Senate. I wish, if necessary, to call the attention Mr. SMITH. I do not know that there is any objection to it. But my friend from Florida is acquainted with the case, if it is necessary to say anything about it. Mr. BRODHEAD. I hope the reading will be proceeded with. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I move that the bill be laid over until Friday next. That case was before the Committee of Claims some time ago, when I was a member of the committee, and I believe an unfavorable report was made. I am not certain about the matter, and I wish the bill laid over, so that I may look into the facts. Mr. MALLORY. I presume there can be no Mr. BRODHEAD. I am informed that there objection to the bill. It is very similar to the bill is a decided opposition to the bill; it would, therepassed for the relief of Mrs. Dade. Major Dadefore, be better to let it go over until the honorable fell in the massacre at the beginning of the Florida war. So did Captain Gardner. The case of Mrs. Gardner is eminently entitled to the consideration of the Senate. I can see no reason why a distinction should be raised between the two cases. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. WILLIAM A. RICHMOND. The Senate then proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the bill for the relief of William A. Richmond, which was reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs with an amend Sénator from Indiana, who reported it, is in his Mr. UNDERWOOD. My motion is to post- Mr. BRODHEAD. That is true. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then I think the bill vacant land adjoining, to which nobody else sets up a claim, he asks, in order to complete his title, that he may be permitted to enter the whole, not exceding eight hundred acres, by preemption right. There is a statement accompanying the report and petition, made by a number of his neighbors living around him, confirming the facts as he states them in his petition. All he asks is the mere right of preemption. He purchased these improvements for a valuable consideration, when they were sold at probate sale; and I presume there can be no doubt of his right to enter that much. Whether he shall be allowed to enter, in addition, the small quantity of vacant land adjoining, which nobody claims, is a matter for the Senate to decide. If I recollect rightly, this bill passed the Senate at the last session. At any rate it was favorably reported upon. The only difficulty in the way that I know of, is the objection which many entertain to an ordinary transfer of preemption rights before they are secured. But this is not a case of that kind. This is a case of the death of the parties who had the preemption rights, and, according to the law of my State and the decisions of the supreme court of Louisiana, these rights, though not perfect, are Mr. PRATT. The Senator from Kentucky considered a species of property. It is true, the The bill proposes to authorize the proper acmade one observation, which I think demands a officer of the United States may object to carrying counting officers of the Treasury to audit and setthem out in full on technical grounds, but they are tle the accounts of William A. Richmond, late reply. He says this claim has been paid. Now, very frequently sold at probate sales in the ordisuperintendent of Indian affairs at Detroit, Mich-I can inform the honorable Senator that it has not been paid. One of the individual claimants has, Inary course of business in Louisiana. They cerigan, upon principles of equity and justice, and tainly, according to our law, vest a right in the that whatever sum or sums of money, if any, be believe, been paid a sum of money, but not for found due to him shall be paid out of any money what this bill provides. party. The only opposition to allowing transfers was for the purpose of preventing speculations. in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. This is not a case of that kind.. This is a case where a man has lived on and cultivated the land. He bought these rights in good faith, at probate sale, and the only objection to his not entering them by preemption right, is a technical one. All he asks is preemption rights to these tracts. I can conceive of no serious objection to the passage of this bill. ment. The amendment of the committee is to insert at the end of the bill the words: "Provided, That such sum of money shall not exceed $240." The amendment was agreed to. The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. EXTENSION OF PATENTS. The PRESIDENT. The next bill on the Calendar is a bill to extend two patents of Zebulon Parker. On motion of Mr. JAMES, the consideration of the bill was postponed until Friday next. JOHN F. CALLAN. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand that this bill provides for a resettlement of the accounts upon the testimony already filed, and such additional testimony as may be hereafter presented. That opens the whole matter, and embraces a repayment of that which has already been paid for, either in whole or in part. Mr. BAYARD. The former payment was for personal property which was destroyed in 1814. The bill now reported provides relief for the destruction of the rope-walk and twine of these par ties. My own opinions are adverse to this claim; Mr. PRATT. I think we had better decide The bill for the relief of John F. Callan, admin- Mr. HUNTER. Is there a report in that case? Mr. HUNTER. I would like to hear it read. Mr. WADE. As I perceive that the Senator who takes charge of the bill is not in his seat, I move to postpone the further consideration of the bill until Friday next. Mr. PRATT. The Senator who reported the bill is absent, but he wished me to ask the Senate to consider it to-day. Mr. WADE. Then I withdraw my motion. Mr. BRODHEAD. I beg leave to make a single suggestion,in connection with what was said by the honorable Senator from Maryland. The honorable Senator from Indiana, [Mr. WHITCOMB, who is absent on account of illness, requested that this case should go over in the event of there being a serious opposition to it. If the honorable Senator from Virginia is decidedly of opinion that the bill ought not to be passed, I think it would be better to lay it over. Perhaps he will withdraw his opposition after hearing the report read, which was made by the gentleman from Indiana. The PRESIDENT. The reading of the report has been called for. T. H. MCMANUS. The bill to authorize T. H. McManus to enter by preemption certain lands in the Greensburg district, Louisiana, was read a second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that T. H. McManus be authorized, under such instructions as may be given by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to enter by preemption, at the rate of $1 25 per acre, at the land office at Greensburg, Louisiana, such quantity of public lands, not to exceed eight hundred acres, according to legal subdivisions, as may embrace his actual improvements in the parish of East Feliciana, on the waters of the Black Creek, township No. 1, and range No. 3, provided that such entry shall not interfere with the valid rights of others, and shall be made after the return to the aforesaid land office of an approved plat of said township. Mr. DOWNS. I