADGER. Postpone the taking of the vote until Wednesday next.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. If the Senator from Michigan be permitted to occupy the residue of this day-and he will not speak longer than until ten or fifteen minutes after three o'clock-I am certain we shall then have more time than the Senate usually bestows upon Executive business in any one day. I hope, therefore, that the lowa land bill will not be laid aside.

The PRESIDENT. It is not under consideration. The motion is not to lay it aside, but to proceed to the consideration of Executive busi

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, March 11, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTler.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. FICKLIN. I desire the unanimous consent of the House, to make the necessary motion in order to get at the bill providing for prosecuting the work on the extension of the Capitol. I think the better mode of effecting that object is, with the consent of my friend from Tennessee, [Mr. JoHNSON,] to move to postpone the further consideraion of the special order in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union till this day week, or this day two weeks. Then we can not only dispose of the bill providing for the prosecution of the work on the Capitol, but proceed to consider the deficiency bill, about which the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means seems so anxious. it meet with the approbation of the House, therefore, I will move that the further consideration of the special order in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, be postponed till this day week.

If

The SPEAKER. That can only be reached regularly, by discharging the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

A VOICE. It can be passed over by unanimous

consent.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that it can be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I will acquiesce in the proposition of the gentleman, if it meet the universal approbation of the House. As far as the homestead bill is concerned, I am satisfied that everything is to be gained by delay. At the same time I do not want to press the discussion of this matter upon the House. If it is the wish of the House that this bill shall go over till next Tuesday week, I shall not interpose any objection.

Mr. FICKLIN. I will then vary my motion as to time, so that the further consideration of this special order shall be postponed till next Tuesday week.

Mr AVERETT. I hope the opponents of the measure, which is now the special order, (the homestead bill,) will be allowed to take part in its discussion. Hitherto, nearly all of the speaking has been on one side-in favor of the measure. The motion to cut short the discussion yesterday, was coupled with the threat that those who should vote against that motion, were to be held responsible for delaying the public business. Now, the truth is, that most of our time in committee has been consumed in speeches to unmake and make Presidents-and in other matters wholly irrelevant to the special order.

The SPEAKER. By the unanimous consent of the House the bill can be made to take the direction proposed.

Mr. MARSHALL, of California. I object to the postponement.

Mr. CARTTER. I would inquire whether the gentleman from California [Mr. MARSHALL] will not still retain the floor in committee, if the postponement should be agreed upon.

He will

The SPEAKER. Not necessarily. be entitled to it when the committee shall recur to the measure upon which he obtained the floor. His right to the floor will go over with the bill. A MEMBER. The floor will be given the gentleman from California as a matter of courtesy.

Mr. MARSHALL. If it is the understanding that I shall have the floor after the House resolves

itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I will withdraw my objection. Mr. CARTTER. I renew it.

Mr. FICKLIN. With the consent of gentlemen, I will modify my motion, so that it shall not apply until after to-day. It will then provide that after to-day the further consideration of the special order in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union shall be postponed until a week from next Tuesday. It will then take its place as the special order again.

Mr. CARTTER. I have no objection to that. All I desire is, that the gentleman from California shall be allowed to make his speech to-day.

Mr. MEACHAM. Gentlemen tell me that if I will withdraw my objection to the resolution, there is some prospect we shall get to the public business, and for a time put a stop to these political speeches. I will withdraw my objection.

Accordingly, by general consent, the further consideration of the order was postponed, after to day, until Tuesday week.

Mr. CARTTER. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The motion was agreed to.

HOMESTEAD BILL.

ments.

Mr. STANTON. At the suggestion of several gentlemen around me, I will withdraw my objec

tion.

Mr. MEACHAM. I renew it.

CLOSE OF DEBATE ON HOMESTEAD BILL. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state what is the regular order of business. The following resolution was offered yesterday by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY:]

"Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the bill of the House No. 7, to encourage agriculture, commerce, inanufactures, and other branches of industry, by granting to every man who is the head of a family and a citizen of the United States, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land, out of the public domain, upon condition of occupancy and cultiva tion of the same for the period herein specified, shall cease at three o'clock on Thursday, the 11th instant; and if the committee shall not come to a conclusion sooner upon the same, it shall then proceed to vote upon such amendments as shall be pending or offered to the same, and shall then report it to the House, with such amendinents as may have been agreed upon by the committee."

The question immediately pending is the proposition of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] to lay the resolution upon the table, and upon that motion the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. It will be seen from the various motions which have been made, that the friends of that measure propose to do any thing reasonable in relation to this matter. I trust, therefore, that the House will vote down this resolution to close debate.

Mr. McMULLIN. I beg leave to say one word upon this question.

The SPEAKER. It can only be done by unanimous consent.

It was objected to.

