By Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts: The petition of George Gemander and others, of Springfield, Massachusetts, for an appropriation to detray expenses incurred and advances made by American exhibitors at the World's Fair.

By Mr. WELLS: The petition of John O'Neil, D. McIntyre Stewart, George Henry, and many others, citizens of New York, praying Congress to take such action in favor of the relief of Smith O'Brien and his associates, by interceding with the British Government in their behalf, or otherwise, as shall be deemed consistent and proper.

By Mr. THOMAS M. HOWE: The memorial of E. D. Gazzam, H. D. King, and others, citizens of Alleghany county, Pennsylvania, praying for a ship canal around the falls of the river St. Marie, Michigan.

IN SENATE.

FRIDAY, January 23, 1852.

Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN.

The PRESIDENT. The first private bill on the Calendar is a bill for the relief of Charles A. Kellet.

Mr. BELL. I would suggest that the motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill for the relief of Sally T. Floyd has priority.

The PRESIDENT. No, sir. This is private bill day; and nothing is in order but private bills in their order on the Calendar.

Mr. BELL. The motion to reconsider was laid on the table, and I thought it would come up first. The PRESIDENT. That motion having been laid on the table, the bill cannot be taken up with

out a motion.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then I move to take it up, as it is a private bill.

The PRESIDENT. It is not on the Calendar as a private bill; it is a motion to reconsider, which motion was laid on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. MALLORY. I rise for the purpose of making a brief personal explanation. In the reports of yesterday I find this passage, reported as having been said by the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE:]

"I have looked over the last long speech made in the Senate, the speech of the honorable Senator from Florida, [Mr. MALLORY.] with some care, to find a remark in it to which I had replied; but I could not find a word of it in the speech of the honorable Senator. The poor remarks which I made were published as a reply to something which, by the reports of the Senate, did not appear ever to have been said."

These remarks were made yesterday during my temporary absence, for a few moments, from the Chamber, and while I was in one of the committee rooms. I am perfectly satisfied that the honorable Senator from New Hampshire attaches no particular importance to the matter, and that his remark was made in no offensive spirit; but he alluded to an old established usage, as I understand, for Senators to correct their speeches; and, in so doing, to withdraw matter which has been said,

All

and insert matter which has not been said. I object to is, that I should be held up here as an illustration of the bad practice of Senators. I think a new Senator ought not to be held up as an illustration in a case where the practice has been one of long standing. If I had adopted this course it probably would have been sustained by usage. I did desire to alter some part of the phraseology of the speech, to which the Senator referred; but I did not feel at liberty to do so, for the Reporter's notes were exceedingly accurate, and I was surprised at their correctness. In order that I might not depend on my own recollection, I have called on the foreman of the printing office, who assured me that he had never seen a speech returned with so few verbal alterations. Nothing was erased except, perhaps, some words of a tautological character. I can now only say that the passage which the honorable Senator believed to have been erased, he has since discovered in the reported speech.

Mr. HALE. May I be allowed a single moment? The Senate will bear me witness that I did

not allude to the honorable Senator from Florida, until several Senators had called for an instance of the practice to which I alluded. It occurred to me that I had looked over the speech of the honorable Senator from Florida without being able to find the passage to which I referred; hence, on the spur of the moment, as an illustration of my remark, I alluded to the circumstance. But the honorable Senator has since called on me and asked me to examine the speech, and pointed out the passage. I examined it accordingly, and found there the passage to which I had replied. While I make this

explanation, I do not admit that the statement which I made yesterday was not entirely correct as to the practice which obtains. I was only unfortunate in selecting an instance to prove it; and I must content myself with a reference to an illustrious example which happened in Spain. Don Quixote maintained that Dulcinea was the most beautiful princess in the whole world; and he challenged every one in the world who dared deny it. He fought one man, in which battle he was worsted; and when he was called upon to yield, he said, "No; Dulcinea is the most beautiful princess, but Don Quixote is very unfortunate."

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WHITCOMB. I desire the unanimous consent of the Senate, if that be necessary, to make a report on a private bill.

The PRESIDENT. The Senate will have to suspend their order before they can take up any business but private bills on the Calendar. Mr. WHITCOMB. I move that the order be suspended until one o'clock.

Mr. MANGUM. That can be done by unani

mous consent.

