first of the actors in the scene was most competent to decide upon it, I ask you what is to become of the claim of the representative of Baron De Kalb, and of those of a host behind who are to come in and claim this amount out of the public Treasury, not as a pension, but as a debt which they are entitled to just as much as if their ancestors had earned so much by the sweat of their brow, and it had been wrongfully taken from their hands by the action of the Government? And what is to become of that class of claims, founded upon the promise of Washington? There is a remarkable entry in that valuable publication-the accounts of that illustrious man kept during the revolutionary war-and he leaves this legacy, and puts it in a note, upon one of its pages, that he has received assistances from the members of parties on both sides of the line, in regard to his revolutionary efforts. That they have assisted him in the various stages of his struggles, and commends them to the benevolence and justice of the Government. He uses this remarkable language: "Whenever they are presented I trust to my country, or to the councils of my country, to pay them." I give the substance of his language, not his phraseology. Will we repudiate the faith of Washington? If this claim had come backed by Washington's promise a promise of the description referred to-would we have had the spirit to set up repudiation, or the statute of limitation? I imagine not. And shall we not say-though not so holy as the word of Washington-that there is something in the faith of John Paul Jones, pledged as it was under the solemnities of that action, that entitles his word to be considered, regarded, and enforced at the hands of the American Congress?

The question then recurring upon the motion to lay the bill aside, with a recommendation that it do

not pass

Mr. CHANDLER demanded tellers; which were ordered; and Messrs. CHANDLER and POLK were appointed.

tion.

beginning of the quarter after its official notificaThe commander of the squadron in this case re

man himself did not receive formal notice of it, but the Commodore had received notice, and had made proclamation from the flag-ship, which was a notice to the whole squadron. Well, if this is so, it entitled him to his pay under the new law. The new law had been passed months before. He came here and he claimed pay under the new law. The Second Auditor, the accounting officer, refused to allow it. He then appealed to Commodore Warrington, who said that he was entitled to it; but the Second Auditor still refused to allow it. He then appealed to Judge Mason, Secretary of the Navy, and he said that he was legally entitled to it, but the Second Auditor still refused, and he now comes before the House. Now, the position I take is, that it ought to have been paid him at the time; that he had a right to it, and that it was a just and legal demand; and that it being a sum for

So the motion was not agreed to. The bill was then laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

GUSTAVUS A. DE RUSSY.

The committee next proceeded to the consideration of bill No. 96-a bill for the relief of Gustavus A. De Russy, late an acting purser in the Navy.

The reading of the report being called for, it was read by the Clerk.

Mr. DANIEL. It will be seen that this bill proposes not only to allow the difference between what pursers were receiving when this clerk was first appointed and the compensation of a purser under the act of 1842, but the interest upon that money. I can see no reason why the interest should be allowed in this case. I do not know when this case was first presented for adjustment; I move, therefore, to strike out "$514 14," and in its stead to insert" $362." That is the principal

exclusive of the interest.

Mr. BOCOCK. The report which has just been read at the Clerk's desk was drawn by myself as a member of the Committee on Naval Affairs, and I thought it was proper and just to allow this man interest upon the money claimed. I do not see what ground the gentleman from North Carolina assumes when he contends that interest ought not to be allowed. Does the gentleman mean to say to this House that interest ought never to be paid by this Government upon a debt that it owes to an individual? Does the gentleman mean to take any such ground as that? Where there is a clear, ascertained, balance due a man for services rendered, does he rise upon this floor, and say, if the Government does not chose to pay that debt, but holds the man out of it year after year, that when at length it does make payment, it ought not to pay the interest? If the gentleman means to take any such ground as that, I say for one, that I dissent from it, and appeal to the House to say whether it is not an improper ground. I put the claim of this man, in the report which has just been read, upon legal grounds. I say that he had a right to demand this money. I say, furthermore, that the highest officers of the Department decide that he had a right to demand it, but the accounting office refuses to

that interest ought to be paid upon it from the day on which it ought to have been paid to him The difficult and responsible services this man had to perform upon the barren and desolate coast of Africa, the responsibility upon his hands, are all set forth in the report, and I shall not detain the House with the details again. In my judgment the interest ought to be paid.

Mr. DANIEL. I did not intend to place myself, by the motion I have made, upon new ground in reference to this matter. It is a well-established principle, that the Government, as a general rule, does not pay interest. I think it is generally a correct one; for if it was the universal rule that interest shall be paid to the time when Congress shell, after a lapse of years, ascertain a demand to have been a good one, it would become a most convenient mode of funding all demands against the Government, and individuals, instead of presenting their claims promptly at the proper departments for adjudication, would have all the motives of capitalists to withhold them. Claims are sometimes kept back in consequence of the imperfect manner in which proof is presented, and sometimes in consequence of delays arising on the part of the applicants themselves.

Mr. BOCOCK. If my friend from North Carolina will permit me. Not a single one of the reasons assigned applies to this case.

Mr. DANIEL. Wait until I have got to the others. I have not got through yet. There is nothing stated in the report which takes it out of the application of that rule upon which the Government has acted in the non-payment of interest. If there is any special reason, the gentleman has neglected to give it in his report. I do not gather from any statement the gentleman has made, or anything in the case that ought, to take it out of the operation of that general rule; on the contrary, I can see reasons in addition to that glanced at by my motion for its application. The gentleman predicates this legal liability upon the ground that unequivocal notice was given in conformity with the laws of 1842 to this officer. There is just ground for exception to that position. I will not say that the gentleman is not correct, but there is certainly some reason to doubt it. The words of the law have been quoted in the report, as I suppose, correctly, by the gentleman. The act was to go into effect in the United States from the date of its passage, and in vessels abroad at the

[Here a message was received from the Senate, by the hands of their Secretary, ASBURY DICKINS, Esq.]