The question was then taken on the motion to lay on the table, and the result was-yeas 121, nays 39; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Ashe, Averett, Babcock,

Thomas H. Bayly, Bartlett, Bell, Bragg, Breckinridge, Brenton, Albert G. Brown, George H. Brown, Buell, Burrows, Busby, Joseph Cable, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Chandler, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Clark, Clingman, Cobb, Colcock, Conger, Cullom, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dimmick, Disney, Dunham, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Floyd, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gaylord, Giddings, Gilmore, Gorman, Green, Grey, Grow, Hamilton, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris. Hascall, Henn, Hibbard, Thomas M. Howe, Thomas Y, How, Ives, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Letcher, Edward C. Marshall, Mason, McCorkle, McDonald, McLanahan, MeMullin, McNair, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Orr, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Penn, Penniman, Polk, Porter, Price, Richardson, Schoonmaker, Scudder, Scurry, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Smith, Snow, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abr'm P. Stevens, Alexander H. Stephens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stratton, Stuart, Sutherland, Thurston, Townshend, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welsh, Addison White, Alexander White, Wilcox, Wildrick, Williams, and Woodward-121.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Barrere, Bibighaus, John H.

Boyd, Briggs, Brooks, E. Carrington Cabell, Cleveland, Dockery, Doty, Evans, Faulkner, Gentry, Hall. Haws, Haven, Hendricks, Howard, Jackson, James Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, George G. King, Lockhart, Meacham, John Moore, Morehead, Outlaw, Peaslee, Perkins, Ross, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Wallace, Walsh, and Wells -39.

So the resolution was laid on the table. Mr. FICKLIN. I understand my friend from Vermont [Mr. MEACHAM] will now withdraw his objection to postpone the special order in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. I therefore renew the motion.

granting to every man, &c., one hundred and sixty acres of land.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. MARSHALL] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL, of California, addressed the House an hour (in remarks which have been withheld for revision, and which will be published in the Appendix) in reply to the remarks made yesterday by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE] upon the subject of American progress, and the Presidency, and in defense of Judge DOUGLAS.

Mr. M. having concluded

Mr. BELL next obtained the floor, and addressed the House his allotted hour in regard to the disposition of the public domain, the rights of all the States therein, the expansion of American commerce, and the tariff.

[His remarks, withheld for revision, will be published in the Appendix.]

Mr. CABLE, of Ohio, obtaining the floorMr. McMULLIN. If the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CABLE] will give way, I will move that the committee now rise.

Mr. CABLE. I will yield to that motion alone, still retaining my right to the floor.

Mr. WALSH. We can get at the bill in regard to the Capitol, if the committee rise, and at once, by unanimous consent, pass it. I ask for tellers upon the motion.

Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. CHANDLER, and HARRIS of Alabama, were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 39; noes not counted.

So the committee refused to rise.

Mr. COBB. I desire to make an announcement, if the gentleman from Ohio will allow me; I never wish to take the House by surprise. I have but one report to make, and that is a bill to graduate and reduce the price of public lands. That question I consider to be twin sister with the one we have now under discussion. I give notice that I shall move to put that bill upon its passage, and I shall resist everything like a reference, so the matter may be discussed in connection with the other.

Mr. CABLE, of Ohio, followed, and spoke an hour in favor of the bill under consideration. He thought that its adeption would do more for the interest and welfare of this Government, more for the happiness and prosperity of the people, than any bill that had ever passed the House.

[See Appendix for Mr. C's speech.]

Mr. FÜLLER, of Maine, obtained the floor. Mr. FOWLER. I move, with the permission of the gentleman, that the committee rise; which motion was agreed to.

The committee rose accordingly, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly the special order, being House bill No. 7, to encourage agriculture, and for other purposes, and had come to no conclusion thereon.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I move the House adjourn.

Mr. WALSH. I would request of the gentleman a withdrawal of his motion, that we may pass the bill for the renewal of the work upon the extension of the Capitol. We can withdraw the bill from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union by unanimous consent.

Mr. MARSHALL refused to withdraw the motion.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. FLORENCE: The memorial of R. G. Simpson, Thomas H. Warain, Samuel G. Hamilton, Samuel Laf ferty, Oliver S. Cominan, and 65 others, citizens of the County of Philadelphia, praying for the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

Also, a letter from George B. Sloat, of the county of Philadelphia, in relation to the same subject, informing that more than 3,700 names have been signed to petitions and forwarded by him and J. R. Wilson, also of Philadelphia county, in favor of the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

By Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York: Two remonstrances of inhabitants of Reusselaer county, New York, against the extension of the Woodworth patent.

Also, a remonstrance of sundry citizens of Troy, New York, against the same.

Also, nine petitions from numerous citizens in Schenectady, Mechanicsville, Waterford. Saratoga Springs, Fort Ann, Smith's Basin, and Troy, New York, and from Castleton, Vermont, praying that Whitehall, on Lake Champlain, be made a port of entry.