The PRESIDENT. The order can be suspended by a majority, as it is not a rule of the Senate. It will require, therefore, a motion, to be adopted by the Senate, to suspend the execution of the order until any particular hour the Senate may think proper. Unless it be suspended, the Chair is bound, according to the order, to take up private bills to the exclusion of other business. The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. I was under the impression yesterday, that on the motion of the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] the further consideration of the bill granting land to the State of Iowa for the construction of certain railroads, was postponed until to-day. If that was not the understanding of the Senate, I was mistaken. I believe that I have never, since I have been in this body, asked the indulgence of the Senate, on any occasion, to take up any bill; but I must now ask the Senate to do me the favor to take up that bill. I therefore move to suspend

the execution of the order.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair cannot receive fused, on another motion, to suspend the executhat motion, inasmuch as the Senate has just retion of the order until one o'clock. The first private bill on the Calender is for the relief of Charles A. Kellet.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I certainly feel it incumbent upon me to ask for the consideration of granting a pension to Mrs. Sally T. Floyd. I the question on the reconsideration of the bill doubt whether it is not entitled to priority under the principles of parliamentary law, it being a question of reconsideration. But if we cannot reach it in any other way, as it is a private bill, I must ask a suspension of the execution of the ing to let the bill be considered, in order that it order till that question is disposed of. I am willmay go upon the general orders; and then we shall presently come to it, and act upon it.

Mr. BADGER. We shall get at it after we shall have got through other bills. Mr. UNDERWOOD. If that can be done, I waive my request.

CHARLES A. KELLET.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of Charles A. Kellet. It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to refund to Charles A. Kellet, or his legal representatives, the sum paid to the collector of the port of New York as tonnage duties on the Chinese junk Keying, imported there for exhibition, provided the same shall not exceed $500.

planation of this bill, I will give it to him; but I Mr. DAVIS. If any gentleman wishes an exdo not wish to detain the Senate unless some Senator desires an explanation.

Several SENATORS. It is not necessary. amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a The bill was reported to the Senate without third reading.

THEODORE OFFUT.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of Theodore Offut. It is in these words:

"Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to pay to Theodore Offut, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of ninety dollars, the value of a grey mare, the property of said Offut, which was turned over to the use of the Government by his commanding officer, Captain W. C. Pollard."

The bill was reported from the Committee of Claims, with an amendment to add the words "without authority," to the end of the bill. The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, the amendment was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

A. H. COLE.

The Senate next proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of A. H. Cole, reported from the Committee of Claims. It enacts that the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be authorized and required to settle the claim of A. H. Cole, late a sutler in the Army of the United States, in Florida, on the same principles of equity and justice as are extended to other sutlers under the existing Army regulations: provided satisfactory evidence shall be submitted as to the amount of the claim, and that no money shall be paid for goods furnished to deserters or discharged soldiers, unless to the amount of money which was due to them by the Government. The second section enacts that the sum found to be due in said settlement aforesaid shall be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. BADGER. I beg to suggest a small amendment. In the second section I see the words "in said settlement aforesaid." I move to strike out the word "aforesaid," as it is wholly unnecessary.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, the amendment was concurred in, and the bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

JAMES DUNNING.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of James It enacts that the proper accounting officer of the Dunning, reported from the Committee of Claims. Treasury be authorized and directed to pay to James Dunning, $255 98, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, as inin payment, by contract, on the 18th of June, terest on a liquidated amount of $4,000 due to him, 1850, but withheld until the 12th of October following for want of an appropriation therefor.

No amendment being proposed to the bill, it was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

ENOCH BALDWIN AND OTHERS.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of Enoch Baldwin and others, reported from the Committee on Commerce. It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to ascertain the amount of excess of duties paid by Enoch Baldwin, or by Baldwin & Co., upon two hundred and forty-eight puncheons of rum, imported into the port of Eastport, in the State of Maine, from the Island of Tobago, on the 1st of October, 1822, in the British brig Despatch, over and above what would have been paid if said rum had been imported in an American vessel; and that said excess, so ascertained, shall be paid over to the said Enoch Baldwin, and such others, if any, as are lawfully interested therein.

Mr. HUNTER. This is a bill for refunding duties. It is strange that it should come from the Committee on Commerce. I would like to hear the report in that case read.

The report was accordingly read. It appears from it, that in 1822 the British brig Despatch, being at the Island of Tobago, in the West Indies, took on board a quantity of rum, the produce of that Island. American vessels were allowed to enter and clear on that Island upon the same footing as English vessels. The cargo was taken on board, under the full belief that no discriminating tonnage duties would be exacted, if she entered any port of the United States. The vessel accordingly cleared for Boston, and after landing there one hundred puncheons, consigned to one Aaron Baldwin, cleared for Campo Bello, New Brunswick, but afterwards returned to what was then Lubeck, in the State of Maine, and there landed the residue of her cargo. The then col

lector of that port states, under oath, that at that time it was not only the belief, but it was the general impression, in al! quarters, that discriminating tonnage duties were not to be exacted. In consequence of the prevalence of this opinion, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a circular, directing the officers of the customs to exact such duties. The news of the issue of this circular had not reached Boston nor Lubeck at the time of the discharge of this corgo. Under the circumstances, Congress formerly passed a bill for the relief of Aaron Baldwin, the owner of the one hundred puncheons landed at Boston. The committee, therefore, think that Enoch Baldwin and others should be relieved from these duties on the two bundred and forty-eight puncheons landed at Lubeck.