Mr. DANIEL resumed. It is certainly true, that the act was not literally complied with until the notice was actually received on board of the longed. It may well be contended, therefore, that vessel in which this purser, formerly a clerk, behis pay could not arise until after he received notice. There being some doubt about the construction which the gentleman claims as the construction of the act, and seeing no sufficient reason why the general rule should be departed from, I have made the motion I submit, and think it ought to prevail. Unless we are disposed to pay interest in every case-unless we are disposed to adopt that rule and change the general rule, why we should do it.

Mr. BOCOCK. I had wished to say nothing more. I am opposed as much as any member upon this floor, to speaking upon these matters at all. I have given practical evidence of that fact in my course here, but I will say one or two words in reply to the position just taken by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. DANIEL.] The gentleman says, the general principle upon which this Government acts, is, that it will not pay interest. I understand it to be based upon the reason, that the Government of the United States holds itself at all

times ready to pay its debts, when presented, that the debt has never been presented in a legal formin a form in which the proof had been conclusive, until the time when the amount is to be voted. Now, I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina, if a claim comes up for unliquidated damagesif a claim comes up for a pension-if a claim comes up resting upon anything of that sort, it ought not to carry interest until the proof is completed. This is the ground which the gentleman from North Carolina assumes-this is the reason upon which his principles rest, as applied in this case. Russey actually made a demand upon the GovernHe actually claimed it from the Department. H proof was as full and as conclusive then as it is at this instant of time. If we owe it now, we owed it then. If we ought to pay it now, we ought to have paid it then. Shall we profit by our own failure to do our duty to our

ment for this sum.

selves?

Mr. DANIEL. Why was it not paid?

De

Mr. BOCOCK. I have already stated that the accounting officer, the Second Auditor, took the view which the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. DANIEL] has suggested, as to the construction of this law-and held that the law should not go into operation as to vessels abroad, until actual notification should be made.

Mr. DANIEL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one more question? If we pay interest upon these cases, why not pay interest upon every deferred salary?

Mr. BOCOCK. If we hold back from a man the salary to which he is entitled by the law, I say we ought to pay interest. We ought to be just, and we ought to pay the just demands upon us. When we refuse to pay where a demand is clearly made out, then we ought not to profit by our own refusal to do our duty. The gentleman from North Carolina argues in relation to this matter, as if the language of the law was an actual notification. That is not the language. It says official notification; and the laws of this country, and those highest in authority, have decided that to make notification of the law of this sort for a squadron, it has only to be proclaimed by the commanders of the squadrons. If it is true that a proclamation by the commodore of a ship is an official notification for the squadron, this man was entitled to his demand, and he ought to have it. If it was a debt we owed-if it was a debt the amount of which, and the proof of which was

before the Department at the time the Department improperly refused to pay it, I say that now, in my opinion, we ought to pay interest upon it.

The question was then taken upon Mr. DANIEL'S amendment; and there were-ayes 63— nays 52.

Mr. ORR demanded tellers; which were ordered.

The question was then taken, (Messrs. FoWLER, of Massachusetts, and HENDRICKS, acting as tellers,) and resulted-ayes 65-noes 51.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ORR moved that the bill be laid aside, and reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass.

to.

The question was then taken, and it was agreed

On motion by Mr. ORR, the committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee [Mr. DISNEY] reported that the Committee of the Whole House had had under consideration two bills, which they had directed him to report back, one with an amendment and one without amendment, with a recommendation that they do pass.

The SPEAKER. first bill to the House.

The Clerk will report the

Mr. ORR moved, that when this House adjourns it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

Mr. DUNCAN called for the yeas and nays. [Cries of "Oh no; withdraw the call!"] The SPEAKER announced that there were only seventeen rising-believed not to be a sufficient number.

Mr. GIDDINGS insisted on a count; and the negative side being counted, there were 116.

Mr. GIDDINGS demanded tellers on ordering the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered. And the yeas and nays were not ordered. The question was then taken on Mr. ORR's motion, and it was agreed to.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, moved that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DANIEL. I hope the House will not adjourn until the bills reported from the Committee of the Whole House have been disposed of.

[Cries of "Order!" "Order!"]

The question was then taken on Mr. STEPHENS'S motion, and it was agreed to.

So the House adjourned till Monday.

NOTICES OF bills.

Mr. SIBLEY gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill, so to amend the acts for the establishment of the territorial governinents of the United States, as to make the judges of the supreme court in aid Territories elective by the people thereof.

Mr. DAVIS, of Indiana, gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill granting the right of way and a portion of the public lands, for the construction of a railroad from Terre Haute, or some other point on the Indianapolis and Terre Haute railroad, in the State of Indiana, to Springfield,

in the State of Illinois.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. FLOYD: The resolutions of the Westfield Agricultural, Literary, and Scientific Society, for the recognition of the independence of Hungary.

By Mr. SMART: The petition of John M. Hood and others, assistant marshals in Somerset county, Maine, asking for increase of compensation.

By Mr. BOYD, of Kentucky: The proceedings of a meeting of soldiers of the war of 1812, held in Philadelphia, on the subject of proposed modifications of the bounty land act of September 28, 1850.