By Mr. WILDRICK: The petition of J. E. Pierson and 78 others of Still Water, Sussex county, New Jersey, against the extension of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. PARKER, of Pennsylvania: The remonstrance of Jolin R. Weeks and 58 others, citizens of Mithin county, Pennsylvania, against the extension of the Woodwortli patent by Congress.

By Mr. ROBBINS: The petition of Henry Lyons and 35 others, citizens of Philadelphia county, in favor of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. MASON: The memorial of J. S. Perry and others, citizens of Kentucky, praying Congress to grant a protection on iron.

Also, the memorial of J. Buckley and others, citizens of Kentucky, praying Congress to grant a protection on iron.

By Mr. CONGER: The petition of J. K. Rugg and 38 others, citizens of Genesee county, Michigan, in favor of Cyprian Parrish, a soldier of the Revolution, for arrears of

ruary, that Senator reported the bill which I now hold in my hand. The matter, as originally presented to the Committee on Commerce, embraced the subject of steam-boilers, life-boats, pumps, and other apparatus connected with our steam-boats. On a subsequent day to that on which the original papers were presented to the committee, my colleague [Mr. BRADBURY] introduced a resolution, calling the attention of the Committee on Commerce to another branch connected with the matter to which the bill originally related, to wit: to the subject of the distresses and calamities which grew out of our overburdened boats from New York to California, and from California to New York. On the presentation of that resolution, and of other papers and memorials relating to the same subject, the committee immediately gave the subject a consideration. This bill, to which I have referred, was reported on the 18th day of February, and contains certain provisions designed to remedy the evils complained of in relation to California steamers. After the Senator from Massachusetts had reported the bill, there were two other papers referred to the Committee on Commerce, relating to the California steamers. On the first day of March, by the direction of the Committee on Commerce, I submitted the following report:

"Mr. HAMLIN, from the Committee on Commerce, to which was referred documents relating to the treatment of passengers in steam-vessels going to and from California, and a memorial from the citizens of Brunswick, Maine, on the same subject, submitted a report asking to be discharged from the further consideration of the same; which was agreed to."

Now, if the reporters had stated what I stated in my place, this explanation on my part would not have been necessary. I stated that I made the

amount, to wit, $56 66 per year, with accompanying testimony and exhibits.

By Mr. BIBIGHAUS: The remonstrance of James Hazelton, William Kerr, William K. Mehaffey, and 150 other citizens of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. WILCOX: The petition of William Hulbert and others, citizens of the State of Mississippi, praying that said Hulbert may be refunded the sum of $99 41, which he has twice paid for the west half of the northwest quarter of section fifteen and township sixteen, of range nine, east.

By Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts: The petition of James Lyman and others, citizens of Massachusetts, praying that Woodworth's patent be not extended.

Also, the petition of Eleazer Porter and others, citizens of Massachusetts, praying for additional pay to assistant marshals employed in taking the census.

By Mr. MILLER: The memorial signed by 70 citizens of Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the extension of Woodworth's patent.

By Mr. PRICE: The memorial of P. K. Dickinson & Co., of Wilmington, North Carolina, against the extension of the patent of William W. Woodworth.

By Mr. ROBIE: The remonstrance of Ira Tracy and 200 others, citizens of Alleghany county, New York, against the extension of the Woodworth patent.

On motion by Mr. SCUDDER, under the rule, the petitions of Joseph H. Davis and others, and the accompanying papers relating to the seamen engaged in the whale fishery and the erection of a marine hospital at New Bedford, Massachusetts, were taken from the files and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

IN SENATE. FRIDAY, March 12, 1852. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. Mr. HAMLIN. I have risen for the purpose of asking the unanimous consent of the Senate, to do what I believe I have never before done. It is to occupy a few moments in addressing it upon a subject before the body, relating to the action of the Committee on Commerce, and somewhat personal to myself. I think I will not occupy more than fifteen or twenty minutes of the time of the Senate; and I desire unanimous consent for that purpose.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator can only address the Senate on a subject not now pending, by unanimous consent. If there be no objection the Senator from Maine can proceed.

There was no objection.

a bill embracing the subject-matter contained in these papers. But the reporters did not make the explanation which I gave in my place, consequently I find that the Legislature of the State of Maine, justly alarmed that no action was to be taken by Congress in relation to that question, have agitated the question. I find that public meetings in New England have been called, and all predicated upon a mistaken fact, to wit: That the Committee on Commerce have asked leave to be discharged from the consideration of the subject. It simply asked to be discharged from the consideration of those two papers; and the reason which I gave would have been sufficient, if it had been stated, namely: that the subject-matter had already been reported upon. And besides that, and subsequent to this brief report which I made, asking to be discharged from the consideration of these two papers, I may say that I have been overwhelmed with letters from all parts of New England, from which section of country many of our people are going to the distant region of California; and I have sought this occasion to make this explanation, in order that it may be known-first, that the Committee on Commerce have neither been remiss or derelict in its duty; and, secondly, that in making the report, I only sought to be discharged from these two papers, because the subject had been reported upon.