Mr. HUNTER. I never heard of the case before. I only have such knowledge of it as I can gather from the reading of the report. As I understand the report, this bill proposes to relieve an individual on account of his ignorance of the law. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia perhaps does not quite understand the nature of this case. The trade between the United States and the West Indies, before the arrangement of 1832 was entered into, was made dependent upon proclamation. Whenever the British Government were disposed to let the vessels of the United States into any of the ports of their West India colonies, they issued a proclamation to that effect, and vessels went there, and when the proclamation was withdrawn the trade stopped. This trade was thrown open by the proclamation of 1832, the time referred to in this report. This vessel, the Despatch, was a provincial vessel, belonging to owners in New Brunswick, and was at Tobago, in the West Indies, and it was understood there that no discriminating duties on tonnage, which existed under the system of reciprocal duties, would be exacted. No discriminating duties were then supposed to exist by reason of the terms of the proclamation referred to a proclamation of the President of the United States. They thought it safe, therefore, to take a cargo on board which should be landed in the United States, either in part or in whole. The vessel came to Boston, and delivered part of her cargo by landing one hundred puncheons of rum. It was then understood at Boston, just as it was at Tobago, that no discriminating duties existed. It was so understood from the British proclamations-it was so understood from the proclamations of our own Government, and therefore they landed one hundred puncheons. The vessel then cleared for the port of Campo Bello, in New Brunswick; but afterwards her owner concluded to land the rest of the cargo at a place then called Lubeck-now Eastport, in Maine. She entered there on the 1st of October in that year, there landed her cargo, and paid the duties required. Subsequently, however, to the landing of the cargo in Boston, and the landing of the remainder of it in Lubeck, a Treasury circular was issued here, requiring collectors in all cases to exact discriminating duties on tonnage. The very fact of the issue of the Treasury circular shows that the common interpretation was that those duties were not to be exacted. But the owners of the vessel had to pay discriminating duties on the tonnage; and this bill relates to nothing but duties on tonnage. They entered evidently under a misapprehension, supposing that they would not be subject to discriminating duties on tonnage. They were so informed by the custom-house officers, and such was the general impression everywhere.

In this state of the facts, some years ago Congress remitted the duties on that part of the cargo which was entered at Boston. I believe I reported that bill myself, and therefore I am able to speak to the fact that these parties were simply left out by mistake. It was supposed that that bill covered this case; but it was afterwards found that the parties to whom was consigned that portion of the cargo which was landed at Lubeck were not included. A question, however, was raised afterwards, whether, when they came to Boston, they actually had not notice of the existence of the Treasury circular; and that hence they must have been aware of it before they made an entry at Lubeck. Now, it is satisfactorily proved that they did not know of the existence of the circular, and that the collector at Boston did not know if it, nor did the collector at Eastport when they arrived there.

They had no knowledge of it whatsoever. It is very clear, therefore, that they entered through mistake and misapprehension. They probably would not have entered in the United States if they had known that those discriminating tonnage duties would have been exacted. This bill now proposes, in reference to the parties to whom the puncheons were consigned, and that were landed at Lubeck, to restore to them the amount of the discriminating duty on the tonnage which they paid into the Treasury some thirty years ago, under these circumstances.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. President, it seems, then, that I was right in supposing that this is a claim for relief on the ground that these parties did mistake the law. As proof of their misapprehension, the fact is adverted to that the Treasury circular was issued in order to expound the law, which showed that they were acting under a mistake. Now the Treasury circular either expounded the law as it was or it did not. If it was a mistake, they had recourse to the courts, where they could be relieved. If the Treasury circular was in pursuance of law, and construed the law properly, the only established fact in reference to the case is, that those parties misapprehended the law. It seems to me that this principle would extend much further than is supposed. It would extend not only to cases in which mistakes are made in relation to tonnage duties, but in cases of mistakes in relation to duties laid on imports; and it might have a most important and serious bearing on the revenue of the country, if we extend this principle further.

takes his seat, how much this bill is likely to take from the Treasury?

