Mr. PRATT. The objection of my friend from California is, that we have no calendar printed. Now, I do not know that we can learn from the calendar anything about the character of a bill, or the propriety of its passage. Bills are upon our tables as well as the reports of committees, and I suppose that the reading of these reports will give the principle upon which the committees have reported. From these reports we may judge, but certainly not from the calendar. I do not think the reason assigned by my honorable friend is such as to make it necessary that we should postpone this matter. It is now the first time within three years that the Senate of the United States have made an effort to devote one day in the week to doing justice to daimants against this Government; and this very first day that we propose to consider these claims, a motion is made to postpone their consideration because there is no calendar ready. I hope we shall show the whole country that we are determined, upon this day, to devote ourselves to the passage or rejection of as many of these bills as we can dispose of.

The PRESIDENT. There is no motion now before the Senate.

Mr. GWIN. Then I will make the motion that the order of the Senate, in relation to private claims, be postponed, in order to proceed to the consideration of the resolution in relation to the printing of the returns of the Seventh Census.

Mr. BRADBURY. I certainly am not disposed to interpose any objection to the consideration of private claims, whenever we are in a situation to examine them. I was in favor, and am still in favor, of the rule which was adopted, setting apart a particular day for their consideration. On a former occasion I gave my reason for favoring that rule, which was, that by this regulation we might have our attention particularly directed to the consideration of cases of that character. By an examination of the calendar we could ascertain what cases were to come up, and then, by a reference to the reports upon these cases, we should understand something of their merits. I do not agree with the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. PRATT,] that the calendar is of no service; on the contrary, I regard it as highly important. We all know that there is such a multiplicity of business presented to the consideration of the Senate, that we resolve ourselves into a sort of chanBery court to consider private claims-a work which we are almost incompetent properly to perform; that there is such a large number of these elims, that it is impossible to investigate everything; but by a reference to the calendar, we can give our special attention to the cases which are first to come up on the day set apart for their consideration. I am, therefore, inclined to favor the motion of the Senator from California, to postpone the execution of this order till Friday next. We can probably have a calendar by that time, and have an opportunity to look into the cases which are to come up, and do justice to honest claimants, while at the same time we scrutinize all those cases which may be of a doubtful char

acter.

Mr. BAYARD. The Senate, some time back, adopted a rule the object of which was to facilitate the transaction of business of a certain character. Now if we are to repudiate that rule on the grounds which have been urged to-day, it will be just as liable to be repudiated on other grounds which may be urged on other occasions. If we do not now adhere to this rule which was adopted by the Senate after much discussion, we might as well abandon it altogether. I confess I am unable to see the force of the argument in relation to having a printed calendar. I presume that the bills relating to private claims stand in their order upon the regular calendar of the Senate, and there can be no difficulty in taking them up in the order in which they there stand. You take them up on other days in that order; and there is no reason now, when you have excluded other business from being disposed of on this day, that I can discover, nor any want of sufficient means of obtaining the necessary information so as to act upon the private bills which have been brought into the Senate and reported upon. I am decidedly in favor of any system which, as far as practicable, tends to subdivide and appropriate to particular times particular classes of labor. For this reason I think that this reversing of a former order of the Senate, deliberately made, and that, too, on the very first

claims. If we had a calendar we could examine the bills as they would have to come up in their order. I doubt whether the Committee of Claims will ever report a bill which I shall vote against, because they are close in their investigations. But at the same time it is the duty of the officers of the Senate to furnish a calendar, in order that we may know the business of the session. We ask for the reading of reports simply because these reports are not in the recollection of any Senators except, perhaps, those who made them; and I have asked that we may have a calendar, on the ground that we would make much greater progress on this day week than we would on to-day and this day week together without a calendar. There are a great many bills of this kind, and I am as anxious to have them considered and disposed of as any Senator can be. Now there is a question which has been discussed by the Senate at great length, and which might probably be disposed of to-day I mean the question in regard to the printing of the Seventh Census; and there is another question which the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. DowNS] has been waiting from day to day to discuss. Either of these questions might be brought up disposed of while the Senate is getting ready to dispose of these private claims. I made the motion with no other object than to facilitate the business of the Senate, because I want these bills out of the way as soon as possible.

and

Mr. WADE. Will it be in order to move to lay the motion offered by the Senator from California on the table?

The PRESIDENT. It will be in order. Mr. WADE. I fear that we shall not make much progress with anything if we go on in this way; and I therefore move to lay the motion on the

table.

Mr. PRATT. I wish to say only a single word, and perhaps the Senator from Ohio will oblige me by withdrawing that motion for a few

moments.

Mr. WADE. I withdraw it.

Mr. PRATT. We have now occupied nearly half an hour

Mr. GWIN. Oh no; only ten minutes.

Mr. PRATT. Very well. Ten minutes, then, we have occupied in discussing the question suggested by the Senator from California. Now, the last argument of that Senator is, that if we do not act upon these private bills to-day, but postpone our action until Friday next, we shall do more on that day than we should do both to-day and next Friday, when the calendar will be ready.

Mr. GWIN. So I think; that is, on the supposition that we have no calendar before us.

Mr. PRATT. But the argument proceeds on the supposition that a calendar will be prepared by next Friday; and then, that if we do not act upon these claims to-day, we can do more on Friday next than we can do on both days together. Now, I cannot see the force of that argument. If the question is to be taken on the motion of the Senator from California, I desire that we may have the yeas and nays, so that the country may see whether Senators are willing to postpone action further in reference to claims of this character. The Senator has remarked that he does not know that the committee will ever report a bill for which he will not vote. The inclination is rather to protect the Government than the individual. I think the reverse should be the case, and that where an individual presents a prima facie case of an honest claim, they investigate it with all the scrutiny they can give.