will state the facts of the case very briefly. Mr. McManus purchased at probate sale, after the death of the parties who had settled on this land, their right of preemption. He bought the rights to two tracts. In addition to that there is a small quantity of vacant land near him which he wishes to enter. Now, on these two purchases, which, perhaps, under the restrictions of the preemption laws, he cannot properly enter as a preemption right, but of which he was a bona fide purchaser at a probate sale, and also a quantity of Mr. ATCHISON. I have no objection to the bill, provided it is properly guarded. I have my doubts as to whether a sale, under an order of the probate court, of a preemption right, would be at all valid-whether it would transfer anything at all. Under the preemption laws, I believe, the representatives of the deceased may or may not enter. The preemption right accrues to his representatives, to his administrators, or to his widow. Now, if their rights should be protected in this bill by an amendment, I should have no objection to it. As to the small fraction of land adjoining these purchases, which the Senator mentions, I see no difficulty in the way of this man's entering it, whether he has or has not a preemption right, unless somebody else has a preemption right to it. If there is no preemption right to it, then he can enter, or any other citizen of the United States can enter, that land by paying the money for it at the land office. Suppose this bill shall pass, authorizing Mr. McManus to enter this quantity of land, not to exceed eight hundred acres; and suppose the representatives, or the widow, or whosoever under the preemption law is entitled to enter the land, should go to the land office, make the necessary proofs, and present the money: there would be a difficulty. I see this difficulty in the way; but if the rights of these parties are guarded by an amendment, I shall have no objection to it. Mr. DOWNS. There is a provision in the hill in regard to the rights of other parties. If the Senator will allow the bill to be read again, he will see that the rights of all the other parties are sufficiently secured. The bill was read. Mr. ATCHISON. I have no objection to it. Mr. FELCH. I would like to inquire what the difficulty is in the way of this person enjoying the right now to buy the land at Government price? Can he not purchase it now at $1 25 per acre? Mr. DOWNS. I do not know what the difficulty is, but I can state several that may exist. There are many restriction s and limitations in the preemption laws. One is, that if a man owns a certain quantity of land besides that for which he claims a preemption right, he cannot enjoy the benefit of a preemption right. That may be the case with this man, for he may own more than three hundred and twenty acres besides. That would be one objection. There may be others. He may come within some of the other exceptions may be taken from him, and occupied by some- It seems to me he presents a fair and reasonable Mr. SHIELDS. I wish to ask the honorable Senator from Louisiana a single question? Is there any plat or survey of the land where this claim is situated? Is it ascertained at the Department, whether there is any other claim that can come in conflict with this? I do not understand that there is any plat of this land deposited in the General Land Office. Mr. DOWNS. I do not know of any conflict; I do not know of any information before the committee on that subject. But I think there is no conflict, because if there was a conflict, it would was a statement accompanying the petition from Mr. WALKER. For one, my opinion is that Mr. FELCH. I observe by the reading of the bill a second time, that this land is situated within the Greensburg district of Louisiana. That is one of the districts in which there has been heretofore very great difficulty in regard to the survey of lands; and if I am not mistaken in my recol-be likely to be known to his neighbors, and there lection of the matter, there was an investigation made some two or three sessions ago, and the whole region of land in that district was withdrawn from sale; so that no person can enter land within that district under any circumstances, with or without preemption rights. I may not be entirely accurate in this respect, but I think I am. If that is so, the provisions of this bill would seem to be designed to enable the entry to be made in a region where entries cannot be made, with of without a preemption right; but if the land is open for sale in that district, then I do not see, from any thing which has been presented here, the difficultyvidual case out of the operation of the law as it of this McManus now going without any preemption, and making a purchase of the land. He can purchase it if it is open to purchase. If it is not open to purchase, we ought to understand a little better the circumstances connected with the case than we do now before we pass this bill. I move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until Friday next. Mr. DOWNS. It is unnecessary to postpone the bill, because the matter can be just as well understood now as at any other time. There can certainly be no such difficulty as is suggested by the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, in regard to defective surveys. It is true that there have been many defective surveys of the lands in that district, and there has been great trouble arising out of that. Perhaps that is the reason that this person has not been able to enter these lands before. It may be that the survey of that neighborhood has not been completed, and he has not been able to enter his lands; but the bill itself prevents all difficulties of that kind, because it provides that he shall have a right to make this entry only after a duly-authenticated survey shall have been made of this township and returned. Therefore he cannot enter the lands until the surveys are made. I would mention here that I understand most of the errors in these surveys have been corrected, so that the surveys are now pretty correct. I believe it is true that at one time sales were stopped, and a great deal of money refunded; but even if the lands are open to purchase, the party is not entitled to the benefit of preemption right for more than one hundred and sixty acres, and this land is more than that. now exists, and to give him the right of entering Mr. DOWNS. If any other person in the Mr. SHIELDS. I would make a suggestion to the Senator from Louisiana. After reading the report I am perfectly satisfied of the justness of the claim; but I am also exceedingly anxious to ascertain precisely what the claim is. There is nothing in the papers in the case to show whether or not eight hundred acres is the claim. Hence, if we give him a right to enter eight hundred acres it may interfere with the rights of others. Mr. DOWNS. There is a provision in the bill, that this shall not interfere with the rights of others. Mr. SHIELDS. I hope the motion to postpone until next Friday will be agreed to, in order that we may inquire at the General Land Office, and ascertain precisely what the claim is, what are its limits, what are its bounds, and whether any other claim can interfere with it. When that shall