One word further. Because the bill is a voluminous one, I desire to state very briefly what are the provisions in it which we have incorporated, with the desire to cure the evil which has been so much complained of. In the first place, the bill provides that there shall be appointed by the President two inspectors; one to be called Inspector of Steam-Boilers, and one to be called Inspector of Hulls. This bill provides that this Board of Inspectors shall examine the character of the vessel, of its hull and its construction, and shall designate precisely the number of passengers, beyond which the boat shall not be allowed to carry; and these inspectors, after having made such an examination, are to issue a certificate, to the owners of the boat, which certificate is to be printed, and to be put up in some public and conspicuous place in the boat, showing the number of passengers beyond which the boat shall not be allowed to carry. In the opinion of the committee, very much of the evils complained of arise from the great number of passengers taken on board.

It has been suggested that the same rule which applies to our sailing vessels shall apply to our steam-vessels. The matter received the consideration of the committee. I have received this morning a letter from a very intelligent, and scien

tific, and educated gentleman in Maine, who urges upon our consideration the importance of making the same provisions that apply to our sailing ves sels apply to our steam-boats. But when it is known that the construction of our steam-boats varies so much from that of our sailing vessels, it will be seen that the superficial number of feet, or the number of square feet necessary for a pas senger in the one case, would not be an adequate or proper rule for the other case. It was believed, and it is believed by your committee, that by the appointment of a skillful man to inspect the boat and its construction, he would better determine the number than any rule which the committee could fix, based on the number either of superficial or square feet.

It is also proposed by the committee when this bill shall come up for consideration, to add another section to it, with ample and sufficient penalties, which shall compel the owners of the boats to have a sufficient quantity of food, and of sufficient quality. Both of these provisions, when incorporated into a bill, in the opinion of your committee, will meet very nearly all the objections, and cure all the calamities which are said to be o casioned. The Senator from Massachusetts wil offer such an amendment.

Then, sir, in addition to that, the bill provides, that for a violation of the provisions to which I have alluded, the owners and the master of a vessel shall be liable in a penalty equal to the amount of the passage money, and ten dollars additional for every passenger they shall take on board the boat beyond the number specified in the certificate. The bill also provides, that all the penalties attached in such case shall attach to the boat, and the boat shall be held to respond to all the damages which shall arise in relation to any violation of the provision of the bill relating to passen gers. The bill was drawn up by the Senator from Massachusetts, and I am bound to say that he has manifested great industry and signal ability. And I think that when carefully examined by the Senate, it will be very certain to meet its approval. It does meet mine, and will receive my hearty concurrence. If there are any additional provis ions which should be deemed necessary, in rea tion to the ventilation of these boats, or of any other description, I can only say, that there is a concurrent sentiment existing in the Committee on Commerce, to add all necessary provisions to meet all the evils that may be found to exist in the case.

The bill is a very important one, and one in which a deep interest is taken by the public. The calamities and evils complained of are indeed startling, and I can state, the committee are fully im pressed with its importance. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS,] who has it in charge, will ask for its consideration at the earliest prac ticable moment.

Mr. BRADBURY. I desire simply to add that I have received numerous communications, founded upon the same misapplication to which allusion has been made, from different parts of my State. The explanation which my colleague has given, will remove, I think, all misapprehensions on the subject. I desire to add, that I am very glad to learn that it is in contemplation by the Committee on Commerce to propose an amendment to the bill already reported, imposing severe penalties for the neglect to provide sufficient and suitable food for passengers. I hope the bill will be taken up at an early day, and receive prompt consider ation. I believe that the Senate will be satisfied, from a detail of the facts, that greater and more horrid abuses have never been inflicted on civil ized men, than are continually practiced, even at the present day, upon large numbers of passen gers in some of the steamers plying between the Atlantic ports and California.

SPECIAL ORDER-PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. RHETT. I move to postpone the execu tion of the order setting apart Fridays for the consideration of private bills, for half an hour. The motion was not agreed to.

to take up reports in the first instance. Last Friday the Senate determined not to act upon the reports, but to proceed to the consideration of the bills on the Private Calendar. The Chair will be under the direction of the Senate as respects that matter. If they prefer that the bills shall be taken up, to the exclusion of the reports made on private bills by committees, the Chair will take that

course.

Mr. BADGER. I hope we will proceed, as we did last Friday, with the Calendar. The bills which we pass have to go to the House of Representatives. The adverse reports can be agreed to at any time, and there is an end of them.

Mr. BAYARD. The effect may be that the adverse reports will never be agreed to. Such a result is not uncommon, if they are passed over in that way. It will take but a short time, probably not half an hour, to go through the whole of them.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to proceed according to the rules of the Senate.