Mr. GWIN. I withdraw the motion.
Mr. PRATT. Very well, sir.

CASE OF WILLIAM P. GREEN.

The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of a bill for the relief of William P. Green.

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. President, I beg leave to say to the Senate, that at the last session that bill was passed by the Senate without a dissenting voice. The bill is founded on a claim for services performed by him under an appointment as an officer of this Government. In 1849 he received

as measurer of salt, and that appointment was sanctioned by the Secretary of the Treasury. It was afterwards ascertained by the Secretary that the two offices of surveyor of customs and measurer of salt were incompatible. The duties of the two offices were performed by him, and though he would have received the ordinary fees, amounting to but little more than three hundred dollars, the Secretary of the Treasury was obliged to disallow them. The collector had no other recourse than to apply to Congress for relief. I suppose the circumstances are all well understood, and I presume there will be no objection on the part of any member to the passage of the bill.

The bill was then reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

CASE OF JOHN A. M'GAW.

The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of a bill for the relief of John A. McGaw.

Mr. HAMLIN. This bill received the favorable action of the Senate last year, and I believe the unanimous vote of the Senate, after a slight discussion upon it. If there be any necessity for few remarks will place the matter distinctly before an explanation after the reading of the report, a

the Senate.

The bill was designed to pay to McGaw the sum of $1,400 for demurrage-$100 a day for fourteen days, while his vessel was detained at Vera Cruz, by the default of the agents of the United States.

The report was accordingly read. There being no proposition to amend the bill, it was reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

REPRESENTATIVE OF WM. A. SLACUM.

The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the bill for the relief of the personal representative of Wm. A. Slacum.

The bill enacts that the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be authorized to settle and adjust the accounts of the late Wm. A. Slacum, and pay his personal representative, in addition to what Mr. Slacum received in his lifetime, his charges for expenses incurred in visiting the Columbia river in pursuance of the direction of the Secretary of State, in the years 1836 and 37, provided that the amount allowed for such expenses shall not exceed the sum of $712 90; and also to pay his said representative for services rendered to the United States by Mr. Slacum on that mission, at the rate of six dollars per diem, commencing the first day of June, 1836, and continuing to the 15th day of March, 1837, provided, however, that the amount of pay received by Mr. Siacum, as purser in the Navy of the United States, during the period of time embraced in the above dates, be deducted from the amount of said per diem allowance.

Mr. MANGUM. I suppose that no explanation of this case is necessary. If any gentleman requires it, I will call for the reading of the report of the committee. That bill has passed the Senate three or four times, after a very full examination by the late Mr. Sevier, who was at the head of the Committee on Foreign Relations; and I think it was reported with entire unanimity.

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

ELIZABETH Arnold.

The bill for the relief of Elizabeth Arnold was read a second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole.

It provides that the Secretary of the Interior be directed to place upon the pension list the name of Elizabeth Arnold, only child of Jonathan Pitcher, a lieutenant in the Navy during the revolutionary war, and pay her during her life twenty dollars per month, to commence December 20, 1851.

Mr. BRODHEAD called for the reading of the report of the Committee on Pensions.

The report was read accordingly, from which it appears that Elizabeth Arnold is the only child of Jonathan Pitcher, of Pawtuxet, in Rhode Island, who was appointed by Congress a lieutenant in the Navy on the 22d of December, 1775, and who rendered highly important services to

the country during the revolutionary war; that she is now eighty-three years old; and that in view of the facts before the committee, they have deemed it proper to report a bill for her relief.

Mr. FELCH. I would inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Pensions, what principle is involved in the bill; whether by passing it we shall not be extending pensions to a class of cases which have never been recognized by us heretofore; and whether there are any special circumstances which require a departure from the rule?

Mr. CLARKE. If the chairman of the Committee on Pensions will allow me to state the peculiar circumstances of this case, I will do so. On the 22d of December, 1775, more than six months before the Declaration of Independence by Congress, it is known that a naval force was fitted out in this country, which went upon a cruise and finally took possession of the Island of New Providence, and brought to the country a large amount of the. munitions of war. That naval force was fitted out in the waters of Rhode Island; and I may be allowed to say that in my own veins runs the blood of one of its commanders. A selection was made of the most able, experienced, and gallant men that could be found to officer the vessels of the force. Small as those vessels were, imperfectly fitted as they were, the most gallant men that could be selected were got to command them. Among the appointments made—and it is upon the very earliest record of your Government-was that of Jonathan Pitcher, a man whom I myself knew, and who had the universal reputation of being one of the most gallant, patriotic, and daring men that had entered into the service of the country, either on sea or on land. He was one of those men who did not look for his pecuniary reward from the Government. He went into the service from a warm and earnest zeal to sustain the Declaration which had been made by his country. He continued in the service as long as the naval force was sustained by the United States; and in that, as well as in the privateering service, did his whole duty to annoy and destroy the commerce of the enemy. While he was in France, and lieutenant on board the ship Providence, which was commanded by John Paul Jones, Dr. Franklin, I believe, after John Paul Jones had concluded, on account of some other engagement, to leave the vessel, put it under his command to bring it back to the United States. Perhaps in the Navy there might have been found a more accomplished man-he was rough, but honest; perhaps there might have been a more accomplished gentleman, but there was not one who entered into it more zealously, and did more effective service. He made no claims against his Government. He lived and died in an humble situation. He always said that his services were offered to his country, because of love to it and to liberty. He asked no pension for himself, nor any, during his life, for any one connected with him. During the last year, this aged daughter of his, who is his only surviving child, at the advanced age of eighty-three, came to me, and stated to me her totally destitute situation. She bad nothing whatever but the recollection of the debt that was due from her country to her father, who so gallantly exposed himself in defence of its liberties, and she did hope that the Congress of the United States would give her this little pittance, which would make her comfortable for the remaining days allotted to her here. That is the situation of this lady; aged and infirm as she is, she cannot long be a tax to this Government, or to any one else in this world. She is now perfectly destitute; and if the services of her father, during the revolutionary war, do not entitle her to this small recompense from this Government and country, which has now grown so strong and rich, I know not what appeal can be made either to our justice or sensibilities. There is the whole case, sir. If any objection can possibly be made to this allowance, I shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. FELCH. I have no doubt of the statement made by the Senator from Rhode Island upon this subject, both as to the meritorious services of the father of this applicant and her poverty. I asked the question of the chairman of the committee which has been answered by the Senator from Rhode Island, What is the principle involved in this bill? Now, I have no objection to going as far as any one in providing liberally for those