have been satisfactorily ascertained, I suppose there will be no objection to the bill. Certainly I shall have none. The motion to postpone was agreed to. COL. D. D. MITCHELL. The bill for the relief of Lieut. Col. Mitchell, of the State of Missouri, was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to pay off and satisfy the judgment obtained in the name of Manuel X. Harmony, against Lieut. Col. David D. Mitchell, in the circuit court for St. Louis county, in the State of Missouri, in the year 1851. He would not ask for a preëmption, if he could enter the lands. If he could do that he would not ask-he would not need the interposition of Congress. The object is to enter the land before it is offered at public sale. This man has bought at probate sale, in the ordinary course of business, two purchases; he has gone on them, and culti- The report of the Committee on Military Affairs vated them, and if we decide now, that he cannot was read. The facts of the case appear to be have a preemption under such circumstances, we these: David D. Mitchell was Lieutenant Colonel decide contrary to the spirit of the laws of the of the regiment of Missouri volunteers commandState in which he resides. By some of the decis-ed by Col. A. M. Doniphan, which regiment was ions of the supreme court of Louisiana these in- ordered to march on New Mexico. On the march choate rights have been recognized. It is a very to Chihuahua, Lieut. Col. Mitchell received from frequent thing there for these rights to be sold his superior officer, Col. Doniphan, an order which at probate sale. If you refuse to pass this bill he executed by issuing an order from the camp now, his house, his land which he has cultivated, below El Paso, on the 10th of February, 1847, directing Harmony & Co., with their teams and men, to fall in the rear, and all persons in their employ to be enrolled in the army. This order was observed until the army arrived at Chihuahua. For thus executing the orders of the commanding officer, Lieut. Col. D. D. Mitchell, after the termination of the war, being in the city of New York in the year 1849, an action of law was commenced against him in the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, for said seizure. He employed counsel to defend the suit. They were aided by the district attorney of the United States for that district, under the instructions of the Government. A judgment was rendered against Mr. Mitchell for about $95,000. The Attorney General of the United States investigated the case, with the intention of taking it up to the Supreme Court, but finding no ground to justify the proceeding, it was abandoned. Col. Mitchell being a citizen of the State of Missouri, and having no property in the State of New York, a copy of the record was sent to Missouri, and a suit was instituted on the judgment obtained in New York. This suit was defended by the district attorney of the United States, under the instructions of the Attorney General, and also by able counsel employed by Col. Mitchell. The result was a judgment against him for upwards of $102,000, under which his property is liable to sale and he to pecuniary ruin, for having honestly and faithfully obeyed his superior officer, in time of war, in the country of a hostile nation. Under these circumstances, the committee were unanimously of opinion that the Government of the United States was bound to relieve Lieut. Col. Mitchell from said judgment. The bill was reported to the Senate, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. BILLS PASSED. The following bills were read a third time and passed: A bill for the relief of Jane Irwin; A joint resolution to authorize the continuance of the work upon the two wings of the Capitol; A bill to confirm the claim of John Irvin to a certain tract of land on the Bastrop Claim; A bill for the relief of M. K. Warrington, and A bill for the relief of Frances P. Gardner; and CLAIM FOR THE OCCUPATION OF KEY WEST. The bill for the relief of John W. Simonton was read a second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, audit and settle the claims of John W. Simonton and others, owners of the Island of Key West, in the State of Florida, on principles of justice and equity, on account of its occupancy by the Government of the United States as a naval and military post during the years 1823, 24, 25, and 26; that in settling it upon these principles they shall ascertain, as nearly as practicable, the benefits and advantages which accrued to the United States from the occupancy of the Island, and also the injuries which resulted to the owners, and to pay the same out of any money not otherwise appropriated. Mr. HALE. I am not going to say a word against the bill, but I want to inquire whether, under that phraseology of paying money "on principles of justice and equity, "the Department will or will not pay interest? I understand that, under the same phraseology in other bills, a very large sum of money for interest has been paid; and as the Senate, by a vote the other day, indicated that they would not pay interest on a claim clearly due, I want to know whether they will pay interest in this case? Mr. MALLORY. All of the facts involved in the bill are set forth in the report. I ask that the report may be read, as Senators may not be familiar with the facts; and then I shall answer the Senator's question. The report was accordingly read. Mr. HALE. I hope the Senator from Florida will consent to the postponement of this bill. As it stands now, , in its present shape, I feel bound to vote against it. I would like to have an oppor tunity of looking into the case. I hope it will be postponed. Mr. MALLORY. I certainly did not expect to hear the slightest word of opposition to this bill. If there ever was a case presented to Congress deserving attention, it is this. This is a clear case of the taking of private property for public use, without making any compensation therefor, but, on the contrary, compensation has been withheld for over twenty years. The case has been twice before Congress, and favorable reports, almost identically the same in words, were made on both occasions. The occupation of the Island of Key West, the declaration of martial law, the using of private property for public purposes, was the means of accomplishing important ends which the Government had in view at that time, viz: the suppression of piracy in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government fully accomplished its ends, while, at the same time, the objects of the owners of the property were entirely destroyed, and all the benefits resulting from the purchase were delayed for years and years; and now they come and ask that the may be remunerated for their property thus taken. They demand no interest. I answer that question directly. They probably will receive none. They never expected any. And this bill will fail to give them what they were actually out of pocket twenty years ago. The bill does not contemplate interest. It simply contemplates that the Department shall give them dollar for dollar what they were out of pocket at that time, and no more. The owners of the property who were delayed for years and years in its enjoyment, have accumulated testimony. They have had great