By Mr. ALLISON: The memorial of the heirs and representatives of A. Crary, late of Newport, Rhode Island, deceased, praying for indemnification for losses sustained by depredations committed by the vessels of France, prior to the year 1800.

By Mr. SIBLEY: The memorial of E. Backus, major of 3d Infantry, and other officers of the United States Army in New Mexico, praying that the officers and enlisted men stationed in that Territory may be placed on the same footing, with regard to pay, with those stationed in California and Oregon.

By Mr. HARPER: The petition of Stephen Potts and C. S. Madison, praying for additional compensation for their services as deputy marshals in taking the census of Guernsey county, Ohio.

By Mr. COBB: The petition for the establishing a post road from Fort Gibson, Jackson county, Alabama, to Chattanoogo, Tennessee, to run on the south side of the Tennessee river, in said States.

By Mr. PORTER: The petition of citizens of Franklin County, Missouri, asking the establishment of a post route from Union, in Franklin county, by way of Lebanon, in La Clede county, to Springfield, in Green county, in said State.

Maryland, remonstrating against the renewal of the patent granted to Austin & Zebulon Parker for alleged improvements upon reaction water-wheels.

By Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania: The petition, numerously signed by citizens of Lancaster county, stating that the fugitive slave law was unjust, inhuman, and oppressive, and praying for its repeal.

Also, the petition of citizens of Lancaster and Lebanon counties, praying for the establishment of a post route from Lancaster, by the way of Sporting Hill, et cetera, to Annvill, in Lebanon county.

Also, six petitions, very numerously signed, praying for an additional duty on foreign irou.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, February 16, 1852.
Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN.
MISSION TO EASTERN ASIA.

A message from the President of the United States was received by Mr. M. P. FILLMORE, his Secretary, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 26th ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, containing the correspondence relating to the mission of Mr. Balestier, late Consul at Singapore, to Eastern Asia; which was ordered to be laid on the table and printed.

APPLICANTS FOR PENSIONS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, a list of suspended or rejected applications for pensions, under the several acts of Congress, with the grounds of such suspension or rejection, and the place of residence, as far as the same can be given, of each applicant; which was ordered to be referred to the Committee on Pensions and printed.

NAVY REGISTER.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a letter of the Secretary of the Navy, accompanied by eighty copies of the Navy Register for 1852; which was ordered to be laid on the table.

PETITIONS.

Mr. WADE presented three petitions of citizens of Ohio, and a petition of masters of steamboats and vessels upon Lake Erie, praying that the State of Ohio may be divided into two judicial districts; which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, seven memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Ohio, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Also, a petition of merchants and others of Philadelphia, praying the construction of an additional canal around the Falls of the Ohio river; which was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Mr. WALKER presented a resolution of the Legislature of Wisconsin, in favor of a donation of the military reserve at Fort Winnebago to the State for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. PRATT presented a resolution of the Legislature of Maryland, in favor of the enactment of a law making free so much of the Baltimore and Washington turnpike as lies within the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

Mr. BRIGHT presented four memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Indiana, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. CHASE presented four memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Ohio, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. BRODHEAD presented the petition of Joseph Nock, praying remuneration for losses sustained in consequence of the violation of a contract for supplying the Post Office Department with locks; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Legislature of Alabama, praying a repeal or modMr. CLEMENS presented a memorial of the ification of the act to enable the State of Arkansas and other States to reclaim the swamp lands within their limits; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. FISH presented the memorial of John J. Palmer, receiver and legal representative of the American Insurance Company of New York, praying the establishment of a tribunal to review the decisions of the late Board of Commissioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens

against Mexico; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Also, two petitions of citizens of Albany, New York, praying the establishment of a Mint in the city of New York; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Also, a memorial of Johnson Livingston, and his associates, praying the aid of the Government in establishing a monthly line of steamers between New York and Genoa; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, a memorial of merchants, ship-owners, and others, of New York, against the establishment of any more lines of mail steamers, under the patronage of the Government; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CASS presented a memorial of the trustees of the St. Vincent Orphan Asylum, in the District of Columbia, praying a donation of land to aid in the education of orphan boys; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. SMITH presented the petition of J. Glynn, of the Navy, praying that he may be credited in his settlement with the Department with the amount of money which was stolen while in his charge on the coast of California; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. STOCKTON presented three petitions of citizens of New Jersey, praying an appropriation for the improvement of Barnegat Inlet; which were referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. FISH presented the memorial of the pro

ers, praying further aid from the Government; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CLARKE. I am requested to present a communication from Rhode Island, signed by up-prietors of the New York and Havre mail steamwards of one hundred and fifty persons, inhabitants of Providence and citizens of the United States, in which they say, that as it appears that the Senate of the United States is turning its attention towards the victims of despotic governments and inhuman laws, they respectfully ask that it would consider the unhappy lot of Drayton and Sayres, inmates of the prison of the District of Columbia, convicted of acts which all humanity the wide world over, applauds, and which nothing but barbarous laws condemn; and they pray that it would take immediate steps for their relief.