officers and soldiers who have served in the various wars in which this country has been engaged; but it seems to me that this bill is adopting an entirely new principle, which has never been applied either in the naval pensions or in the army. Naval pensions commenced about the year 1800, when a special fund was set apart for the purpose of paying them. Various laws, very liberal-so liberal as to have absorbed that fund, as I understand have been passed at various times, naming the different classes of individuals who were to receive them; but there was never a law passed which embraces a case of this kind. All the provisions which have been passed embracing widows and children, only apply to those cases in which the father or husband died in the service, or of wounds or disease incurred in it. That is not this case. This would be a departure from the established rule. None of the laws which embrace widows and children have gone so far as this. They embrace, in most instances, the widows, or where they embrace children, it is only those who are minors; and then they are, most of them, for five years and for children less than sixteen years of age. The question now is, are we prepared to depart from the established rule? If we are prepared to depart from it in this instance, I am prepared to act upon a general bill to depart from it in all cases. This is, no doubt, a meritorious case. There can scarcely be any cases arising from the revolutionary war that can be characterized in any other manner than as highly meritorious. If we are to adopt this principle, I am prepared to act upon a proposition of that kind; I am prepared to go for it if it is advisable and right to do so; but I am not prepared to single out this individual case and apply it to it.

We had this same principle proposed here in regard to army pensions at the last session of Congress--a principle to extend it to children, and carry it beyond the provisions of the laws. It was first presented in the way of a general provision, or law, adopting that principle as a general provision. I had the curiosity-and I did it in the performance of what I considered my duty-to inquire at the Pension Office to see how far that principle led. I ascertained that, if it was carried out, we should adopt a provision which would require us to pay something like half a million of dollars from the Treasury. I take it that almost every man who looked at that bill without making inquiry, would have felt astonished, as I did, if he had traced it out in the same manner, and found it to involve a principle of so much importance. And now, before we adopt the principle here in regard to navy pensions, I am disposed to look into the matter, at least so far as to call attention to the principle which we are adopting, and ask that, if we adopt it, we may do it by a general provision of law, and not by a special provision in an individual case.

Mr. CLARKE. I certainly have no disposition to follow the honorable Senator through his remarks about a principle of which we have heard a great deal lately. But he asks, upon what principle is this bill to be passed? simply answer, upon the principle of humanity.

Mr. MANGUM. And justice. Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir, and justice, too; I thank my friend for his suggestion.

Mr. BORLAND. And national gratitude. Mr. CLARKE. Justice to an old and faithful revolutionary servant, who has left this daughter, his only posterity, in a destitute situation. That is the principle, and you never need fear that the Congress of the United States will be swayed from its propriety by such a principle too often or to too great an extent. The Senator, in speaking of the bills which have heretofore been passed, says that they were confined either to the individual who performed the service, to his widow, or to his children who were not above sixteen years of age. I simply answer the gentleman, that this poor old lady has arrived at her second childhood. I can conceive of no stronger appeal to present to the Senate of the United States than to ask this pittance for this poor old decrepit lady, who is suffering from paralysis and has nothing to support her-a lady who is the only surviving child of one of the bravest men who ever trod the quarter deck of a ship of the United States, whether in the revolutionary or any other war. She, herself, destitute as she is, reluctantly asks this small pittance from her country as evidence

of its appreciation of the services of her father. I trust the Senate of the United States will no refuse the request.

Mr. BRADBURY. After the appeal which has been made by the honorable Senator from Rhode Island to the sympathies of the Senate, I feel, certainly, very great reluctance to the interposing of any objection to the bill now under consideration. But I do regard it as a bill involv. ing a principle of very great importance. If we pass it, we not only open the door, but we take it from its hinges; we declare that we will grant pensions to the children of all those who served in our revolutionary struggle for almost every individual who engaged in that struggle, whether he acted in the capacity of an officer or private, performed services of the most meritorous character. It is now proposed to take an insulated case and pension a surviving child. I know no reason why, if we do this, we should not do it in every other case; and if we proceed in this manner we shall soon have one half of the country pensioned upon the Government. I regret, as I said at the commencement, to interpose any objection to the bill after the remarks of the honorable Senator from Rhode Island; but I am not prepared to vote for a bill upon the principles of humanity alone, for I think that we cannot as legislators justify ourselves in acting upon that principle. We must have some principle beyond that of general benevolence, because we are not sent here to dispense alms. I hope that a bill of so much importance will receive the attentive consideration of the Senate, and with a view of having an opportunity of further considering it, I will move that it lie upon the table, in order that it may be called up again after we have considered it further. I do not make this motion for the purpose of having a test vote, but simply to give further time for an examination of the bill.

Mr. CLARKE. Will the honorable Senator do me the favor to withdraw that motion?

Mr. BRADBURY. Certainly, if the Senator will renew it.