Mr. BADGER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the private bills on the Calendar.

The motion was agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.

The bill for the relief of Thomas H. Leggett, the bill for the relief of Ira Day of Vermont, and the bill for the relief of John W. Simonton, coming up for consideration, were postponed until next Friday.

ELIJAH J. WEED.

The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of the bill for the relief of the securities of Elijah J. Weed, late quartermaster of Marines, deceased, which was read a second time. It was reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs, and provides that the accounting officers of the Treasury Department be authorized to reexamine and settle the accounts of Major Elijah J. Weed, late quartermaster of Marines, deceased, in conformity with the law and with usages of the Navy Department; provided, that the allowance made shall not exceed the balance now claimed by the Government from his sureties.

At the request of Mr. BORLAND, the report in the case was read; from which it appears that the subject was referred to the committee on the petition of John S. Devlin, administrator of the late Quartermaster Weed. Major Weed died in March, 1838,

In

indebted to the Government, and the petitioner, as his administrator, seeks, as an offset to the balance of the claim, with the view to relieve his sureties, an allowance of one per cent. upon certain disbursements made by him between 1835 and the date of his death. He asks a reexamination of the accounts of the deceased officer for the purpose of having certain items, which were rejected on a former settling, now passed to his credit. support of his claim for a percentage upon the disbursements, the memorialist alleges, that for some years naval officers disbursed appropriations for the marine corps and received a percentage therefor; that that was abandoned and the duty thrown upon the quartermasters; that they were allowed one per cent. upon the moneys disbursed; that that percentage was allowed Major Weed from 1832 to 1835, when it was refused under a proviso of the act of 1835, in relation to the Delaware breakwater, which proviso had been pronounced by the Attorney General to be permanent, under which opinion the Secretary of War abolished extra compensations, not authorized by law, to the officers of the Army; that this proviso was afterwards declared by the Supreme Court to be applicable only to appropriations made during the Congress at which the act was passed, but that they also decided that the order issued under an erroneous conception of the law was valid. He argues that the usages of the War Department do not regulate those of the Navy Department, which alone has the control of the marine corps. But the petitioner is mistaken in his allegation that the accounting officers of the Treasury withheld the percentage on the order of the head of the War Department. The facts in connection with the disallowance of this commission are stated by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury. The marine corps, being but a small body, was not allowed a commissary on subsistence or purchases, but the Secretary of the Navy required the quartermaster

to perform certain duties which would have belonged to such officers had they existed. He was also charged with the superintendence of the marine armory, for which he received $150 per annum; and for his services in regard to the subsistence he was allowed $30 a month, and on his purchases of marine clothing a commission of one per cent. This commission, however, was not granted until the year 1826 or 1827. On the 30th of June, 1834, an act was passed reorganizing the marine corps. The account of Quartermaster Weed, of the fourth quarter of 1834, for extra compensation as commissary of subsistence, for pay as superintendent of the armory, and for the commission of one per cent., were referred to the Secretary of the Navy, who refused to allow them, because he considered them as inadmissible under the act of June 30, 1834. It was not, therefore, under the order of the War Department that the allowance was refused by the accounting officers of the Treasury. The committee are clearly of the opinion that the accounting officers were bound to conform to the order of the head of the Department, and they, therefore, properly rejected the claim for percentage. The committee further express the opinion, that it would not be expedient at this time, after the lapse of eighteen years, of the head of the Navy Department, made in the to recommend to Congress to review the decision undoubted exercise of a discretionary power belonging to him. They are of the opinion that the

claim for commissions from 1834 to the death of Major Weed should not be allowed. With regard to some other items that were rejected by the accounting officers, and which the petitioner asks may be settled upon just and equitable principles, the committee know no principles but those prescribed by law and the regulations of the Department upon which they can recommend their settlement. In this case, they believe that law is equity. They are unwilling to commit the accounts to the arbitrary and uncontrolled notions of equity and justice which the accounting officers of the Treasury may entertain; but believing that the estate of the deceased may be entitled to an allowance on some items which have been rejected, they report a bill for the relief the petitioner and recommend its passage.

form which will exclude a just and proper allow.

ance.

The amendment was not agreed to. The bill was then reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

NANCY WRIGHT.

The bill for the relief of Nancy Wright was read a second time.

It provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall place upon the pension list the name of Nancy Wright, widow of James Wright, late engineer on board the United States steamer McLean, who died from disease contracted in the naval service of the United States, and pay her the same pension that she would have been entitled to receive had her late husband been commissioned as an engineer in the United States naval service; the pension to commence on the 23d day of December, 1850, and continue during her life.

The bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and there being no amendment offered, it was reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

ROBERT JEMISON AND BENJ. WILLIAMSON. The bill for the relief of Robert Jemison and Benjamin Williamson was read a second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole.

