CONTRACTS FOR DRY DOCKS, ETC. of the Legislature of Pennsylvania upon the same subject, which resolution expresses a determina- The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution tion to persist in the suit which has been instiru-submitted yesterday by Mr. BRODHEAD, in related. I agree with the honorable Senator from Vir- tion to contracts for dry docks; and the resolution ginia, that the question is a very important one, was agreed to. and I therefore hope that the Committee on the Judiciary will give it very great consideration. 1 move that these resolutions be read, printed, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BRIGHT presented a resolution of the Common Council of the city of Jefferson, Indiana, communicating information in relation to the Lou-lutionary Claims, to which was referred the me

Mr. HUNTER. I present the memorial of thirty-six members of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, stating that the Wheeling bridge, in their opinion, is not such an obstruction to navigation as to make it a nuisance, and praying that Congress will protect it. I have no doubt that similar movements will be made in portions of the States of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and perhaps Ohio, calling upon Congress to protect this bridge, by making it a mail route, as, according to the opinion of the Supreme Court, might be done. This is one of the gravest and most important commercial questions that has ever been raised by the decison of that or any other court, for it involves nothing less than a question as between the rights of those who prosecute commerce over navigable streams by bridges and railroads, and those who prosecute it along the water line in boats and vessels. If I am correctly informed in relation to that decision, it will be left to the pleasure of that court to say whether the bridges which are erected by all the States, not only over rivers which pass through more than one State, but over rivers which flow entirely within the limits of one State, are to remain or not. These are some of the gravest questions certainly which could be presented, and involve a jurisdiction which, I must be here permitted to state, a Marshall has refused to take and I move a Taney has pronounced a grave error. that the petition be read, printed, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have the joint resolution

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives was received by Mr. P. BARRY HAYS, Chief Clerk, announcing that it had passed a bill for the relief of the heirs of John Jackson; also, a bill for the relief of Gustavus A. De Russy, late an acting purser in the Navy, and requesting the concurrence of the Senate therein.

The above-named bills were severally read a first and second time by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

MILEAGE OE THE DELEGATE FROM OREGON. Mr. BRIGHT. I desire to ask leave of the Senate to take up the bill regulating the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon; and I move to suspend the order of business that the Senate may take up that bill.

Mr. CLARKE. I beg leave to suggest to the honorable Senator from Indiana, that the honorable Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. MANGUM,] who made the motion to lay this bill upon the table, is not now in his seat, supposing, as I believe, that the day would be appropriated to the consideration of the private bills. I have an amendment to offer to the bill in regard to mileage when it shall come up, but not supposing that it would come up to-day, I am not now prepared to offer it. I hope, therefore, that it will not be taken up, but that the day will be devoted to private bills.

The Senate read the report, a synopsis of the contents of which has already been published. Mr. SEWARD. This case can scarcely be submitted more simply or more fully than it is Mr. RHETT submitted the following resolu- present it more distinctly in a few words. Thomas stated in the report; but I will, perhaps, be able to

tion; which was considered and agreed to:

H. Leggett & Co. were, in the year 1828, merchants in the city of New York. This firm, in the fall of 1827, made a contract for the manufacture of certain goods in England to be delivered in the ensuing spring. The cost of the goods was On motion, it was ordered, that when the Sen- $6,786. In the month of May, the tariff act of

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of increasing the salaries of the circuit judges of the District of Columbia.

3

raised so much that it amounted to the sum of $5,467, being within $1,319 of the entire cost of the invoices. The duty under the previous act would have been $2,200 only. The goods were shipped within three or four days after the passage of the act, before the news of that event could have been received in Liverpool, or before the order for the goods could in any way be countermanded. The petitioner, under these circumstances, applies for relief. It appears that Congress has in a similar case, that of John F. Lewis, in 1836, refunded the difference between the duties under the different tariffs, under similar circumstances.

Mr. HUNTER. I hope that this bill will not pass. Although, perhaps, an isolated act may be found to have been passed, involving the same principle as this, I apprehend that if we could trace the history of petitions of this kind, we would find that they have been almost unanimously refused. I know that since I have been a member of the Committee of Finance, to which such petitions have been generally referred, it has been the invariable rule to reject them. And if I am not mistaken, this petition has been several times referred to that committee, and they have refused to act upon it. When we come to consider the nature of the application, we shall find that it would lead to innumerable demands upon the Treasury Department-demands in which, if we are to take the decisions of Congress, and the legislation of Congress, there is no equity, at least no such equity as would ever induce the Government to grant them. Why, it must be remembered that if we pass this bill, we shall have to go back to all the cases which have occurred under all of our tariffs, for in none of them has there been a provision for those cases in which the cargoes were ordered before the bill was passed. In the tariff act of 1842, it was especially provided, that it should take effect upon its passage; and I know that it was one of the arguments against its passage-for I was then a member of the House of Representatives-that it would operate with hardship upon outstanding cargoes, upon ships having cargoes brought over under orders which had been made before the passage of that tariff act. The matter was then argued and considered, and Congress determined that that was one of the risks which the merchant had to take in the prosecution of his trade. Congress then refused to insert any provision in order to meet these cases, and if we now begin to legislate on them, how many petitions will be sent to us from persons who ordered cargoes before the passage of the act of 1842, and had to pay duties under that act?