Mr. CLARKE. I would merely say that this is one of those cases in which any delay is denial. We all know how long it would take to get through the other House. Once more I will say, that if her father, who served his country so faithfully and so well, had been living, he would have been entitled to a pension. That father has died and left this his only child, whose only inheritance is her father's good nåme, his blood, and the claim he had upon his country; and upon this she asks for a slight pittance to ease her lot, which will not be long upon earth. I have no more to say, but renew, according to my promise, the motion to lay the bill on the table.

The motion was not agreed to-there being on a division, 17 yeas and 17 nays.

Mr. PRATT. I would like to have the yeas and nays on that bill. The effect of the bill, as I understand it, will be to extend the pension laws to the children of deceased soldiers or officers. Now, sir, I can readily comprehend the results if the Senate are disposed to act upon the principle avowed by my friend from Rhode Island, [Mr. CLARKE.] They did act upon it the other day with reference to the widow of General Worth. If I had voted affirmatively on that occasion, I should vote now with my friend from Rhode Island. But having voted against that proposition, and looking upon it as a matter of principle involving a large amount of money, I ask the yeas and nays, that we may see who are disposed to extend the pension laws as far as the principle of this bill does.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment; and the yeas and nays were ordered upon the question of ordering it to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. BORLAND. Before the vote is taken, I desire to say one word in favor of the bill. I have often heard it said upon this floor, that the passage of a bill of this sort established a principle which would require us to extend the pension laws. I do not think that that follows as a consequence at all. It is not true, in fact, that we, by a bill of this sort, determine to extend the benefits of the pension laws to all the children of persons who have served the country in the Army or Navy in the revolutionary war, or any of the wars in which we have been engaged. It simply provides for the application of the benefits of this

man.

law to one child of one worthy and distinguished The propriety of doing so depends upon the merit of the particular case, and involves no principle that requires us to go beyond cases that are equally meritorious. I make these remarks in reference to this particular case. I made the same in regard to the case of Mrs. Worth, which has been referred to; and I do not hesitate to say, that whenever any case equally as meritorious as the case of Mrs. Worth, or this case, is presented to the Senate, I shall be prepared to vote for it. I think not only that correct principles of legislation authorize and require us to do so, but that every consideration of humanity and national gratitude requires it.

I am prepared to go even further. I am prepared to go as far as it is said the principle of this bill would carry us. I do not think it would carry us to the extent which has been stated; but whenever a proposition is made to carry it to that extent, I am prepared to go for it. As long as I have a seat on this floor, I will vote to take care of the destitute widows and orphans of those who have devoted their lives to the service of their country, and especially of those who have died in consequence of their devotion to the interests of the country.

Mr. CASS. Before I vote upon this question, I desire to ask a question. I did not listen attentively to what was said, and should like to know if the person for whose services the pension is asked died during the revolutionary war?

A SENATOR. He did not.

Mr. CASS., He did not die in the service, I understand. Of course this petitioner, his child, must be of a very advanced age.

Mr. CLARKE. If the honorable Senator will allow me, I will answer his question, whether the father of the petitioner died in the service. He did not. He received for his service in the revolutionary army his pay in what was called Continental money. But it is not upon that that this poor lady rests her appeal for aid. Under the circumstance it was her father's good fortune, perhaps, that he did not die in the service of his country; but it would seem as if it were her misfortune.

The question being taken by yeas and nays on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, resulted as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Berrien, Borland, Clarke, Cooper, Davis, Douglas, Fish, James, Jones of Iowa, Mangum, Miller, Morton, Seward, Smith, Upham, and Wade-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Bradbury, Brodhead, Cass, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Tech, Geyer, Gwin, Hamlin, Hunter, Jones of Tennessee, King McRea, Mallory, Norris, Pratt, Spruance, Sumner, Underwood, Walker, and Whitcomb-24.

So the bill was rejected.

MRS. MARGARET HETZEL.

The bill for the relief of Mrs. Margaret Hetzel, widow and administratrix of A. R. Hetzel, late assistant quartermaster in the Army of the United States, was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole.

It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be thereby authorized to allow and pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs. Margaret Hetzel, widow and administratrix of A. R. Hetzel, late assistant quartermaster in the Army of the United States, the sum of $12,988 74, being the amount claimed by him in the account rendered by him for a part of the third quarter of the year 1838, and which was disallowed at the Treasury.

Mr. BRADBURY called for the reading of the report of the Committee on Military Affairs; which was accordingly read.

It appears from the report that A. R. Hetzel died on the 20th of July, 1847, at Louisville, Kentucky, after most laborious service at the city of Vera Cruz, Mexico-leaving a wife and three children to mourn his loss. He served in the Quartermaster's Department more than twelve years previous to his death. He disbursed large sums of money. His accounts were all settled at the Treasury. In an account rendered by the deceased for part of the third quarter of 1838, there appeared this item: "Percentage on disbursements on account of the appropriation for preventing and suppressing Indian hostilities from the 4th day of July, 1836, to the 30th of September, 1838, on $519,549 60 at 21 per cent., amounting to $12,988 74." That duty was entirely disconnected from the regular quar

ful as any committee of the Senate, in relation to public expenditures. All who were here during the last session of Congress will recollect the gentleman who was then Senator from Mississippi [Mr. DAVIS.] It then passed with scarcely a dissenting voice, and went to the House of Representatives, and was there lost in consequence of the failure of the House to act on private bills. It is founded in justice and equity. There can be no objection to it except an indisposition to pass any claim, and the only reason why such indisposition can exist is a want of a thorough knowledge of the subject.

By the act of 3d March, 1839, claims of this character were not thereafter to be allowed. This cut off this claim. But the committee think that that law ought not to apply to a case where the extra service was previously rendered.