It proposes to authorize the Postmaster General to pay Robert Jemison and Benjamin Williamson the same amount of remuneration for carrying the United States mail during twenty-six weeks, in the year 1836, on route No. 2,696, from Selma to Elyton, Alabama, as the original contractors for said route would have been entitled to receive under the terms of their contract.

Mr. RUSK. This bill has passed the Senate two or three times, and it will save the time of the Senate, perhaps, if the reading of the report is omitted, as I can state briefly the substance of it. These parties were contractors for carrying the mail on a particular route. When the Creek war broke out, they were subjected to increased expense and service in carrying the mail; and they now apply to Congress to remunerate them for this extra service, as well as for service in carry

opening these accounts for their adjustment. I propose, as an amendment, for the purpose of making the bill specific, that it may carry out the purpose indicated in the report of the committee, to add to the end of the bill the words, "nor shall any allowance be made for commissions on disbursements."

Mr. FISH. I am not aware that there can be any objection to that amendment; but it strikes me as wholly unnecessary. The provision which the committee have introduced, wherein it varies from bills previously reported on this subject, has been by striking out the authority given by these bills to accounting officers to settle upon principles of equity. In this bill the committee direct that the amount shall be settled in conformity with the law and regulations of the Navy Department. These usages and these regulations are set forth at length in the report which has been read, and upon which the claim for commission has already been rejected.

Mr. BRADBURY. It will not prejudice the bill in the least, and probably may facilitate its passage.

Mr. BORLAND. I shall vote against the amendment, because it is wholly unnecessary. I think the bill provides all that is necessary. Under the regulations of the Department, this very claim that this amendment proposes to execute, has been rejected. The regulations of the Department are recounted in the report. They are required to settle according to law and under the regulations of the Department, which it has been shown do exclude precisely such allowance as this amendment rejects.

Mr. BADGER. I think the amendment ought not to be adopted. It is an unnecessary amendment in one aspect; and may be mischievous in another. The object of the bill is to have the accounts settled in equity and justice. Now, there may be some technical rule or regulation in the

consequence of the failure on the part of the contractors to comply with their contract. Congress passed a law authorizing the payment of the claim for extra service, but the Postmaster General felt obliged, by the terms of the law, to restrict the payment to the extra services which were performed on their own route, in consequence of the Creek disturbances. Under that decision, they received nothing for the service on the other route.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

NATHANIEL KUYKENDALL.

A bill for the relief of Nathaniel Kuykendall was read a second time, and considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill provides that the Postmaster General be authorized and directed to pay, from the revenues of the Post Office Department, to Nathaniel Kuykendall, the sum of $5,701 50, in full satisfaction of all claims on his part for extra services and expenses in carrying the mail on route No. 1932, from Romney to Clarksburg, in Virginia, for four years and a half, commencing in the year 1839, he having conveyed the mail in four-horse post-coaches and three trips a week, and having received pay only for carrying the mail in twohorse stages two trips a week; that sum being to compensate him for this additional service.

Mr. RUSK. I can, perhaps, state the circumstances of this case in fewer words than are contained in the report.

Mr. BADGER. There will be no objection to it. It is all right.

Mr. RUSK. I know that it is all right; the man has done the service, and I think he ought to be paid for it. However, as there may be objections, it may be as well to state that in this case there were three routes making a continuous line of stages. The bids were received to carry the mail in two-horse coaches and in four-hourse coaches. This party, I believe, bid for both, but he got only the central route; and his bid was accepted for two-horse coaches. Other bids were made for four-horse coaches for the other portions of the

route, and were accepted. Part of his contract was that he should carry all the passengers which came by way of either of the end routes; and from the number of passengers, and the weight of the mails, it was sometimes found that he could carry neither with a two-horse coach. Under these circumstances he used four-horse coaches and carried the mail during the whole length of time. Now, the others were entitled to and received pay for the higher grade of service, and he performed the same service, and ought to be paid at the same

rate.

Mr. BAYARD. I regret to say that I cannot assent to the passage of this bill. It seems to me objectionable in principle. The ground on which I oppose the bill is this: the party contracted with the Post Office Department, or the managers of the mail service. After making that contract, and under the circumstances stated by the Senator from Texas, he made an application for an alteration of the contract, which the Department declined; and in defiance of that determination on the part of the Department, he chose to go on and carry passengers just as if he had made his contract for fourhorse coaches. Now, I cannot consent to the principle which would thus be established-that where a contract is made with the Postmaster General, (who is the proper party to make such contracts,) and an application is made to change that contract, which he refuses to do, the party, on the application of citizens and others, goes on to perform his contract in a manner different from that implied by its terms. I say that, although such a violation of contract may in some instances be beneficial to the citizens of the neighborhood, the contractor, after the extent of his contract has been fully determined, should not come in and claim that compensation to which he would only be entitled if the Postmaster General had made an alteration. I think the principle involved here is an unsound one, and therefore I must vote against this bill.