Mr. DAVIS. I believe about $1,000-nothing but discriminating duties on tonnage.

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

EDWARD EVERETT.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill from the House of Representatives for the relief of Edward Everett, late a sergeant in the United States Army, which was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs. It enacts that the sum of $607 50 be allowed and paid to Edward Everett, late a sergeant in company A, first regiment of Illinois volunteers, in full compensation for services rendered by him as clerk in the Quartermaster's Department, from October 15, 1846, to June 17, 1847.

It was reported to the Senate without amend

ment.

and mistake in relation to the laws of the land.

I can see no reason for relieving the parties in this case which would not exist in relation to duties paid on goods imported under a misapprehension of the laws imposing duties upon imports. Many of such cases have arisen where it was necessary to expound the law by Treasury Circular. If we go back to relieve such cases, certainly we shall expose the Treasury to great loss. I do not see where we are to draw the line of distinction. Not only that, but it seems to me that this is a very old case, and there must be some difficulty in ascertaining the facts. If I caught the dates correctly, the Senator from Massachusetts represents this vessel as having entered Eastport in 1822, about thirty years ago. It must be a very dangerous subject, then, to agree upon now. unwilling to pass this bill.

I am

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Virginia fails to take into view one important fact in this matter. This was a trade entirely dependent on proclamation. It existed by proclamation. It was closed by proclamation. It was irregular and anomalous in its character. Such was the position of our intercourse with the West Indies at that time. Now, who is to put a construction on the effect of this proclamation? Why, the owners of property put a construction upon it. There was a construction put upon it in the Island of Tobago; and the construction of both was, that these disciminating duties on tonnage were not to be exacted. Such was the construction of the custom-house officers here. It was so construed by the officers of the Government. If I recollect right, this construction was put upon it by Secretary Forsyth, by the collector at Eastport, and by every other collector in the country. This seems to me to be a very equitable and just claim. The party was authorized to bring in his cargo. Under these circumstances, when he saw the action of the Government interpreted by its own officers in a certain way, he had a right to act in pursuance of the interpretation of it given by the officers of the Government. In opposition to that interpretation, he has been subjected to these discriminating duties on tonnage. They ought to be restored.

The gentleman says that this is an old claim. I believe it is some eight or ten years since the duties were refunded on that part of the cargo of this vessel which was entered at Boston. This bill has been under the consideration of the Senate repeatedly. It has received the favorable consideration of the House of Representatives, but has been lost between the two Houses for want of time.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I would like to ask the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, before he

granted to him for the remainder of his time of service. Thus disabled and on furlough, he had a right of course to go whithersoever he pleased, and employ himself in such a way as his crippled condition would permit, without forfeiting any portermaster, then at San Antonio, having need of tion of his pay as sergeant. The Assistant Quarclerical aid, employed Everett under an agreement that he should receive the same rate of compensation as other clerks-that is, $90 per month, deducting therefrom the amount of his regular pay as sergeant. He served as a clerk from 15th October, 1846, to the 17th June, 1847. Though his wounded knee joint was a great affliction to him, yet his services as a clerk were much more valuable and vigilant than the services of any other clerk in the department. Assistant Quartermaster Ralston, at the expiration of the time for which he served, paid him $607 50 for his services; but in the settlement of the Quartermaster's account at the Treasuary, this item of $607 50 was disallowed. Everett, impelled by a sense of honor, refunded the entire amount, and appealed to Congress for relief. The committee therefore recommend that

the bill for his relief be passed.

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

HEIRS OF A. G. MORGAN.

The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the bill for the relief of the heirs and representatives of Colonel Alexander G. Morgan. It enacts that the accounting officers of the Treasury be authorized and required to settle the accounts of Alexander G. Morgan, for services in raising troops for the Florida war, in 1837, and also for his military services in Florida; provided the pay and allowance to him shall not exceed the compensation of a captain of cavalry, and that so much as shall be found due to him shall be paid to his heirs and representatives out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. BRADBURY. Is there any report in that

case?

474

Mr. ATCHISON. I think I can explain the matter. At the time these services were rendered, Colonel Morgan was a citizen of the State of Missouri. Under the direction of the Secretary of War he raised a battalion for the Fla ar, in 1837. Colonel Morgan com inat battalion during the whole war, and tought bravely at the battle of Okee-cho-bee. To my certain knowledge, five times the amount of a captain's pay would not indemnify him for raising that battalion. Though his services were received and he acted as the commanding officer of that battalion, vet, as he was not regularly commissioned in the service, either by the State of Missouri or by the

United States, he did not receive any pay at all. It is now proposed to pay his heirs what he would have been entitled to receive at the rate of the compensation of a captain of cavalry.