The report is accompanied by certificates from Major General Scott and Major General Wool, as to the good character of Mr. Hetzel and the value of his services to the Government.

Mr. HUNTER. If I understand the case it is this: This quartermaster discharged service that belonged to his office, only he had a little more duty than usual. But that was a contingency he had a right to expect when he accepted office. I believe we have long ago decided, by the passage of a law to that effect, that we will not give double pay to an officer who merely discharges the duties required by the service. It seems to me that this is contrary to law.

Mr. DAWSON. Mr. President, in the absence of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, with whom this bill originated, I beg to state, that the services of this officer were rendered prior to the passage of the law prohibiting extra pay being allowed to officers for services performed while in the discharge of their duty, and that this is the only case of the kind now remaining. The reason why two successive committees, of which I have been a member, have reported the bill unanimously-for it was reported last year by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. DAVIS,] no longer a member of this body-is this, $800,000 was sent to the Cherokee nation to aid in the emigration of the Indians. The whole of the money was placed in the hands of Captain Hetzel. It was beyond his duty; he was under no obligation to receive it and take care of it. The money was placed in his hands by General Scott. He took care of it, and, as General Scott says, he was held responsible for the amount. He had to employ various persons to disburse the money in various sections of the Cherokee country. He discharged the duty to the entire satisfaction of the Government. This was all done prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1839. When he returned, he went to the accounting officer and paid up every single dollar, claiming this amount of two and a half per centum for the expenditure. Under these circumstances the accounting officer said he had no power to make the allowance. Instead of holding on to the money, as officers did previous to the passage of the act of 1839, he paid every dollar into the Treasury, and laid his claim before Congress. Since the period of the application, the Military Committee has twice, to my own knowledge, unanimously authorized the reporting

of this bill.

If there ever was a claim in which extra compensation ought to be allowed, this is one of them. And surely General Scott and General Wool would never have given the certificates which have been read unless the facts were as stated. Why, there are hundreds of precedents prior to the 3d of March, 1839, precisely in point. But for the act of 1839 the auditing officer would have allowed this sum. That act was passed before Mr. Hetzel's accounts were settled; but the extra services were rendered prior to the passage of the act. The act was to operate prospectively and not retroactively.

This case is sustained by precedent. It is in violation of no principle of policy settled prior to 1839. If the judgment of the Committee on Military Affairs be worth anything, this bill ought to be passed, for the committee was unanimous in its favor. I believe it is as economical and care

I would never have consented to the bill being reported if I did not believe it just and proper that the money should be paid. No lawyer or agent of any character would have discharged the services which Mr. Hetzel performed, so honorably and settled so punctually, without being entitled to compensation, and none who would not have asked it. He has asked, and his widow now asks for it, in conformity with the established usage of the government down to 1839. As was stated by the Senator from Mississippi last year, this is the only remaining case of the kind, and it is due to a meritorious, honorable, and worthy man. It is not upon principles of humanity that this is asked. It is a matter of justice and equity. I have nothing more to say.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, I recollect perfectly well the discussion that took place at the time this subject was up at the last session, and I recollect the grounds on which this bill was passed. It then seemed to me, and it now seems to me, that it is reasonable. I had something to say when I was a member of the House of Representatives on the subject of cutting off all these extra allowances, and a bill, if I recollect rightly, was passed in 1839-it was a part of some appropriation bill-we had to get it into an appropriation bill-suppressing all these allowances. The in practice before the passage of that bill was, settling the accounts of officers, to make these allowances. Congress determined to put an end to that system forever; therefore, for the purpose of accomplishing that object, they amended one of the appropriation bills, so as to cut off these extra allowances from officers of the Army. This service of Mr. Hetzel had been rendered before the passage of that act; and if he had been treated like all other paymasters, this commission would have been allowed.

The reason why this bill passed with the unanimity with which it did when it was up before Congress was, that Congress wished to mete out to him the same allowances, by this bill, which had been made to others similarly situated. He could not get the allowances by virtue of the act of 1839, which cut him off before the settlement of his accounts, although the service had been rendered before. That is my recollection of the whole

matter.

Mr. DAWSON. He paid over every dollar to the Government.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Perhaps that fact ought to be remarked. When Mr. Hetzel settled his accounts, as the Senator has remarked, he claimed the allowances usually made to paymasters; but this law which had been passed in 1839, according to the construction of the Department, prevented his receiving it, and instead of holding on to the percentage and allowing the Government to sue him, he paid over every dollar, percentage and all, and said he would resort to Congress, and see if they would not treat him precisely as all other paymasters had been treated. I think his punctuality and promptness in settling his accounts, instead of operating against him, ought to operate for him.

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

GENERAL ROGER JONES.

The bill for the relief of Adjutant General Roger Jones was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill enacts that the accounts of Adjutant General Roger Jones shall be settled by the accounting officers of the Treasury on principles of equity and justice, and in such manner as to allow him the pay and emoluments of Adjutant General from the time of the reduction of the Army in

1821, to March 7, 1835, when he was restored to his rank and commission in the staff of the Army, the pay and emoluments of captain of artillery which he received during the same period being first deducted therefrom.

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

REPRESENTATIVES OF JOSEPH WATSON.

The bill for the relief of the representatives of Joseph Watson, deceased, was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole.

It enacts that the Solicitor of the Treasury shall be authorized and directed to cause to be executed, on the part of the United States, a full release and acquittance of the claims of the United States against Joseph Watson, as one of the sureties of Henry Ashton, late Marshal of the District of Columbia, and that the property in the city of Washington, at present held in trust as security for the payment of said claim, be reconveyed to his legal representatives free from such incumbrance.

The report of the Committee on Indian Affairs was read.