Mr PRATT. We have in this part of the Chamber the misfortune of not being able to hear the remarks of the Senator from Delaware, and very possibly he has stated objections to the passage of this bill which have occurred to my mind; but in consequence of his location, we have not heard his observations.

As I understand the explanation of my friend from Texas in reference to this bill, the case is this: Proposals were issued by the Post Office Department for carrying the mail on three routes which were continuous. Different proposals were made upon the different routes, and the Postmaster General granted the applications for the two routes at the termini for carrying the mail in four-horse post coaches; and each contractor was to carry all the passengers. A portion between the two extremes was left to a contractor who contracted to carry the mail and passengers in two-horse coaches. The party found it impracticable to carry out his contract with two-horse coaches, and was consequently obliged to put upon this intermediate route four-horse coaches, and the result is, that he now makes his application outside of his contract, to be paid for doing no service except that which he contracted to do at a stipulated price. If I understand my friend from Texas, it does appear to me that these parties are not entitled to the compensation which they ask.

Mr. RUSK. Perhaps it may be as well to read the report of the committee, since objections have been made to the passage of the bill. It has already passed the Senate two or three times, and been very fully discussed here on one or two occasions. But I will read the report of the committee, that the Senate may see what it is:

"The petitioner was a contractor in 1839 for carrying the mail on route No. 1,932, in Virginia, from Romney to Clarksburg, and carried the mail for four years and a half at a rate of compensation of $2,000 per annum, being the price stipulated to be paid for conveying the mail in two-horse stages, two trips a week and back. But he actually carried the mail in four horse post coaches three trips a week and back, and in one day and a half, instead of two and a half days, which was the schedule under his contract. For the employment of four-horse coaches, instead of two-horse stages, and for one additional trip weekly, and the increased speed, he claims an additional compensation, which he estimates at about $8,000 for the whole term of his contract. facts that the petitioner carried the mail in four-horse post coaches, and that he made three trips a week, and with increased speed, are satisfactorily proved. It also appears that the additional horses and the additional trip increased the tolls on the route about fifty per cent., being nearly $500 per annum.

The

"This additional service was not expressly authorized by the Department, but the circumstances which induced

him to perform it are such as he claims authorized a belief that he should be paid for it, or afford a reasonable ground of equity entitling him to compensation. These circumstances are as follow: At the lettings in 1839, the mail from Winchester to Parkersburg, on the Ohio river, consisting of three routes, was advertised for bids in two-horse stages and in four-horse coaches; and when the bids were considered, the Department accepted the proposals for fourhorse service on the eastern and western divisions of the route; but on the middle division, for which the petitioner was the bidder, it accepted the proposals for two horse service; but at the same time expressly reserved the right to change it to four-horse service, and represented to the contractor that it would be so changed as soon as the revenues of the Department would admit of it. It was a part of the contract that the contractor was to convey with the mail the passengers who came in the stage conveying the mail, at the points of connection-that is, Romney aud Clarksburg. The contract having been accepted for the lower grade of service in the middle division of the route only, the petitioner found that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to perform the same service, both in the conveyance of the mail and passengers, with two horses which the contractors on the east and west ends of the route would

perform with four horses. Some of the postmasters and citizens on the route, perceiving his difficulty, interested themselves in the matter, and endeavored to relieve him from the embarrassments of his contract. At the request of the citizens of Marietta, the postmaster of that place went with the petitioner to Washington to see the Postmaster General on the subject, before the time for commencing the service, to induce him to order four horse service, in conformity with the other divisions of the route. The Postmaster General declined then to order the higher grade of service, but gave encouragement that it might be ordered soon.

"Under these circumstances, and with the advice of the citizens on the route, the petitioner was induced to stock the route for tour-horse coach service, and to commence carrying the mail in that way, expecting soon to receive authority for this change in his service. He continued to transport the mail in tour-horse coaches, and to make three instead of two trips a week during the whole term of his contract, which was known to the Department; but it did not order the higher grade of service, nor notify the contractor that he must not expect to be paid for the additional service he was rendering. Since the expiration of the petitioner's contract, the whole of this route has been let for four-horse coach service, whilst the mails are not increased beyond what they were during the preceding contract.

"The question in the case seems to be, whether the circumstances under which this additional service was performed were such as to afford a reasonable ground of equity for compensating the petitioner for the same. And the committee are of opinion that they do afford such equitable ground, and they therefore report a bill for his relief. But they do not adopt, as the rate of compensation, the actual charges claimed by the petitioner, but the difference between the sum he received and the sum since paid for the higher grade of service, with an additional trip weekly, on the sanie route. This is $1,267 per annum, making for the four years and a half the sum of $5,701 50, which they think ought to be paid to the petitioner, and they report a bill accordingly."