The memorial was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. MORTON presented a petition of the register and receiver of the land office at St. Augustine, Florida, praying compensation for making locations under the Arredondo grant; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Also, the memorial of George H. Smith, assistant marshal for taking the Seventh Census in Duval county, Florida, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

By Mr. HAMILTON: The petition of Lewis Tritte

Mr. ATCHISON presented the memorial of John Owen, praying remuneration for damages sustained and money expended while in charge of the Government property at Cantonment Loring, in the Territory of Oregon; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, the petition of the heirs of Ware S. May deceased, a surgeon in the late war with Mexico, praying three months' extra pay; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. GWIN presented the memorial of a convention of citizens of the State of California, now on a visit to the Atlantic States, held at Brown's Hotel, Washington city, District of Columbia, setting forth the unsurpassed agricultural advantages of the State of California, its vast mineral resources, and that, from her geographical and peculiar position, she must rely, more than any other State, upon her own soil and internal resources for the support of the millions that will, in a short space of time, people the shores of the Pacific within the United States-thus demanding from Congress an enlarged and liberal policy. They pray for grants of land for various literary

and benevolent institutions-for a university and primary schools-for the insane, deaf and dumb, and blind; that the mineral lands should be left as the common property of the American people; that aid be given to the most practicable scheme of steam communication between the ports of the west coast of the United States and those of China; that fog-bells and light-houses be established; the construction of the Great Pacific and Atlantic Railroad; telegraphic communication; the establishment of a weekly mail between the chief cities of the Atlantic and the Pacific; a modification of the postage on letters and papers; the establishment of a branch Mint at San Francisco; the repayment of the duties on foreign imports collected in California, from the treaty with Mexico of May 30, 1848, to the extension of the revenue laws over California, October 18, 1849; the settlement of the military claims in California; the colonization of the Indians, &c., &c.; which was referred to the Committee on Printing.

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES.

Mr. GEYER, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Robert Milligan, reported it without amendment.

Mr. FELCH, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the bill to authorize the sale of reserved lands and for other purposes, reported it without amendment.

Mr. DOWNS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the memorial of Edward Hott, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill to release from reservation and to return to the mass of public lands certain lands in the State of Alabama; which was read and passed to the second reading. The report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the petition of Mark Bean and Richard H. Bean, of Arkansas, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for their relief, which was read and passed to the second reading. The report was ordered to be printed.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. Mr. UNDERWOOD, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the bill entitled "An act to make land warrants assignable, and for other purposes," as amended by the House of Representatives, reported it back, with a recommendation that the Senate do not agree to the said amendment.

KENTUCKY DEAF AND DUMB ASYLUM.

Mr. UNDERWOOD, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the bill to extend the time for selling the lands granted to the Kentucky Asylum for teaching the deaf and dumb, reported it back without amendment

As the time specified in the bill making the grant will soon expire, he requested the Senate to act upon it at this time.

There being no objection, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to allow five years in addition to the five years heretofore allowed, for the sale of the lands which have been granted.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would state, that a letter which I have received from the President of the institution, informs me that the time granted for the sale of these lands will expire in May next; and a further extension of time is asked. Most of the lands have been sold, and there are only a few tracts remaining.

The bill was reported to the Senate, and was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

NOTICE OF A BILL.

Mr. GEYER gave notice that he should ask leave to introduce a bill to provide for holding an additional term of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. WADE, by unanimous consent, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to convey the right of way to the Cleveland and Pittsburg, and Cleveland, Painsville, and Ashtabula Railroad Companies, through certain lands therein mentioned; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. FISH, by unanimous consent, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill amending an act approved the 22d of February, 1847, entitled "An act to regulate the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels, and for other purposes;" which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES.

A message was received from the President of the United States by Mr. M. P. Fillmore, his Secretary, transmitting a report from the Secretary of the Interior respecting the delay and difficulty in making the apportionment among the several States of the representatives in the 33d Congress, as required by the act of 23d May, 1850, in consequence of the want of full returns of the population of the State of California; and suggesting the necessity for remedial legislation.

Mr. PRÁTT. I would prefer that that bill should lie over until to-morrow. I have received a petition upon the subject, and I wish to examine the amendments and see whether the prayer of the petitioners can be granted.

Mr. BADGER. I would like to understand from some gentleman familiar with the subject, whether or not the effect of the amendment proposed by the House of Representatives is or is not to strike out from the bill everything except the Provision which makes land warrants assignable? The PRESIDENT. It is.

Mr. BADGER. Then I hope my friend from Maryland will not object to the consideration of the bill at this time. I can see no necessity for delay.

Mr. PRATT. If the Senate dissent from the Amendments of the House, the effect of it would

to place the bill in such a position that it could ot be amended here. My object is, if it be in der, to introduce such an amendment as would eet the prayer of the petitioners to whom I have ferred.

Mr. BADGER. That cannot be done. Mr. PRATT. If it cannot be done, I shall have o objection.

The PRESIDENT. If there is my objection, he bill cannot be taken up.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I hope the gentleman will allow the bill to be taken up.

Mr. PRATT. Let it lie ever.
The bill was accordingly passed over.

Mr. SEWARD. I move that the communica- |

and be printed for the use of the Senate. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER rose subsequently and inquired to what committee was that referred? The PRESIDENT.

Judiciary.

To the Committee on the

Mr. BUTLER. I do not know whether that communication should properly be referred to that committee. As it relates to the apportionment, perhaps it should go to a special committee. There was a special committee on the census at the last Congress, but I suppose that committee was dissolved when it exhausted its functions.