It appears from it, that the claim in question has been before Congress for many years, and reports for and against it have been made. The services of Joseph Watson, for which his representatives ask compensation, were rendered and sanctioned by the head of the territorial government of Michigan. But these services were performed without any provision of law regulating their compensation. The difficulty appears to have been to ascertain the exact amount of remuneration for them. The services seem to have extended from the year 1806 to 1812, making six years, during which Joseph Watson performed, when required to do so, the duties of superintendent and storekeeper, for which he received no remuneration. In view of the difficulty referred to, the committee being desirous to do justice between the Government and the claimant, deemed it proper to offset his claim, against a claim of the Government against him as one of the sureties of Henry Ashton, late Marshal of the District of Columbia. It appears from an extract from the docket of the Solicitor of the Treasury, annexed to the report, that at the November term in 1849, a verdict was rendered in the United States District Court in the

District of Columbia, in the case of James Williams, one of the six sureties of Henry Ashton, for $8,150. It further appears, from the letter of the chief clerk in the office of the Solicitor annexed to the report, that in 1842 the representatives of Joseph Watson made an arrangement with the Secretary of the Treasury, whereby his indebtedness to the United States, as one of the sureties of Henry Ashton, was secured to the satisfaction of the Government. The debt thus secured amounted to $1,375, for which a deed of trust on real estate in this city was conveyed to the Government. It appears that of the appropriations made for the contingent expenses of the Territory of Michigan, from the year 1806 to the year 1812, there remained in the Treasury on the first of January, 1813, a balance of $1,050. No part of that appropriation appears to have been paid, on account of the Indian Department or to Joseph Watson. Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the liability on the part of Joseph Watson had its origin, and the fact admitted on all sides that the services for which compensation is at present demanded were actually rendered, but not paid for, while this balance of $1,050 for the contingent expenses for the Territory of Michigan, nearly the amount of said liability, remained in the Treasury, the committee deemed it just that one should be regarded as an offset against the other. The committee gave evidence showing the value of the service, and concluded with the recommendation that the bill should be passed.

Mr. BRADBURY. I would like to hear the bill read again. I wish to see, if we undertake by this bill to discharge one of the sureties, how far it is to operate on the others.

Mr. BRODHEAD. It will discharge them all. Mr. RUSK. It would generally release them all; but if the honorable Senator had attended to the reading of the report he would have perceived that an arrangement was entered into between the Government and the sureties by which each became

surety for his own proportion. These representatives of Joseph Watson became sureties for their proportion; and to secure it they granted to the Government a deed of trust. The bill will not go any further.

Mr. BRADBURY. The explanation is sufficient. I was unable to hear the report when read. I was unable to ascertain the facts of the case; but as I understand the Senator from Texas, the petitioner performed services which may be offset against his liability as surety.

Mr. RUSK. Mr. President, some two or three sessions ago, I investigated this case, and made this report. At the last session, on a full investigation, this bill passed the Senate by a large majority. There is a mass of testimony in the case which has been collected by the representatives of Joseph Watson, deceased. He has long since deceased. His representatives are females, and it was with considerable difficulty that they could collect this testimony. This judgment of the United States against them is levied upon, and in fact secured by the only property which they have; when, if the claim had been pursued at the right time, there would have been absolutely due by the Government of the United States to Joseph Watson's representatives a larger sum, I have not the slightest doubt. A difficulty with this case is, that it has lain over for a number of years. The investigation showed that he performed these services that under one appointment he performed the services pertaining to one or two other appointments. The testimony goes on to show further, that in a critical time on the northwestern frontier his services were invaluable.

There is a circumstance alluded to in the report which is strong presumptive evidence that the Government at that time intended to pay him for these additional services. In the annual appropriation for that Department there remains unexpended upwards of $1,000-almost the amount asked to be released. The testimony is ample and full that he was a faithful officer; that he discharged those duties over and above those properly pertaining to his appointment, and that those duties accrued to the interests of the country. Now, under such circumstances, with a very doubtful claim against him, created by his generosity towards his friend, amounting to about $1,300, the question is, will the Government of the United States, on such a showing as this, and when, I have no doubt, if the claim had been pursued in proper time, it would have been a much larger amount, as a hard-hearted creditor enforce this judgment against his heirs, and turn them out of the last vestige of property that they have?

Mr. BRADBURY. The Senator from Texas has stated a fact on which this case may well rest. He says the evidence was satisfactory to the committee that the petitioner had a claim for services equal to the amount of the liability-a claim that was equitable and just. That is satisfactory to my mind, and I withdraw all opposition to the bill. The bill was reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

MRS. DADE.

The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the bill for the relief of Mrs. A. M. Dade, widow of the late Major F. L. Dade, of the United States Army. It enacts that the Secretary of the Interior be directed to place the name of Mrs. A. M. Dade, widow of Major F. L. Dade, deceased, late of the United States Army, on the pension roll from and after the 18th of December, 1848, for and during her natural life, at the same rate of pension she has heretofore received.

Mr. MORTON. That bill, as its title imports, is for the relief of the widow of the late Major Dade, of the United States Army. Major Dade fell at the commencement of the Seminole war, in Florida, in the year 1835. He fell in that battle which is known in the history of that war as "Dade's Massacre," when he and all his command, save two, were massacred by the Seminoles. This bill passed the Senate during the last Congress without any opposition. It went to the House of Representatives, and there shared the fate of all bills of that character. I hope it will be the pleasure of the Senate, without any further comments on my part, to pass the bill with the same unanimity they passed it at the last Con

gress.

The bill was reported to the Senate without

amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

ALLEN G. JOHNSTON.