Now, sir, if that report does not show a clear case of equity, it is difficult for me to conceive what would do it. I do not design to go into certain circumstances which are in the testimony with regard to the management of the mails about the time this contract was made. Here is a contract made on the two ends of the continuous line, for carrying the same mail and the same passengers; and the intermediate route was accepted at a lower grade of service, and the extreme ones at a higher grade.

Mr. BADGER. Will my friend from Texas permit me to ask whether this bill was reported unanimously by the committee?

Mr. RUSK. It was; and it has passed the Senate two or three times.

Mr. BAYARD. It is said that the Postmaster General reserved the right to change the contract, but he did not so change it, representing however that it would be so changed. Now, I would ask the Senator from Texas whether the evidence of that representation arises from the ex parte affidavit of the individual who contracted or from any written acknowledgment of the proper officer of the Government?

Mr. RUSK. It came from the gentleman who comes here laboring under these difficulties. The other parties at each end of the road had fourhorse coaches, and the Postmaster General told him that he would so arrange the line that he should have no more trouble among the pas

middle division, for which the petitioner was the bidder, it accepted the proposals for two horse service; but at the same time expressly reserved the right to change it to fo horse service, and represented to the contractor that g would be so changed as soon as the revenues of the D partment would admit of it. It was a part of the contra that the contractor was to convey with the mail the passes gers who came in the stage conveying the mail, at te points of connection-that is, Romney and Clarksbur The contract having been accepted for the lower graef service in the middle division of the route only, the p tioner found that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to perform the same service, both in the conveyance of the mail and passengers with two horses, which the cotractors on the east and west ends of the route would per form with four horses. Some of the postmasters and citize on the route, perceiving his difficulty, interested themselves in the matter, and endeavored to relieve him from the barrassments of his contract. At the request of the citizens of Marietta, the postmaster of that place went with the petitioner to Washington to see the Postinaster Genera the subject, before the time for commencing the service, induce him to order four horse service, in conformity # the other divisions of the route. The Postmaster Gen ra! declined then to order the higher grade of service, but gave encouragement that it might be ordered soon.”

Now, I presume that there is no written eridence of any such encouragement held out. I would ask if there is any letter from the Depart ment giving that encouragement to the petitioner If not, I would be unwilling that any verbal dec laration being made by a witness should gors show that the contract should be different. Ith the principle is a dangerous one, and I am therefore opposed to it.

Nor, sir, can I assent to the doctrines advanced by the distinguished Senator from North Carol na-that because a bill has been reported by a committee we should pass it quiescently and with out investigation. Wherever I can see a principle in a bill which is wrong, I shall go into an investi gation of the matter, and shall at all times fee my duty to oppose such a measure.

Mr. BADGER. I did not intend to lay down any principle on this subject at all. I'merely meant to state a rule by which I should regulate my own conduct. Every other gentleman will reg ulate himself by his own notions; but when a case of a private bill comes up which has been reported unanimously by the committee in favor of grant ing relief to the claimant, and particularly when, in addition to that fact, on two former occasions, the Senate have passed bills in conformity wi that report, I, for one, will not undertake to enter into any reinvestigation of the matter.

My friend from Delaware may have (and ne doubt justly) a higher confidence in his capacity to enter into an examination of the decisions of & committee or of the Senate than I can have, and having that confidence, it is all right and proper that he should investigate the matter; but 1, not having that confidence that I can better investigate the subject than the committee or the Senate, and this being a private claim, I certainly cannot pu my vote against a bill which comes here thus recommended to me.

Mr. BAYARD. The Senator from North Car olina is the best judge of his own course of actica regarding matters coming before this body, and I must be the judge of what is best in my own case.

Mr. BADGER. Certainly. That is right.

Mr. BAYARD. Though he may suppose i 18 somewhat presumptuous in me to question anterior decisions of the Senate, because a bill has formerly been passed, I must say that, in my judgment, if the views of the Senator were cal ried out, the corruptions that would exist in this Government would be limitless.

Mr. BADGER. Very likely they might. We have heard a great deal about these corruptions in past times, but take it altogether, I think things have gone on pretty well, and these bills have been comfortably got along with.

Mr. MASON. This is a claim brought by man whom I have known for many years, and a more respectable, worthy, and honest man cannot be found. He contracted for several years to carry the mail, and his failure to receive the compensa tion due to him for the service has now broken bia down, and he is a bankrupt. I do not mean to adduce this as adding to the merit of the case, but I do not doubt the fact will commend itself to the kind

report says:

"At the lettings in 1839, the mail from Winchester to

my friend from Delaware, [Mr. BAYARD.] Now, as one of a committee who investigated

sonal interest I took in this gentleman, I examined the subject with great care, and I am prepared to say this to the Senate, that this service was un