trouble in getting the testimony of officers of the Navy on foreign stations, and in finding the persons who were on the Island at the time. They have now, after the lapse of years, been able to complete the testimony. It is very clear there can be no doubt about the case. The facts are set forth in detail in the report which has been read. I trust there will be no opposition to it. The bill does not, as I understand, justify the Department in paying interest. It certainly calls for none. On principles of justice and equity the loss of the property of these parties by the occupation of the Island, the stock that was killed, the interference with the sale of the property at the time, ought to be taken into consideration; but I do not think that interest will be allowed. Mr. HALE. I am sorry to have to oppose this bill now, and perhaps I should not oppose it if it were laid over for a week. But after the history of the legislation of this Congress for the last few years, I never will go for sending a claim for consequential damages which is so great that the committee refrain from expressing an opinion, to one of the Executive officers with directions to settle it on principles of justice and equity. That is my objection to this bill. If I am not mistaken, these very instructions to settle upon principles of justice and equity were given in the bill for the settlement of the famous Galphin claim, on which $80,000 or $90,000 interest was allowed. There is a precedent. If I am not mistaken, the phraseology of the two bills is exactly the same. Now, if these gentlemen owning this real estate have been injured, no matter how great may be the amount, I am for paying what they have suffered, if it is a million of dollars. But I am unwilling to turn away from Congress claimants who come here with claims for consequential, remote, unliquidated damages, and turning the matter over to the Department to settle their claims " principles of justice and equity," without giving the accounting officers some directions, some qualifications, some limitations upon which they are to settle them. It is this loose way of doing business to which I object. I hope the Senator will consent to let this bill lie over for a week. Then we may possibly be able to understand it better. upon After a few words of conversation on this suggestion, the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, February 6, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. THURSTON, by unanimous consent, presented joint resolutions from the Legislature of Rhode Island in favor of the retention of the act abolishing flogging in the Navy; and also for abolishing the spirit ration in all naval ships and navy-yards; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed. On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, leave was granted to withdraw from the files of the House the memorial of James Pitman, for the purpose of having the claim prosecuted before the proper Department. EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL. Mr. McNAIR, from the committee on the extension of the Capitol, asked leave to report a res olution. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. If that is a report from a committee, it may take up the entire day with its discussion. I object to it, and move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with a view of taking up the bill for the assignability of land warrants. Mr. McNAIR. It will not take up five minutes. I ask that it may be read for information. It was read by the Clerk as follows: Resolved, That the committee appointed to examine into the firmness and stability, &c., of the foundations for the extension of the Capitol, be authorized to send for persons and papers, and to examine witnesses under oath. Mr. McNAIR. I ask that the resolution may be put on its passage; and upon that question I ask the previous question. Mr. JONES. I have not withdrawn my objection to the introduction of the resolution. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. HENN. I hope the House will resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. That Calendar is now getting full, and it is very necessary that some of the bills should be disposed of. The SPEAKER. There being a special order before the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, a motion that the House resolve itself into that committee will take precedence of a motion to go into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. Mr. JONES. At the suggestion of several gentlemen around me, I will withdraw my objection to the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McNAIR. I now move to put the resolution upon its passage; and upon that motion I call the previous question. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put upon the passage of the resolution. Mr. PENNIMAN demanded the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered. The question was then taken, and the resolution was adopted. ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. Mr. HALL moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. If that motion prevail, what will be the order of business? The SPEAKER. The bill for the assignability of land warrants will first come before the committee, that being the special order. Mr. STANTON. Can we not go into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar? I thought this was private bill day. The SPEAKER. It will be in order for the gentleman to make that motion; but the motion to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order, will take precedence. The question was then taken on the motion to go into committee; and on a division there wereayes 82, noes 18-no quorum voting. Mr. CLINGMAN called for tellers; which were ordered; and Messrs. STANTON, of Tennessee, and FOWLER were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 98, noes not counted. So the motion prevailed. The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, upon the special orders, (Mr. OLDs in the chair.) The CHAIRMAN. The business before the committee is the special order, being Senate bill No. 146, making land warrants assignable, and for other purposes. When the committee rose on yesterday, there were pending, first, the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] to strike out all of the bill after the first section; second, the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] to strike out the second section, and insert as a substitute the second section of the bill reported by the select committee; third, the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] to strike out all after the word "seven," in the sixth line of the second section, and insert "on each land warrant of forty acres, fifty cents; for each land warrant of eighty acres, $1; and for each land warrant of one hundred and sixty acres, $2;" and fourth, the amendment of the reduce one half the compensation proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ALLISON] to gentleman from New York, [Mr. SACKETT.] The first amendment pending is that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. ALLISON.] Mr. SACKETT. I merely wish to say that the amendment proposed by me reduces already the compensation one half, and is so guarded as to make the percentage equal on all classes of warrants. The CHAIRMAN. No further discussion is in order. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ALLISON] to the amendment. Several MEMBERS. Read the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment provides for reducing the compensation of registers and receivers one half. The question was then taken, and the amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SACKETT,] to strike out all after the word "seven" in the sixth line, and to insert "on each land warrant of forty acres, fifty cents; for each land warrant of eighty acres, $1; and for each land warrant of one hundred and sixty acres, $2.” The question was then taken, and the amendment was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] to strike out and insert, (as reported yesterday;) and being put, the amendment was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] to strike out all of the bill after the first section as amended. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, demanded tellers. Mr. CARTTER. Before that question is taken I wish to offer an amendment. The fourth section of the bill was read as follows: SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That in all cases where the militia or volunteers, or State troops of any State or Territory, were called into military service, and whose services have been paid by the United States, subsequent to the 18th June, 1812, the officers and soldiers of such militia, volunteers or troops, shall be entitled to all the benefits of the act entitled "An act granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States," approved September 28, 1850, and shall receive lands for their services according to the provisions of said act, upon proof of length of service as therein required; and that the last proviso of the ninth section of the act of the 11th of February, 1847, be, and the same is hereby repealed: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall authorize bounty land to those who have heretofore received or become entitled to the same. I propose to insert after the word "fifty," in the eleventh line of the fourth section, as follows: And such other persons as may have performed voluntary military service in defending their homes on the frontier of the Republic against Indian invasion. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Do I understand the gentleman to offer an amendment to the fourth section. Mr. CARTTER. Yes, sir, I do. Mr. STEPHENS. Is the fourth section now under consideration? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair supposes that all the remaining sections are under consideration in consequence of the motion made to strike out all those sections. Mr. STEPHENS. How, then, will it be if a motion is hereafter made to amend the third sec tion? Can we go back to it? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair supposes that the motion to strike out all after the first section brings up the consideration of all the remaining sections, and Mr. CARTTER. With the permission of the Chair, I will suggest to the gentleman from Geor gia [Mr. STEPHENS] that the motion to strike out all after the first section brings up all the other sections for amendment. Gentlemen have indicated no purpose to make any further amendment to the third section, and therefore amendments are in order to all the subsequent sections. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that if an amendment is offered to the third section, it takes preference over an amendment to the fourth section. Mr. CARTTER. It will be perceived, by an examination of the fourth section of the bill, that it contemplates the bestowal of lands upon persons who have been temporarily called into service, and were paid by the United States. Now, the class of persons denominated in the amendment which I have just submitted to the committee, are a class who have rendered a similar, if not a superior kind of military service, but who have not been paid by the United States. The object of this fourth section, as I understand it, is especially to make a provision for the benefit of persons who have been involved in the Cherokee war. It comprehends, practically, the history of that war. Most of the members of this House are aware how much that war has already cost us; and they are also aware how abundantly the contributions of Florida to that war have been paid out of the national Treasury; and all that I claim is, that while you are continuing to feed this demand upon the public Treasury by continually extending grants out of that Treasury in that quarter, you will just remember a hardy set of men who have retired upon the advancement of population from the shores of the Atlantic west; and holding their gun in one hand and their axe in the other, have defended their households from the presence of a destructive and merciless enemy-a class of men as much superior in all the elements of practical|| service to this country, to the class of men sought to be remunerated in this bill, as is imaginable; a class of men who have constituted your frontier fortifications with their naked breasts, and upon their personal prowess and personal responsibility, as civilization has advanced from the East to the West, and from the North to the South. It is the hunting-shirts that the amendment proposes to reward-men who never have carried a military cockade in their caps perchance, but who have carried their rifles in their hands, loaded ready for service the minute men of the West-men who have not only defended it from the invasion of the enemy, but have prepared it for the occupation of civilization. That is the class of men I contemplate in the amendment I have offered; and I hope that the military chivalry which is at the bottom of this affair, will enlarge the compass of their benevolence a little, and for one period relax their military drill and comprehend this irregular force this volunteer force-this force that marched under the command of the impulses of their hearts, and who fired without the order to fire. [Laughter.] [The Speaker's hammer here fell.] Mr JONES, of Tennessee. I am opposed to that amendment. Mr. HALL. I hope the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] will adopt an amendment to his amendment. Mr. CARTTER. Yes, any reasonable one. Mr. HALL. It is to include those who were called out to defend the frontiers of Missouri from the savages of Iowa a few years ago. Mr. CARTTER. Certainly, if they belong to my platoon. Are they of my kind? Mr. HALL. The only difference is, that his are red savages and mine are white. [Laughter.] The question was then taken upon the amendment to the amendment, and it was lost. Mr. COBB. I will inform the gentleman who has just taken his seat, the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] who talks about the Cherokee war, that The CHAIRMAN. There is no amendment pending. Mr. COBB. I move to strike out, in the sixth line, the word "and," and insert, after the word soldiers, the words "and teamsters. I think gentlemen have spoken of the number of individuals whom this section was intended to provide for, as being individuals who were sent against the Cherokee Indians. If I have read the history of that