Mr. GWIN. I think the Senator from South Carolina is right in desiring this communication to be referred to a select committee. If I understand this report, it will show an extraordinary state of affairs; that the census of one of the States of this Confederacy has not been taken at all, and that she is likely to be deprived of a member of Congress in consequence of that neglect. I think a select committee ought to be appointed to inquire why the census of the State of California has not been taken. I am opposed to this communication going to the Judiciary Committee, because I do not think it is a judicial question. I move to reconsider the vote referring it to that committee, and to refer it to a select committee.

Mr. SEWARD. I am not tenacious about it at all; but as the communication contemplates an amendment to the general law upon a very important subject, I think it ought to receive the attention of the Judiciary Committee. But if the Senator from California feels, on behalf of his State, a special interest in the matter, I have no objection

to concur with his motion. It strikes me, after all, however, that a question of such magnitude is properly referable to the Judiciary Committee. The motion to reconsider was not agreed to.

RESERVED LAND IN IOWA.

On the motion of Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, the Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to grant to the city of Burlington, in Iowa, the land heretofore reserved between that city and the Mississippi river.

It proposes to grant to the city of Burlington, in Iowa, the land bordering on the Mississippi in front of that city, reserved under the act of July 2, 1836, for a public highway, and other public uses, together with the accretions which may have been formed in the front thereof, to be disposed of city may direct. The second section provides that in such manner as the corporate authorities of that on a duly authorized application a patent shall be issued for the land. The Committee on Public Lands propose to amend the bill by striking out the second section, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

That the grant made by this act shall operate as a relinquishment only of the right of the United States in and to said premises, and shall in no manner affect the rights of third persons therein, or to the use thereof, but shall be subject to the same; and on application by a duly authorized agent of the corporate authorities of said city to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a patent of relinquishment, according to the provisions of this act, shall be issued therefor, as in other cases.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DAWSON. I would request the Senator from Iowa to explain the object of that bill and the quantity of land it proposes on our part to relinquish.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I will state that there is not a single alternate section, or two dollars and a half clause connected with this bill. It simply provides that the accretions which have formed in front of the city of Burlington, because of a very large bend in the river at that place, shall be granted to the city. The lands reserved in front of the city, which are spoken of in the bill, were those laid off and reserved for public uses when the town was laid out in 1836. There is a very large bend in the Mississippi river opposite the city. There is a public improvement going on there, and the city, by certain works which it will prosecute, will run the landing very much beyond where it now is, by grading and eveling the hills back and throwing the dirt in front. The city is to take care of the land, and the bill simply grants the lands which it may thus reclaim on the bend of the river.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. DAWSON. The Senator failed to answer one question which I propounded-the quantity of land which will be granted under this bill?

Mr. DODGE. I am unable to answer the question. I would state that the bend is perhaps half a mile long. It is, however, immaterial to this Government, for the Government laid off six hundred and forty acres, and gave the whole of it for public uses, such as making wharves, &c. The objects of the Government are in no way concerned by the bill. I do not know how far the landing may be extended out by the improvement, nor how much land will be granted by this bill. I understand, from a constituent and friend, who lives there and knows all about it, that it is to be extended eighty feet.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

CHARLES A. GRIGNON.

The engrossed bill for the relief of Charles A. Grignon, was read a third time and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives was received by Mr. FORNEY, its Clerk, announcing that it had directed a message to be sent to the Senate, requesting that a copy be furnished it of the resolution of the Senate to establish certain post routes, the said resolution having been lost or mislaid since its reference to the Committee op the Post Office and Post Roads of the House.

RAILROADS IN IOWA.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa, moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa, in aid of the construction of certain railroads in said State.

Mr. GWIN. I hope the Senator from Iowa will allow the bill to establish a navy-yard in San Francisco to be taken up. I wish to make some remarks in reply to what the Senator from Pennsylvania said on Friday. I was then entitled to the floor on the bill, and it was, on my motion, postponed to this day.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. My honorable friend will recollect that he himself agreed, on Friday, when that bill was taken up, that it should not consume more than an hour or two.

Mr. GWIN. On that day.

Mr. JONES. He said he had no disposition to debate it himself, and that there would not be much debate upon it; but it is evident that it is to lead to very considerable debate. It was then agreed that this day should be set apart for the consideration of the bill which I have mentioned. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] has had the floor upon it for some time. He commenced his speech, spoke for a few moments, and was compelled to postpone his remarke for other matters of minor importance. I hope the Senate will now take up that bill, that the Senator from Tennessee may proceed with his speech. I think the bill can be disposed of to-day, or at all events to-morrow or next day; and then I shall be very willing to assist the Senator from California in having his bill taken up and acted upon.

Mr. BADGER. I would suggest to the honorable Senator from California, that in my judgment, it would be better to let our friend from Iowa have his bill considered this morning. He has had exceedingly bad luck with it heretofore. The bill to which the Senator from California refers, will undoubtedly produce some discussion. think it would be better to take up this bill and get through with it, and then we can take up the bill of the Senator from California.

I

Mr. GWIN. If I thought there was the slightest prospect of settling the question involved in the bill of the Senator from fowa within a month, I would not oppose his motion; but I am perfectly confident that that bill will not be passed by this body within a month. The question involved in the bill which I propose to bring up, is a local one, and can soon be decided; but a dozen States are interested in the bill of the Senator from Iowa, and the whole policy of granting donations for the purposes of internal improvements is debated upon this bill. If I thought it would be passed within a month, I should not interpose any objec

tion.

As the bill of the Senator from Iowa is the first on the Calendar, I do not wish to put it out of its order, but I would like to have an opportunity for the consideration of my bill.