Mr. BRADBURY. My reason for making the objection was, that I think we have passed upon some claims making compensation for military services in the Indian wars in Florida hastily. At any rate, if any reliance can be placed on the statements of citizens of Florida, great caution ought to be exercised in regard to any of these claims. I have been informed by citizens of Florida that we passed a bill a few years ago granting compensation to a regiment of soldiers amounting to some fifteen or sixteen hundred men, for fifteen months, when there was nothing but a mere skeleton of a regiment, a number of individuals collected but for a few days. Not one quarter of the number paid in that case were ever mustered into service; and the number that was mustered were discharged in a very few days, or, if not then, in a very few weeks. I understand that the muster rolls in that case were made up very much as Falstaff's regiment was made up. I did not know but that something of that sort might be the case here. I am glad to hear the explanation of the Senator from Missouri; but in cases of this kind, it seems to me that we ought to have a report setting forth the facts, that they may go on record, and that we may fully understand the character of the claims, that they may be matters for reference hereafter. I hope the honorable Senator will allow the bill to lie over until he can put the facts he has stated in the form of a report.

Mr. ATCHISON. The facts are in the form of a report, and the Senator can ascertain them by looking over his file of reports.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would state that there is a report of the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives. Mr. BORLAND. Let the report be read. It will obviate the necessity of my explanation. The report was read accordingly.

It appears that the Virginia Woolen Company

contracted to deliver to the United States one hundred thousand yards of cloth for the Army, at $124 per yard. The Company delivered over twenty-five thousand yards, but failed to deliver the rest of the cloth within the time required. Hence the Government retained the sum of $6,085 04. It seems that the Government, in making the contract, agreed to furnish the Company with the wool from which the cloth was to be made. A quantity of wool was placed on board a vessel to be sent to Richmond, Virginia, where the Company carry on their business, and the vessel was lost with its cargo before it reached its destination. On this account it was impossible for the Company to fulfill their contract. Besides that, the small-pox broke out among the operatives, and reduced the number of hands, and thus rendered the Company less able to execute the work. Therefore, and inasmuch as the Government sustain no loss, the committee recommend the passage of the bill.

Mr. HUNTER. I would state that this bill passed the House of Representatives at the last session, and came here. It was then reported upon favorably by the Committee on Military Affairs but it was not acted upon for want of time. It has again passed the House of Representatives at this session, and it has again been reported upon favorably by the Committee on Military Affairs of this body.

Mr. BADGER. I looked into this claim at the last session of Congress, and I can state that it would have passed the Senate then but for an objection made by the honorable Senator from Alafied as to the bill, and withdrew his objection. It would again have been taken up and passed, but that there was no opportunity of doing so at such a late period of the session.

Mr. BORLAND. I desire to say, as a member of the Military Committee, the chairman not being now in his seat, that that committee deemed this a meritorious claim, and unanimously reported it to the Senate.

Mr. BRADBURY. The Senator from Missouri has stated the fact that the history of this claim has been imbodied in a report. That was the subject to which I addressed myself. Therefore, on that statement, I withdraw my objection. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

VIRGINIA WOOLEN COMPANY.

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill from the House of Representatives for the relief of the Virginia Woolen Company.

It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury cause to be paid to the Virginia Woolen Company, or to its duly authorized agent, the sum of $6,085 04, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, that sum being the amount retained by the United States from the said Company for an alleged non-compliance with the contract entered into between the United States and the said Company, on or about the 10th of January, 1848, for the delivery of one hundred thousand yards of cloth.

Mr. DAWSON. This bill needs no speech in its favor. I will only state that the Committee on Military Affairs examined the subject very thoroughly, and thought it nothing but just that this money, which was retained, should be paid over by the Government.

Mr. WALKER. Is there a report in that case?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that there is no report.

Mr. HALE. There is a report of the committee of the House of Representatives among the papers.

Mr. BORLAND. I think I can obviate the necessity of having the report read, by making a simple statement. A contract was entered into to furnish the Quartermaster's Department with a certain quantity of cloth for the Army.

QUESTION OF PRIORITY.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the President to the fact, that there is a bill on the Calendar to provide for the unpaid claims of the officers and soldiers of the Virginia State and Continental lines of the Revolutionary Army, which is a private bill. It is on the Calendar in regular order before many of

the bills which we have been considering to-day. It is a bill in relation to a number of persons, but still it is a private claim.

Mr. BADGER. I think it is a public bill. Mr. UNDERWOOD. A bill has just been passed providing for paying an association, a corporation, a company. The claim which I wish to be considered is for the benefit of a great many persons, it is true; but still it is a private claim.