war correctly, those Cherokee Indians were our allies. It is not, of course, designed to provide for men engaged in such a war. It is proper I should state that the fourth section of this bill proposes to provide for a portion of the army that the bill of 1850 contemplated to provide for. When that bounty land bill was under consideration, every inch of this ground was fought over. Classes of persons proposed to be provided for by the amendment to the fourth section of the bill, were endeavored to be provided for in the bill of 1850, but from the construction of the Secretary of the Interior, they have, many of them, been excluded. I am satisfied that the construction was an improper one; but notwithstanding it is so, they can now be provided for by a law, such a one as is now proposed to be inserted in the fourth section of this bill. It is true that while it is proposed to amend this law-this explanatory law— so as to embrace that portion of the military soldiers whom we intended to have provided for in the law of 1850, it is proposed by this bill to add a few more. For my own part I have no objec tion. I shall vote for the fourth section as it stands, and I will say to the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] who proposes to provide for the frontier soldier who took his axe in the one hand and his gun in the other, that I am to willing to vote for a provision in the bill to give each of those individuals a quarter section of land. VOICES. "Good!" "Good!" "Good!" Mr. C., (continuing.) I shall vote for that measure when it comes up; and then we shall be able to provide to the entire satisfaction of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] according to the proposition he has made; but inasmuch as it has passed away, it is not within my province to speak of it at this time. But as to my amendment: I do not see any good reasons why teamsters should not be provided for in this bill. I have been appealed to, to make provision for this class of individuals, for the reason that they are supposed to have rendered efficient service to the country in the way of their employment, in driving through the enemy's country; and to have encountered great dangers in traveling through such country, as much so as the soldier who had his musket upon his shoulder. I think they should be provided for, therefore I propose the amendment, which I hope will be adopted. Mr. WILLIAMS. I rise not for the purpose of arguing this question. It is manifest to the House, and to every gentleman of the House friendly to the registers and receivers of the land offices, that they cannot, in connection with this bill, effect their object. It is a notorious fact, that the recipients of the bounty land act of 1850, in consequence of the land warrants not being assignable, have sold them for one hundred per cent. less than they otherwise would have done. And I rise for the purpose of suggesting to gentlemen in favor of paying the registers and receivers, this view of the case. They differ among themselves. Gentlemen, representing in part registers and receivers, are debating this question upon the floor of his House day after day. I would suggest the propriety of ceasing their efforts, as they conflict with each other, and let us pass this bill, which is important. And I would suggest to them the further propriety of having a select committee upon the subject of paying land registers and receivers, to be constituted of members from the sections of the country interested in it; and if upon a report by them to the House they can show that the Government is either directly or indirectly bound to pay them, I have no doubt it will be done. I feel willing to vote pay to them, and if I commit an error in voting upon the claims of private individuals, I always prefer to commit that error in favor of the individual in preference to the Government. But it is impossible to pass that provision in connection with this bill; and the simple object I had in rising, was to appeal to the House to let us take the vote upon making land warrants assignable, and upon repealing that provision of the act of 1850 which confines their location to lands actually surveyed. The first section of the bill contains all the provisions that I desire, and I hope that the committee will take the question at once. The question was then taken upon the amendof Mr. COBB, and it was disagreed to. Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I move to strike out in the fourth section, from the third line to the sixth, these words: "And whose services have been paid by the United States subsequent to the 18th of June, 1812." we are going to extend the provisions of the bounty land act of 1850, in limiting it to those whose services have been paid since 1812. I apprehend this was put into this bill for the purpose of cutting out from the operation of the bounty land system those old veterans who served in the Indian campaign under General Wayne. I congratulate myself that I have the opportunity, by detecting this thing, to bring the Congress of the United States to a direct vote-when we are extending bounty to soldiers who have served in the wars of the country on the proposition to extend that bounty to men who, although unfortunate in the battle of Saint Clair, yet fully redeemed the western credit and did incalculable service to the West in subsequent campaigns, under General Wayne; and I hope there will be no opposition in the committee to the extending the act or system so as to embrace them. Mr. AVERETT. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to this amendment; and mean to oppose every amendment except the one striking out the whole of the bill after the first section as amended. We are tantalizing those who were intended to be the beneficiaries of the famous "old soldiers' bill." I find that some members feel more regard for the interests of receivers and registers of land offices, and other Government functionaries, than they do in the old soldiers, their widows and orphans. I do not, by the course I take here, mean to be understood as opposed to all of the propositions offered as amendments to this bill. There are some of them I feel inclined to vote for. But they ought to come here upon their own wheels, instead of making an omnibus of our bill, providing for the transfer of the land warrants to which no one objects. I appeal to the House to allow the seventy or eighty thousand persons who have received land warrants under the act of 1850, to make use of them in buying what they want. If the bill which went through this House the last session had been passed, there are those now in my district who would have laid out the value of the warrants in buying the meat that is to sustain them for the present year. There are numbers who would have made use of them in the purchase of their sugar, coffee, iron, salt, and other necessaries of life. Allow them that, and then you can proceed to act upon other bills. Let each proposition stand upon its own merits. If gentlemen are afraid to test them upon their own merits; and if they are determined to burden this bill down with them, it is evident they possess no merits. I hope the committee will vote down every one of them, and let us pass this bill. We