The motion of Mr. JONES was agreed to. Mr. BELL resumed and concluded the speech which he commenced some days ago. His speech will be found in the Appendix.

Mr. HUNTER was next recognized by the Chair; but the usual hour of adjournment had arrived, and on his motion

The Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, February 16, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. MORGAN.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

TERRITORIAL BUSINESS.

Mr. STUART. With the permission of the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. NABERS,] who is entitled to the floor, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to make a report from the Committee on Territories.

The SPEAKER. Last Monday, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. NABERS] was upon the floor, in the act of asking the unanimous consent of the House to introduce certain resolutions, but was deprived of it by a question of privilege made by the gentleman from Kentucky, and acquiesced in by the House; but the gentleman from Mississippi not rising to-day, the gentleman from Michigan is entitled to the floor.

Mr. STUART. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution as a report from the Committee on Territories:

"Resolved, That the third week in April next, or as much thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, be set apart for the consideration of territorial business, and that during that time such business shall take precedence and be regarded as the special order."

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I move to strike out the third week in April, and insert the first week.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that the rules of the House would have to be suspended before a special order could be made. Leave has been granted for the introduction of the resolution.

Mr. STEPHENS. I suppose that it is understood that all the rules are suspended.

The SPEAKER. Not if there is objection, in the opinion of the Chair. What motion did the gentleman from Georgia submit?

Mr. STEPHENS. My motion was to strike out "the third week," and insert "the first week;" but the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. SIBLEY] urges me not to make the motion, and therefore f shall not do it. I was afraid that if postponed to the third week in April, the territorial business would be entirely neglected.

Mr. RICHARDSON. It will be impossible for the Committee on Territories to submit all the propositions in relation to the Territories before the time designated in the resolution. The resolution was offered by the instructions of the committee.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and it was agreed to.

CASE OF PROSPER M. WETMORE.

the following resolution; which was considered Mr. ORR, by unanimous consent, introduced and agreed to:

Resolved, That the President be requested to inform this House whether the accounts of Prosper M. Wetmore, late Navy agent in the city of New York, as adjusted, show any defalcation on his part, and if so, when such defalcation was discovered, and the amount thereof; whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to collect the amount which said Wetmore failed to pay over, and when proceedings were commenced, if at all, to collect said amount. Also, whether any compromise was at any time made between the Secretary of the Treasury or the Solicitor thereof and said Wetmore, or any arrangement entered into respecting such alleged defalcation, and if so, what was such com

promise or arrangement, and whether the same has been complied with.

MILEAGE OF DELEGATE FROM OREGON.

but by what authority the committee are not able to learn. Similar provisions are found in the laws establishing the territorial governments of Utah and New Mexico, but they are inoperative, as the mileage of the Delegates from said Territories does not amount to that sum under the law of 1818, which regulates the pay and mileage of members of Congress and Delegales from Territories. At the second session of the Thirtieth Congress, the mileage of the Dele gate from Oregon was regulated by the provision of the law above quoted. But at the first session of the Thirty-first Congress, the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon, and of the Senators and Representatives from California, was regulated by an act passed at that session, entitled "An act to supply the deficiency in the appropriation for pay and mileage of members of Congress for the present session," ap. proved September 20th, 1850. But that statute only oper ated during the session of Congress at which it was passed, and after that left the compensation of the Senators and Representatives from California to be regulated by the law of 1818, and that of the Delegate from Oregon to be regulated by the law organizing the territorial government above-mentioned.

"Since the enactment of the law regulating the compensation of members of Congress and Delegates from Territories, in 1818, exceptions to the rule of compensation, prescribed in said statute, have been made only in two instances. One was the law above-mentioned, which limited the mile age of the Senators and Representatives from California, and the Delegate from Oregon, for one session; and the other is the law above-mentioned, which limits the mileage compensation of the Delegate from Oregon to $2,500,

"The honorable Delegate from Oregon is the only gentieman, representing a State or Territory, in either branch of Congress, whose compensation is thus limited. And the committee, though of the opinion that the law of 1818 ought to be amended, and perhaps a fixed limit established to the mileage compensation, think that while that law remains, no discrimination, to the prejudice of the Delegate from Oregon, ought to be made; but that his compensation should be regulated by the same law that regulates the compensa. tion of other Representatives of States and Territories in Congress. The committee therefore report a bill, repealing that part of the law establishing the territorial government of Oregon which limits the compensation of said Delegate, as aforesaid.”

Mr. WOODWARD. I would ask the chairman of the Committee on Mileage whether the general law-I think the law of 1818-does not provide that in no instance shall the mileage exceed the per diem?

Mr. HENDRICKS. No; I think it makes no such limitation.

Mr. WOODWARD. My impression is that it does.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I am very positive that it does not.

The Clerk read the bill.

ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third readThe SPEAKER stated the question to be upon ing.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I should like to hear read that provision of the law which it is proposed to repeal. Has the gentleman from Indiana got it here?

Mr. HENDRICKS. No, I have not got the provision here, but it is exceedingly brief. It reads, I think, "Provided, the mileage of said Delegate shall not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars."

Mr. STEPHENS. I think that a good limitation, and I am against its repeal.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask that the report of the Committee may be read. It will perhaps remove any objection there may be to the passage of the bill.

The Clerk read the report, as follows:

The Committee on Mileage have had under consideration the mileage compensation of the Delegate from Oregon, and find:

That by the law establishing the territorial government of Oregon, the mileage compensation of said Delegate is limited to $2,500. The committee believe, that, at the last session of Congress, it was understood that said limitation was not then in force, as the Delegate from said Territory was allowed, and did receive, mileage above that amount,

eral law.