I rise to ask whether, in the opinion of the Chair, it is not a private bill, and ought not to have been taken up long ago.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair had his atten

furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury that the firm of Thomas H. Leggett & Co. did not realize the ordinary profit on such importations.

Mr. HUNTER. Is there any report in that case? If there is, I should like to hear it read. The report was read accordingly.

It refers for a statement of the merits of the case to report No. 500, made by the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, on the 26th of May, 1848. That report states that the house of Thomas H. Leggett & Co., were regular importers of dry goods in New York; that on the 8th of July, 1828, they imported from Liverpool, and entered at the New York custom-house, two invoices of woolen dry goods, as costing £1,526 17s. 9d. sterling, or $6,786 15, on which duties amounting to $5,467 were imposed by the tariffact passed on the 19th May, 1828, and which took effect on the 30th of June succeeding in rela tion to dry goods, but which did not take effect in relation to iron and hardware until the 1st of September following. Under the tariff act of 1824, which was in operation when these goods were or dered, the duties would have amounted to $2,250. The increase of duties, the memoralist represented, did not enhance the value of the goods, but actually created a great loss on this description of goods. Those goods were contracted for in the winter of 1827-'8, to be delivered in the spring of 1828, and were shipped in two vessels from Liverpool, one of which sailed seven days before the passage of the law of 19th May, 1828, and the other in a few days afterwards. It was impossible then to annul the contract, or countermand the order for the shipping of the goods. The house of Leggett & Co. united with other importers in a petition to Congress to refund the additional duties imposed under the tariff of 1828 under such circumstances. That petition was before the 22d and 23d Congresses. At each of those Congresses, bills were passed by both Houses for the relief of the importers, but none of them became a law. A case similar in all its features to this, was redressed under an act approved June 28th, 1836. On that ground, and sensible of the justice of the claim, the memoralist in this case asked for a return of the duties on those importations. The committee state, that having examined the facts and evidence submitted to them, they were of opinion that the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted. For annexed to the report four letters of the petitioner, a more full statement of the facts of the case, they and the invoice and entry of the custom-house, and also House Document No. 123 of the first ses

sion of the twenty-third Congress.

Mr. HUNTER. It is proposed in this case, if I understand the bill, to remit duties because a

change was made in the tariff after an order was given to import certain goods. Why, a great many such cases have been presented to us for our consideration, and we know that they have generally been rejected, as they ought to have been. All merchants must prepare for these contingencies. If we undertake to remedy the mistakes which may be occasioned by changes in the rates of duties on foreign imports, there is no telling where we shall be led. Indeed I do not know

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I will make no question in relation to it.

THOMAS H. LEGGETT.

The Senate next proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of Thomas H. Leggett, reported from the Committee on Commerce.

It enacts that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to refund to Thomas H. Leggett, a sum equal to the increased duty paid by him under the tariff act of May 19th, 1828, on two invoices of woolen goods imported from Liverpool, invoiced at £1,526 17s. 9d. sterling, or $6,786 15, and entered at the custom-house, in the city of New York, on the 8th of July, 1828; provided that this payment shall not be made until the Secretary of the Treasury shall have satisfactory proof that the duties were actually paid, and that the contract for the delivery of those goods was entered into in the winter of 1827-28, and that Thomas H. Leggett had it not in his power, after the passage of the act of May 19th, 1828, to demand such order; and provided, further, that satisfactory evidence be

on Commerce. This is a subject which has generally been referred to the Committee on Finance, and which appropriately belongs to the functions of that committee. Certainly the rule in that committee has been not to grant relief in cases of this sort. Why, we should be opening the door of the Treasury if we pass this bill, on the same principle, to thousands of cases. How many cases may arise under the tariff act of 1842? How far back are we to go? Are we to look up the whole history of our legislation in order to see, perchance, if the various tariff acts which have been passed have operated harshly and onerously on this or that individual? How are we to be sure of the facts? How are we to ascertain the testimony at such a distance of time as this? Even if we admit the principle to be a sound one that we should refund duties under such circumstances, which we certainly have not admitted heretofore in the general course of this body, how could we ascertain with certainty the facts in such complicated transactions at such a distance of time?

It is said that the order for the goods in this case was given in 1828. How do we know that? It is said, too, that the order was given in ignorance of the proposed change. How do we know

that? How do we know the amount of duties paid? How can we ascertain with certainty the facts on which the merits of a case would depend if we were to admit the principle? But it is unnecessary to go into that inquiry. The principle is utterly inadmissible; and if we once act on it, we may make up our minds to see a great many such cases brought before us for relief. I hope the Senate will reject this bill. It is a matter of some importance, and if we wish to guard the public Treasury against demands of this character, we will reject the bill.