The bill for the relief of Allen G. Johnston was consider it as in Committee of the Whole. read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to

shall be authorized and directed to cause to be paid It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury to Allen G. Johnston, of the State of Florida, the value of certain subsistence stores turned over by militia at the time he was mustered out of service, him as captain of a company of Florida mounted on the 6th of January, 1840, to J. B. Collins, quartermaster in the service of the United States, but not credited to him by said Collins in his return to the Treasury Department; the amount so paid not to exceed the sum of $123 63. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

RICHARD CHANEY AND OTHERS. The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the

Whole, to consider the bill for the relief of Richard

Chaney and others.

It enacts that the land officers for the district of Fairfield, in Iowa, shall be thereby authorized to examine into and adjudicate, on their own merits, subject to the revision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the claims under the preemption act of June 19, 1834, to the lands on which the towns of Fort Madison and Burlington, in Iowa, are situated, under instructions that have been or may be prescribed in relation thereto, and independent of the appropriations made of these land's for town sites, by the acts of July 2, 1836, and of March 3, 1837. If the said land officers shall decide that any of the said claims would have been good and valid under said preemption laws and instructions, if the lands covered by said claims shall be appropriated, they shall proceed, under the instruction of the General Land Office, to ascertain from disinterested testimony the value of the lands covered by such claims at the time the claimants were deprived of them by their appropriation for town sites, and also the value of any lot or lots, if there be such, purchased by such claimants under the acts of July 2, 1836, and March 3, 1837, as aforesaid; all which they shall certify to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. And it further enacts, that if the Commissioner of the General Land Office shall be sat

isfied, by sufficient evidence, of the correctness of the decisions of the land officers and the value of the lands, he shall deduct therefrom the value of said lands at $1 25 per acre, and also the value of any and all lands, if such there be, in either of the said towns purchased by any of the said claimants, under the acts of July 2, 1836, and March 3, 1837, and pay the balance to the claimants or their legal representatives, in certificates of location, at the rate of $1 25 per acre, which shall be located on any unsettled or unimproved lands within Fairfied district: provided that previous to such certificate being located the claimants, or their legal representatives, shall file with the land office a relinquishment of all right, title, and interest, in and to all the lands on which the said towns are situated; and provided, further, that no claim shall be adjudicated under the provisions of the act, which shall not be presented within six months after its passage; nor shall any certificates eighteen months after the passage of the act. be located which shall not be presented within

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

RUFUS DWINELL.

The bill for the relief of Rufus Dwinell was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole.

It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to cause to be paid to Rufus Dwinell the sum of $13,037 72, with interest from March 4, 1837; the sum to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. HUNTER called for the reading of the report of the Committee on the Post Office and

Post Roads; and it was read.

It appears that in the year 1837, James Thomas, of the State of Maine, entered into a contract with the Postmaster General for carrying a dailymail between certain points therein specified, which

contract was to remain in force for four years from the time of its date. Subsequently, in consequence of the embarrassed condition of the Post Office Department, the service was reduced to tri-weekly, and for several months of the year there was no service whatever, with a view to a reduction in the expenses of the Post Office Department. The contractor had made all his arrangements for a daily transportation of the mails, and for that purpose had obtained the best carriages and horses. It was necessary for him, when the change was made, to keep on the road a full force half employed, or to sell his stock at a great loss at a season when that description of property was not in demand. Under these circumstances, the contractor felt himself bound to be in readiness to adhere to the terms of his original contract. He presented his account to the Department as if the service had been rendered. The Post Office Department paid him more than they would have paid for the reduced service, amounting to $919 31 additional. Colonel Thomas, the contractor, requested that suit might be brought against him for the balance claimed to be due, and the trial took place before the circuit court of the District of Columbia, at the March term, 1841. The jury, instead of finding a verdict for the balance, found a verdict of $13,037 72, with interest from March 4, 1837, in favor of Mr. Thomas. No exception was taken on the part of the Government to the verdict. The plea on the part of the Government for having disallowed part of the amount was, that there had been a change in the service with the assent of the contractor, and that the contract might be changed. In answer to this, it was proved that Mr. Brown, an officer of high rank in the Department, had notified the contractors, Colonel Thomas among others, that so soon as the Department would be able to do so, it would make everything right. The committee did not recognize the right of either party to cancel or alter the contract without mutual consent, in which case it could only be done, as they think, by an instrument of equal solemnity with the original contract. In the present case no such formal change took place. Although, in the opinion of the committee, the verdicts of juries do not always furnish a very safe standard for measuring the liabilities of the Government, yet, under the circumstances of the present case, they cannot but believe that they can find po better guide. The jury was composed of men of intelligence and respectability, which is attested in the strongest manner by the highest authority; and the court is universally admitted to be one of great experience, of extensive legal knowledge, and of entire impartiality. The contractor was unable of himself to provide the means of carrying out his contract. The present petitioner, among others, made advances for that purpose. To save himself, Mr. Dwinell was forced to purchase the claims of other parties. He, in all probability, looked to the original contract as a source of reimbursement; and the committee consider that the faith of the Government was impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to his payment. The committee, after the most mature consideration, came to the conclusion that this sum ought to be paid to Mr. Dwinell.

Mr. HUNTER. I move to amend the bill by striking out of it the words "with interest from the 4th of March, 1837." I believe it is not the practice of the Government to pay interest on claims against it.

Mr. HAMLIN. Mr. President, I know very well what the rule of the Government has been in relation to interest; but it seems to me that this is one of the cases within the rule which the Government itself has adopted. There are certain cases which have always met the favorable consideration of Congress, wherein interest has been allowed to the individual where payment has been delayed, not by the remissness of the person to whom the money was due, but by the failure of the Government to pay him. Now, this report is predicated, and this claim rests, upon the decision of a jury; and that decision shows that this amount was due to the person at that time. Certainly, if there is any safe basis for our action, it should be that of a jury of the country where there has been a trial, and witnesses have been examined by the Government and by the claimant for the purpose of adjudicating and determining the sum due. It seems to me, therefore, that this is one of that class of cases where the claimant is equitably entitled to interest.