The general law is defective, but we ought not to remedy the defects of that law at the expense of one delegate or representative only. We should make it operative alike upon all.

Mr. WOODWARD. I am in favor of this bill Indiana. I am for limiting all mileage by the same for the very reason stated by the gentleman from law applicable to all members, the special law for law, and if there exists a provision in the general the Delegate from Oregon ought to be repealed.

Mr. FOWLER. I wish to ask a question of the chairman of the Committee on Mileage. A bill has been introduced and referred to that com

mittee which proposes to reform and regulate the mileage of all the members; I wish to inquire whether the committee have taken up that bill? Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes. It has been under consideration before the committee.

Mr. FOWLER. I wish, then, to inquire whether the committee propose action upon that bill, or whether they propose that this shall supersede

action on the bill?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Of course the committee will report back the bill referred to them. What report they will make, I am not prepared to say, as the committee have not yet decided. Mr. FOWLER. I do not desire to know how

they will report; I merely desired to know whether they intend to take action on the bill.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I will state further to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that this bill has nothing whatever to do with that one.

Mr. FOWLER. I have no objection to the bill now before the House; but it occurred to me that if the whole subject of mileage was to come before us on the bill which has been referred to the committee, it would be more appropriate to defer action on this bill until we take up the whole subject. I have, however, no objection to the passage of this bill. I think, with the gentleman from Indiana, that there should be no discrimination made between members on this floor, but that the whole subject should be examined. I am fully persuaded that there should be a thorough system of reform.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I find that there has been no difference of opinion expressed in this House as to the merits of the proposition now before us. Every gentleman who has spoken on the subject seems to consider that the provision which this bill is intended to repeal makes an invidious and unjust distinction, operating against only one member of this House; and there is a disposition-judging from the remarks which have been made to place that member upon a footing with the residue of the members, and to give him the same rights under the same law which governs the rights of all of us. I cannot see any necessity for going on with debate upon a proposition that seems to be so unanimously agreed upon, and I therefore ask for the previous question.

Mr. TOOMBS. We have had no opportunity to express our opposition yet.

Mr. CARTTER. I ask the gentleman from Arkansas to withdraw the demand for the previous question, to enable me to give an illustration of the want of unanimity in this body upon this subject.

Mr. JOHNSON withdrew his motion.

Mr. CARTTER. I feel, in common with the other gentlemen who have addressed the House, and in common with the sentiments of the report which has been read, the injustice of making a distinction between the Delegate from Oregon and the other gentlemen upon this floor who are in possession of the long miles. It is a matter of great injustice that the Delegate from the remotest Territory should be held down to a restriction which is overrun by those who live between him and the Capitol. But is this the remedy? I do not learn from the report, or from the argument of those who would sustain it, that $2,500 is not an adequate mileage from here to Oregon. It is not a question of justice between the Delegate from Oregon and the Government, but a question of comparative merit between him and other gentlemen who receive more mileage and are located nearer to the Capitol. I am in favor of reducing it to equality, but not in this way. The proposition coming from the Committee on Mileage proposes, instead of doing what the public have long called for, and what the sense of this House has often expressed a wish to see done-instead of bringing down this question of mileage to a question of merit, and reducing the members upon this floor to an equality of compensation, it proposes to take the very extreme of injustice, and advance the salary paid to that Delegate.

Now, I object to that. It is a poor nostrum, it appears to me, to remove the evident inequality in the pay of members here. The man who comes here from California is paid $2,500, or $4,000. His passage costs him $300. He consumes upon the way three weeks of time, if you please, more or less. Perhaps he does not return at all. He may, or may not, at his pleasure, but it is to be Presumed he will, when he can.

But I would like to know where is the justice of Paying one Representative from a distant portion of the Republic $6,000 for performing this three weeks' trip-a large portion of which might be a pleasure trip to most of us-while the man residing within three hundred miles of the Capitol is receiving nothing? No, sir; I hope that the bill reported from the Committee on Mileage will be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and that when it comes out of that committee it will provide for the equalization of the remuneration of members upon this floor. It is time that the distinction-which has been obliterated by steam and railroad conveyances

this distinction between the pay of one member upon this floor and another, should be ended; and instead of running into this extremity of enlarging the pay of the Delegate from Oregon, we had better begin at the other end, and go to shortening it. I will remark that this view of the subject acknowledges the grossest injustice. It says to the Delegate from Oregon, You shall receive but $2,500, although many of the members of Congress who come from a much shorter distance receive twice that amount. I go for an equality to all. But if you want to extend the mileage of members, you must bring the short-enders up, and not reduce the long-enders down. Let us have an equality in the matter. That is all I want.