will not necessarily cut off these registers and receivers by this course of proceeding, from whatever they are justly entitled to. I believe the Senate will pass our bill, simply making the warrants assignable, as provided in this first section as amended. I do not believe the Senate will again, and for the third time, defeat this popular measure, by riding it to death with extraneous matters. Mr. HALL. Is an amendment to the amendment in order? The CHAIRMAN. It is. Mr. HALL. I then move to amend the words proposed to be stricken out by the gentleman from Kentucky by striking out "1812," and inserting instead the words "subsequent to 1800." Mr. H. If the gentleman from Kentucky be right in supposing the clause in the bill would exclude those men who served under General Wayne, I am perfectly willing there shall be a provision inserted to cover them. I am, however, of the opinion that the gentleman is wrong in the supposition that this class would be excluded under that clause, and if the gentleman will reflect Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. The clause excludes all anterior to the war of 1812. Mr. HALL. I only want to say this, that I think the gentleman from Kentucky cannot have considered the effect of this provision, for if I understand the matter right he otherwise would not have proposed it. Mr. STEPHENS. It is not in the House bill, but the Senate bill. Mr. HALL. I understand that he proposes to give bounty lands to all those whose services were not paid for by the United States. Now, who will this clause embrace? I have not read the amendment distinctly, but I think it will embrace all those called out in the Mormon war, and all I do so, sir, because I perceive no propriety, if those called out in the Iowa war. Mr. STEPHENS. Were those soldiers the gentleman speaks of mustered into the service of the United States, and actually paid? Mr. HALL. No. The gentleman from Kentucky proposes that that clause which requires they shall have been mustered into the United States service and paid, be stricken out. Mr. STEPHENS. He barely moves to strike out that which restricts it to the war of 1812. That is all. Mr. HALL. It may be that I misunderstand it. Let the amendment be read. The Clerk read the amendment, as reported above. Mr. MARSHALL. I will modify my amendment, to strike out the words "and whose services have been paid by the United States subsequent to the 18th of June, 1812," so as to make it read: And be it further enacted, &c., That in all cases where the milita or volunteers or State troops of any State or Territory were called into military service, &c. the Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I proposeThe CHAIRMAN. Discussion upo upon amendment is not in order, as the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri, being accepted by the gentleman from Kentucky, becomes part of his amendment, and upon that amendment the discussion is ended. Mr. EVANS. I propose an amendment to the amendment, by striking out the words "and whose services have been paid by the United States." I only want to say, sir, that it strikes me as a very funny affair to require that a man shall not have bounty land unless he has charged the Government heretofore-unless he has received pay as a soldier. We have a large number of people in my State who never asked the Government for a dollar of pay. A large number of the people, at a time of danger, turned out willingly. A new rule is laid down now, that a man is not to get anything unless he has heretofore got all he can get from the Government for his services. That is the doctrine, and there is no sense or justice in it. A man who served his country without compensation, is more entitled to bounty land than those who came forward for pay. The proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MARSHALL] to strike out the words, and whose services have been paid by the United States subsequent to the 18th of June, 1812," ought certainly to be passed. Perhaps it would be as well to insert before that "military service of the United States," so as not to include the soldiers of Missouri, who were engaged in the Iowa war. I do not see why evidence should be required of a soldier, in order to justify the granting of bounty land, that he has served the United States and has been actually paid. He must have received pay, according to this, before he can get any bounty land. He must already have had his hand in the Treasury before he can get a tract of land in the western country upon which to locate himself in his old age. That is the doctrine of this bill. If he has given gratuitous services to his country, if he has turned out in the hour of need and danger, when he was prosperous and affluent, and chose to demand no compensation now, that should not preclude him when he may be in want from receiving under this bill. I see no sort of reason for the words remaining in the section, and move that they be stricken out; and I hope the committee will put in the third line the words "military service of the United States," so as to exclude the gallant Mormon soldiers of Missouri. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I am opposed to the amendment. The question was taken upon the amendment to the amendment, and it was disagreed to. The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. GOODENOW demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. CHANDLER and HARRIS of Tennessee, were appointed. The question was then taken, and there wereayes 64, noes 69. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. CLINGMAN. 1 move to insert in the thirteenth line of the fourth section, after the word "require," the following: And that the provisions of the fifth section of the act of July 9th, 1848, granting three months extra pay to the soldiers and officers of the Mexican war, be extended so as to include the North Carolina recruits taken into service by including, as they do, a meritorious class of per Lieutenant James W. Tatham, and discharged at Fort Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I rise to a point of order. That amendment, as I understand it, is upon the subject of three months' extra pay, upon a different subject, and cannot be incorporated in this bill, I believe. Mr. CLINGMAN. This I understand to be a bill giving bounty lands to soldiers, and no one will doubt but what we might substitute scrip or money, as was formerly done. The object is to give bounty to the soldier, whether it be three months' extra pay, or in the shape of lands. I take it the amendment is perfectly germane to the bill. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The point of order is not debatable. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair supposes that the amendment is in order. Mr. JONES. From that decision, I take an appeal. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the question of order made by the gentleman from Tennessee. The Chair supposes that, as regards the subject of bounty, it will be in order to make it either in money or land. From that decision the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] takes an appeal. The question, then is, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?" Mr. CLINGMAN demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. LOCKHART and WILLIAMS were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 45, noes 66. So the decision of the Chair was overruled. Mr. EVANS. I propose to offer the following amendment to the 4th section: And be it further enacted, That the provisions of the act of September 28th, 1850, are hereby extended to all mariners, marines, flotilla men and seamen, who have beretofore served with the land forces, in cases where the said persons were not entitled to prize money. And be it further enacted, That a bounty of one hundred and sixty acres of land is hereby granted to all persons who were in any actual engagement or conflict with the enemy, whether the said persons served less or more than one month, provided that said persons shall not receive more than one bounty land warrant for his services in any one war. Mr. E. I do not propose to occupy much of the time of the committee. The Department recommends both of these provisions. The first embraces those men who belonged to the marine service, and acted with the land forces on shore, and who are not entitled to any prize money. We have a precedent for this: sailors in the Mexican war, whether they served upon land or not, received bounty land. I do not now ask the same thing should be extended to those who served in the war of 1812; but I ask that those who go on shore, enlist and serve with the land troops, as our sailors did in 1812, and in the Florida war, Cand where, by no possibility, could they gain any prize money, should receive their bounty land. This would benefit General Barney's men, who were among a few who fought at Bladensburg, and yet who are the only persons in that battle excluded from bounty. I think this would be just; and the number of persons to be benefited is not large. The next class for whom I ask bounty land is composed of those persons who have been in actual battles with the enemy, whether they served a month or not. Now, it must strike every man's sense of justice and notions of propriety, that a man who has been in battle is as well entitled to his bounty land as if he had served five years in the army of the United States, and had never been engaged in battle. By the law as it now stands, those who have been in battle, and have served less than one month, are excluded from the bounty. There is a large class of such persons in my own State, and in many of the Eastern States. Admiral Cockburn lay with several thousand men in Chesapeake bay for a long time, and you could never tell where he would attempt to land. He made predatory incursions, burnt towns, and committed many acts of violence. Our people had to turn out as minute men. Thousands of them never received a dollar from the United States for their services. And yet they were engaged in several warm engagements. Both of these provisions come recommended by the Department of the Interior-both are palpably just in themselves, | sons. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I think the committee had better vote down all amendments, having for their object the extension of the bounty land law, as it now exists, and take a direct vote upon the proposition made by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] to strike out all after the first section. If a majority of the committee are in favor of that motion, then we will get a vote upon the main question in this bill, that is, to make bounty lands assignable. We can send that bill to the Senate, and the next bill in order, which is the special order of the House, will then come up. If there is a majority of the House in favor of extending the bounty land act, as I am myself, then we can do it in that bill. Let me appeal to gentlemen to disencumber the provision making land warrants assignable, of all these amendments; come to a direct vote upon the bill, send it back to the Senate, and then we can take up the bill, which extends the bounty land act. Mr. CHASTAIN. The Senate have rejected it. Mr. STEPHENS. The Senate have not rejected it. My colleague is mistaken. Mr. CHASTAIN. Will they hold on to it? Mr. STEPHENS. They keep that bill in terrorem over us, and it is announced by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL,] that in no event would they pass it, unless we pay those registers and receivers. As to this question, I am willing to take issue with the gentleman. So far as I am concerned, I am determined that I will never give these receivers the compensation they claim in order to pass our bill making land warrants assignable. Mr. STUART. I should like to learn from the message, which was sent here from the Senate, whether it is the fact that this is a new bill. I believe that it is the same bill which passed this House with amendments. [Cries of "No!" "No!"] The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman propose an amendment to the amendment? Mr. STUART. Oh, no. I merely want to learn that fact. The question was then taken on Mr. EVANS'S amendment, and it was not agreed to. Mr. WILCOX. I move to amend the second section of the bill by striking therefrom the words "next of kin." The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks that it is not now in order to amend the second section of the bill, as the committee has passed to the consideration of the fourth section. Mr. WILCOX then submitted a pro forma amendment to the fourth section, and said: I wish merely to submit one reflection for the consideration of the House. It seems to me, from the very great conflict of opinion entertained here by gentlemen who desire to advance the interests and claims of the registers and receivers, that this bill will fail to pass. Now, I am one of those who are in favor of doing the greatest good to the greatest number, and at the same I desire to do injustice to no man. The reflection which I wish to submit to the House is this: upon the one hand there are some one hundred receivers to be benefited by this bill; and upon the other hand there are some one hundred and fifty thousand soldiers, or persons who are the heirs of soldiers, interested in the passage of this bill. Now, I want to know if those one hundred and fifty thousand individuals who have performed services for their country, are to suffer, in order that the interests of one hundred receivers may be advanced? Permit me to say that I have not received a mail from my State since my arrival in this city, that has not contained letters calling upon me to use every effort in my power to procure the passage of a bill making these land warrants assignable, and by virtue of my position on the Committee on Military Affairs, I have received letters of the same purport from various parts of the United States. I concur most fully in the sensible position taken by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] in regard to this bill. I do hope that the House will agree to strike out all save the first section of the bill, as it must be evident to every one that it is impossible to pass the bill in its present shape. am in favor of compensating these receivers. "The laborer is worthy of his hire," is a trite old maxim; but at the same time I would leave that subject for special legislation, and now pass the first section of this bill. |