Mr. WHITCOMB. Why has not this claim been presented before?

Mr. HUNTER. I do not feel the force of the argument of the Senator from Maine. If interest should be allowed in this case, I do not see why it should not be allowed in every other case. It is said that interest should be allowed because the claim is due; and the same is said in relation to every other claim presented here. I do not think that the verdict of a jury gives it any particular force, or gives it a better right to interest than other claims presented here. The United States does not allow itself to be sued; and why? Because it is afraid to trust itself in the hands of juries. This is an indirect mode of accomplishing what the law does not allow, and what the policy of the Government is opposed to. Whether that policy be right or wrong, I do not pretend to say; bat such has been the policy of the Government. I am not satisfied that the claim is due at all. I am not satisfied but that the change in the mail service was according to the agreement of both parties; and I do not believe it requires an instrument under seal to change the agreement. But I have not examined the matter; and, as the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads report this sum to be due, I am willing to let that go, but I cannot consent to allow interest. If we establish this precedent; if we allow interest in this case, I do not see why we can refuse it in any other case in which the Government owes a debt. It is no answer to say that Congress did not act upon the case at the time; because that would cover a vast amount of money, and a great many cases hanging over here from year to year. I hope the Senate will agree to the amendment, and not consent to allow interest.

Mr. RUSK. I made the report in this case after a very full investigation of all the papers relating to it. In my opinion, it is fully a legal claim against the Government. Certainly it is a very strong equitable claim which the individual has. As the report states, the contract was made by an individual for the transportation of the mail, without any reservation of power on the part of the Government to reduce the contract. It was for the purpose of relieving the Department from an embarrassment, which was supposed, at the time, to be temporary only, that it was changed, and with the assurance to the contractor that what was right in the premises should be done. The contractor had gone on and stocked the road. He had made all the necessary preparations, and gone to all the expense necessary to complying with the contract. He was enabled to comply with the contract by advances made to him by his friends, but was unable to do it himself. By the arrangement which was afterwards made, for the purpose of relieving the Department, this heavy loss fell, not upon the contractor, but upon those who had made these advances to enable him to comply with

his contract.

The

There is a mass of testimony in the case. testimony before the jury was, that the assurances mentioned in his petition, and in the report, were made from the Department itself. That they were intended to be fairly performed at the time, there is not any reason to doubt; because the Department paid him an amount larger than the reduced service, which they had made to relieve a temporary derangement of the Post Office Department. They had overpaid him the sum of nine hundred dollars. They sued him to recover that amount; and then those individuals who advanced the money come forward and make the claim. In place of paying this claim, the Department charged the contractor with having received nine hundred dollars more than he was entitled to, under the reduction of the service made by the Postmaster General, to relieve the service for the time being. All parties consented that a suit should be brought.

There are peculiar circumstances in this case which render it peculiarly hard to the individual who now makes this claim. He made advances to the contractor, but the contractor gave the preference to other persons who had made advances to him. In order to avail himself of the benefit of this security, whatever it might be; in order to get back the amount which he had actually advanced, this individual had to go into the market and purchase the rights of those who were before him. So that he had not only advanced money to the Government, but he has had to go into the market and take up liabilities, in order to enable him to try to get the benefit of his claim. This particular circumstance seems to me to present a very strong case; and I am free to say, if I were a party in interest, I could not consent, with my conscience and my notions of right and wrong, to refuse to pay the individual the interest as well as the principal.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, I confess that after hearing the Senator from Texas, I cannot see that his argument touches the question connected with the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. Like every other claim that comes before us, if we allow it, we allow it upon the ground that it is just, and either a legal or an equitable claim against the Government. But the general rule is, that the Government does not allow interest on claims against itself. Now, what distinction has been pointed out which makes this case different from any other? It is the case of a claim ascertained by a jury, if you will. Claims may be ascertained in other modes, but they are all supposed to be just claims against the Government when passed. If the general rule is not to allow interest, what reason is there, and what reason have the opponents of the amendment presented why interest should be allowed in this case? If the rule is not right, rescind it in all cases, and pay interest in every case; but if the rule be wise and necessary, as I believe it is, the exceptions must be few and rare in which the Government can pay interest upon a claim against it. I shall feel myself impelled to vote in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, that this claim of interest ought not to be allowed. I see nothing in the argument of the Senator from Texas, to bring this as an exception to the general rule, that the Government will not pay interest on claims against it.

Mr. HAMLIN. I think I may have been misunderstood in a point which I designed to make a few moments since. What I meant to say was this: that this was a sum determined upon by a jury, who had heard the evidence in a legal trial between the parties, and that it ought to stand higher in our estimation than it would stand on that evidence which is of an ex parte character, furnished to a committee here. Besides, if it had been a judgment against an individual, the judgment would have been enforced by the party in whose favor the judgment was given. He would have been entitled to recover that amount, and would have received what would have been equivalent to that sum with interest now.

It is true that there is no general rule that may include this case. But there are particular cases, and they are very numerous, as the Senator knows, where interest is allowed; and I insist that this is one of those excepted cases, which has at least as much equity as those which are favorably considered by the Senate. This is my view of the matter; and inasmuch as the claimant here, if he could have the right to enforce this judgment, would have the right to enforce it with interest, I hope we will allow him interest. And we must consider that the claim comes to our favorable consideration by having passed the scrutiny which it must have passed through before a jury.

Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President, gentlemen seem to be divided on the question, simply not whether the principal should be paid here, but whether interest upon the claim shall be paid.