Mr. TOOMBS. It is not with reference to this special case that I rise to make a suggestion at this time. The gentleman from Arkansas speaks of the unanimity which exists in relation to this matter among the members upon this floor. Now, I apprehend that unanimity will be found to be not in accordance with the position of that gentleman upon this question of mileage. At every session, for the last three or four years, the House have attempted to reduce and equalize the mileage of members. We have adopted propositions to that effect with great unanimity-the opposition scarcely exceeding fifty votes-but they have been defeated by the Senate. When the territorial bill for Oregon was under consideration before the House, $2,500 was considered a just maximum. It was so considered for the reason that all above the amount necessary to pay expenses becomes salary. Twenty-five hundred dollars is sufficient to pay all expenses of traveling, and then leave a salary above the average of the House. If you want to pay a salary in this manner, why pay it to everybody; it is very easy to get at it. There is no difficulty in it at all. One of the reasons urged for this discrimination is, that members from beyond the Rocky Mountains cannot go home during the session, or even in the recess, and thereby lose their business. This is true to some extent as to every part of the country; at least results in loss of business at home. And the inconvenience of not being able to go home in recess is equally true in reference to some other portions of the country. I think the member from Texas [Mr. HowARD] found it extremely inconvenient to return-especially to attend to any matters of business-during the last short recess of sixty days; and I presume other gentlemen from the remote portions of the country found it equally inconvenient. Therefore I say that we ought not to establish this principle in the manner which this bill proposes. If we are to establish it at all, the Committee on Mileage ought to introduce a bill putting all the members upon the same footing with the gentleman from Oregon, and not to put the gentleman from Oregon upon a footing with the most favored members of this House. Gentlemen say that inasmuch as some persons are entitled to a very large amount as mileage, and this case is an exception, that we will take off the exception and pay him a larger compensation than is paid to any one here. Why, that is but increasing the difficulty. It is increasing this inequality. Gentlemen ought to address themselves rather to removing this injustice by equalizing the compensation of the members of this House. The House has shown a disposition very fully and frankly, and with singular unanimity, for the last four years, to bring about this equality, and the reason why they have not accomplished the object has been on account of difficulties in the other branch of the Capitol. I think every gentleman will concur with me in saying that it is not just for a portion of the members of this House to draw $5,000 per year, independent of their per diem, and others but $50. It is unjust, and ought to be remedied. I trust, therefore, that this bill will not pass; but that if the Committee on Mileage intend to act, they will act in such a manner as will put the whole question of mileage upon some equitable principle; then I will coöperate with them.

Mr. EVANS. Is an amendment in order?
The SPEAKER. It is in order.

Mr. EVANS. I then desire to offer the following amendment:

And that the Committee on Mileage be directed to add together the mileage of all the members of this House, and to divide the same by the number of members; and that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to pay to each member his share thereof, as so ascertained. [Laughter.]

Mr. EVANS. It is very well for gentlemen to laugh; but I tell them that the members of this House will live to see the day when this proposition will be adopted.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for one moment? Mr. EVANS. I have not yet commenced to speak.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I merely want to ask the gentleman what is the distance which he travels in coming here?

Mr. EVANS. I will tell the gentleman before I sit down.

I

Mr. Speaker, in offering this amendment, I had no reference to the Delegate from Oregon. had as lief that worthy and respected gentleman should receive the largest amount of mileage as any member of this House; but there has been existing in this House for years, the grossest injustice and inequality in reference to this matter, which ought to be removed. Now, for example, take my colleague, [Mr. Bowie,] from the district immediately adjoining this city. He receives no mileage at all; yet I do not hesitate to say, that as far as his talents and a good attendance upon the duties of this House is concerned, he is not excelled by any member in this House. Yet there are gentlemen upon this floor who receive $2,500 mileage for coming here the first day of December, 1851, and $2,500 mileage for going back; making $5,000 more than is received by my colleague for his services. Then they receive $5,000 more for the next session, which makes $10,000 in the year that is received by certain gentlemen upon this floor, more than is received by my colleague from the district adjoining this city.

A MEMBER. You mean $10,000 for a Congress. Mr. EVANS. No; it is all paid in the space of one revolution of this globe around the sun. A MEMBER. But it is only $5,000 a session.

Mr. EVANS. Very well; it is $5,000 per session, and it makes no difference whether it is $5,000 a year or $10,000. There is that inequality existing. At the short session there is the same $5,000 additional pay for three months' service. Now, there is nothing in the distances from the seat of Government to justify that inequality.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] asks me how far I am from the seat of Government? I will tell him: I live about six hours distant from here; but I have to neglect my business quite as much as those who live at the remote parts of the Union. I am, by profession, a lawyer, and I lose my practice, as any gentleman upon this floor must. To be sure, I can go home and try a case, but I lose the opportunity of getting new cases as much as gentlemen who come from a thousand miles distant. Then, I ask, what good reason is there for one gentleman receiving $5,000 compensation more than another? It is a gross inequality, which ought to be put to an end.

The gentleman from Georgia, sitting before me, [Mr. ToOMBS,] is right in saying that this subject has before been investigated by the House of Representatives, and that this House has taken a firm stand in relation to it; and but for its defeat in the Senate, we would, long ago, have had the inequality corrected. The Committee on Mileage comes in here and seeks to perpetuate the evil-to extend the wrong. I protest against it. I hope the amendment which I have offered will be adopted, with a quit claim, upon my part, for my share of the money.

Mr. RICHARDSON obtained the floor.

Mr. WEIGHTMAN. I rise to a point of order. I wish to inquire whether it will be in order for any one interested in the proposition of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. EVANS] to vote upon its adoption?

The SPEAKER. That will be a question for gentlemen and the House to decide.

Mr. SCURRY. I rise to a point of order. I desire to inquire whether the proposition of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. EVANS] was to refer the bill, with instructions?

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the gentleman from Maryland to move to recommit the bill with instructions.

Mr. SCURRY. According to my understanding, the gentleman had moved to refer the bill, but not to recommit it with instructions.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it is in order to move to recommit with instructions. Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to amend the