Mr. HAMLIN. It is hardly possible to discriminate sometimes which is the proper committee to which a subject ought to be referred. I have always endeavored to refer all matters relating to the revenue system of the country to the Committee on Finance. I suppose this matter went to the Committee on Commerce because it originated in that committee in the other branch of Congress. The report which has been read on this subject, was made from that committee. I have not had my attention called directly to the subject involved in this bill. It was committed to the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] who is now necessarily absent. Inasmuch as he is the member of the committee who has made a personal examination into all the papers, and as he is now necessarily detained from the Senate, I move that the bill be laid upon the table. I think it is due to him that he should have some opportunity of defending the bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the bill was laid upon the table.

ALEXANDER P. FIELD.

The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of a "joint resolation for the relief of Alexander P. Field, late Secretary of Wisconsin Territory, and sureties.' Mr. HUNTER. The honorable Senator from Indiana, who reported that bill from the Committee on Finance, is not now in his seat, neither is the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DODGE,] who feels an interest in the passage of the bill; but I will state that I believe it is a proper bill, which proposes to allow the proper officers of the Treasury Department to settle the accounts of the principal, with his sureties. It appears that the principal proved to be insolvent, and the securities ask to come in and produce such vouchers and make such settlement as the principal himself would have made.

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

JULIA AIKEN.

The Senate next proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider a bill for the relief of Julia Aiken.

This was a bill reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs, providing a pension to be paid to Julia Aiken, the only child of William Yool, who died in the naval service of the United States in the year 1801.

A long report was read in this case, from which it appeared that William Yool was in the naval service from 1797 to 1801, when he died in the service. That he left a wife and an only child. That by the first section of an act passed on the 3d of March, 1837, the said Julia Aiken, daughter of said William Yool, would have been entitled to a pension but for the fact that the death of her father had not been reported by an officer in the Navy-a regulation required by the Navy Department. That there was sufficient evidence of the death of said William Yool while in the service, but that as it had not been reported by an officer as required, the defect could not now be remedied, the officers who could have given such evidence, being all dead.

No amendment being offered, the bill was reported to the Senate.

Mr. FELCH. I do not fully understand that case from the report. It seems to me it deserves some further consideration before we pass upon it. It is manifest that it does not come under the

operation of any law now in force. As the Senator who reported the bill is not now in his seat, I wish the matter may lie over for the present.

Mr. BADGER. I hope not. I think the case is very clear. Every fact in the case seems to entitle the petitioner to a pension under the act of 1837. But under one of the regulations of the Navy Department, in carrying out the law of

1837, it is required that when the fact of the death of the person in whose behalf the pension is asked, does not appear from the roll, it must be established by the evidence of a commissioned officer. Now, the law of 1837 was retroactive; it declared that the widows and children of all officers and seamen who should die or had died in the naval service, should be entitled to these pensions. Between the death of this seaman, and the act of 1837, every commissioned officer on board that ship, the Enterprise, was dead. Under such circumstances, the pension could not be obtained. But the case comes clearly under the provisions of the act of 1837, and the evidence presented in the very able report of the committee, shows, in a manner entirely satisfactory, that if the fact of the death had been certified to by the commissioned officers of the ship, there would be no objection on the part of the Department to allow the pension. Now the question is, whether, because this poor seaman was not of sufficient consequence to have had his death noticed at the time, and because of the want of evidence of the death by a commissioned officer, the pension shall not be allowed?

Mr. FELCH. I should like to inquire whether the person applying here would have been entitled to this pension but for the single fact that the proof of death in the service was not strictly formal?

Mr. BADGER. That is the only difficulty. Mr. BAYARD. By the law of 1837 it appears that the widow of a deceased seaman would have been entitled to receive one half of the pay which such seamen received while living, and in service, so long as she did not intermarry. There is evidence of the intermarriage of this widow, but the time of that intermarriage is not stated. Now, the effect of this bill will be to give to this daughter of the deceased one half of the pay to which her father would have been entitled from the time of his death until the year 1811, when she became of age. The widow suhsequently married; but whether that marriage occurred before or after the daughter became of age does not appear.

Mr. BADGER. I suppose it does not appear, as it would in a legal pleading, that this widow had intermarried, or that she had intermarried when this pension would have been allowed, and

had therefore forfeited it.

Mr. BAYARD. Under the law of 1837, unless law would have done, the matter stands in a difthe object is to extend relief beyond what that tend the relief beyond what that law would allow, ferent position. But if it is not intended to exthen it ought to be ascertained when the widow married. She was entitled, under the pension laws, to receive one half of the pay which her husband would have received, from the time of his death to the time of her intermarriage. If the object in this case is to extend to it the provisions of a special act beyond the provisions of the law of 1837, that is another question. The report, however, which has been read, seems to look to the law of 1837 as a governing principle, and the facts are not stated with sufficient clearness to let us know whether the party is entitled to relief under that law or not.

Mr. HALE. I am not opposed to the passage of this bill; but I wish to know whether the Senate will sanction the principle involved in this case. For my own part, I am very willing, but I have given advice to many persons in my own State, who wished to obtain pensions under the act of 1837, against making any application on the ground that the act of 1837 had been repealed. They are cases that would come under that act, and such as would entitle them to receive pensions if that act were in force, and would be favorably considered by the Senate. If it be the sense of the Senate that cases arising under that act, and which would have been entitled to relief if the act were now in force, can still be favorably received, then this case will be applicable. I am willing to go upon that principle, because there are persons in my own State, whom I have advised session after session that there was no possibility of getting a pension, because the bill was repealed, and it having been repealed, Congress would not take up cases which would not have been precluded when the bill was in force. If, however, it be the case that Congress will grant relief in such cases, I shall not object, because it will relieve some very meritorious cases which I was heretofore of opinion could not be relieved.

I think, however, that the pension should apply only from the time of the marriage of the widow; otherwise the child will get the pension for the whole period as well as the widow.

Mr. BADGER. The question suggested by the Senator from New Hampshire is one that will admit of very grave consideration, if the bill that is now before the Senate really raises it. But the bill before us is this: It is not to provide for a claim undertaken to be brought forward under the act of 1837, after the repeal of that act. It is a very different case. It is a case which was brought forward while the act of 1837 was in full force, and the party whose business it was to see it carried into execution was then prepared to show under the law, the existence of the service and the death, but was precluded from being allowed to manifest these facts by a rule adopted in the Department, which excluded the evidence of all persons except commissioned officers as to the fact of the death in the service. That is the case before us; and I have no hesitation in saying, that in every instance of that kind, in which the party applying for a pension did what was in his power, under the law while it was in force, obtained the benefit of the law as much as though it were in force now. But it would be a very different case, if people come forward now who had brought forward no claim, asserted no right, asked no relief while the law was in force.

In the first place, it seems to me it is a plain matter, a clear case of a claim coming within the statute, and preferred while it was in force, and one which would have been allowed then but for what-I may be permitted to say—was rather an absurd regulation of the Department, because that regulation should have made an exception in regard to cases where the commissioned officers were dead. I believe all that the law requires is, that the highest kind of evidence which the nature of the case admits of shall be given. It was so in this case. There would have been some ground of suspicion, if one or more of the commissioned officers had been living when the representatives of the deceased had come forward and offered the testimony of those who were of a lower grade in the service. But when all the commissioned officers are dead,

they cannot be produced; and it seems there is a necessity of having the evidence of other persons in order to arrive at the truth. It seems to me that to avoid all suspicion of any attempt to impose on the Department, by bringing forward other persons, all the commissioned officers being dead, it was sufficient for the Department to have made an order to admit just and reasonable evidence, in conformity with the principle established in other

cases.

Mr. BAYARD. If this bill only proposed to give relief in conformity with the provisions of the law of 1837, supposing the proof to be good, then I should make no objection to it; and if the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] will move to restrict it to that, then I will go for the bill. But it goes further than that; it provides that the daughter-supposing that the proof of the death was plenary-who would not, during the life of the widow be entitled to the half-pay, should have that half pay from the year 1801; and the bill does not show, nor does the report, when the widow married. The effect of the bill, therefore, will be to carry out the compensation beyond the principle of the law of 1837. Unless the Senator will go that far-and I see no reason for making this an exception-I cannot vote for this bill as it stands.

Mr. BADGER. I will suggest an amendment, which may perhaps meet the views of the Senator. I will move to amend by striking out the words "from and after the year 1801," and say, "from and after the second marriage." That is the idea I wish to convey. The Senator has the bill before him, and he will perhaps make the alteration.

Mr. GEYER, (in his seat.) The bill is right as it stands. There is no necessity for such an amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment of the

Senator from North Carolina will not apply to the bill. There are no such words as he proposes to strike out.

Mr. BADGER. I understand from my friend near me that the bill is all perfectly right, and that it simply provides that this applicant should receive the pension to which, under the law of 1837, she would be entitled. It does not say that she shall