We should have thus to reverse the whole policy of our Government in relation to this subject; and not only that, but we should open the door to innumerable frauds; for observe, this case goes behind the tariff of 1828; and if this be a good case, every demand which is based upon a similar principle, either in relation to that tariff or any other, may be presented here, and we shall have to act upon it. It was suggested on a former occasion, by a Senator, that if there be equity in returning to the merchant duties which he has had thus to pay because he ordered goods before the legislation under which they were entered, would it not be a good rule to work it the other way, and say that those goods brought in under the tariff of 1846, when the duties were reduced, ought to pay under the tariff of 1842, under which they were ordered? Why would not that be a good rule? Because it would be impossible to ascertain exact justice in these cases or the precise state of the facts. It would lead to more mischiefs, to more frauds, more difficulties, than we should ever remedy if we should attempt to legislate upon this subject. I am free to say that, in relation to the tariff of 1842, I would have voted for any provision which gave the merchant notice; but such was not the pleasure of Congress; such was not the action of the Government. They determined that they would not; and I am not now for opening the matter in this piecemeal way, when it cannot be remedied, but when may lead to very great and serious mischief. hope this bill will not be passed; for my word for it, if it is passed, you will have numbers of such cases presented for consideration.

it

I

Mr. SEWARD. It seems to me that the objection of the learned and honorable Senator from Virginia amounts to just this: If we do justice and equity in this case, we may be called upon to do so in some other cases. That argument does not

commend itself either to my judgment or to my whether these goods were consumed in this coun-
sense of what is right on the part of the Govern- try; and he gave an affirmative answer. Now it
ment. I will briefly state again the peculiar facts seems to me, that when the importer brought
of this case. These importers were merchants in goods here and paid the duty, he must have in-
the city of New York in the years 1827 and 1828. demnified himself by putting the duty upon the
They contracted in Liverpool, in the fall of 1827, price paid for the article when it was sold. If he
for the delivery of invoices of goods, among which has done that, and obtained his indemnity in that
was an article called "bocking baize," and their way, it would be strange if we should pay it to
contract was, that these goods should be delivered him again. If he brought the goods here, and
in the spring following; that is, the spring of 1828. found a change in the tariff law, it would be very
Congress, in the month of May, 1828, revised the strange indeed if he would not put on the en-
tariff. By the tariff, as it stood at the time the hanced price resulting from the increased duty. I
contract was made, the duties, when levied, would think a merchant would hardly neglect doing that,
have amounted to $2,200 50, while the cost of the hence it strikes me that he must have been indem-
articles in Liverpool was $6,786 15; so that the nified for the increased duty which he had to pay.
duties, at the time the purchase was made, were I am not prepared to say that importing merchants
about one third of the cost of the articles. By the should not always risk the legislation of the coun
revision of the duties then imposed, the effect of try. I do not know that the basis upon which
which, and of course the design of which, was to this gentleman asks relief ought to be conceded.
prohibit the importation of these articles, and to I do not know that we ought to change our legis-
induce the manufacture of them in this country, lation, because an individual may say that he
the duties were raised fifty per cent., and amounted made a contract for goods in a foreign country,
when the goods were received, to $5,467; being and expected to have them entered at the custom-
within $1,319 of the cost-in other words, about house here, under the old law. It seems to me
four fifths of the cost of the invoices in Europe. that the Government cannot act in its legislation
This tariff act, which, was passed in May, was on views of that sort, although it might be well in
directed to take effect on the 30th of June follow- passing a tariff law, to let it go into operation
ing. Pursuant to the original contract, the goods prospectively, with a view to provide for such
were shipped from Liverpool within three or four
cases. But if the Government has not chosen to
days after the passage of the act. Being so shipped postpone the operation of the law, so as to give the
they arrived here just three or four days after the merchant notice-which I admit would be in gen-
act took effect. There was no possibility of antici-eral a good rule-and has allowed the act to go into
pating such a change. There was no possibility of operation immediately, it is most manifest that a
giving notice to rescind the contract, or preventing merchant, whose goods arrived in the country
the exportation of the goods from Liverpool. under the increased rate of duties, would indemnify
They came here in time to be subjected to the in- himself by increasing the price of the goods. In
creased duty; and by that change in the policy of that point of view, it seems to me, according to the
the Government the importers lost some $3,000. information communicated by the Senator from
It is said that there is no equity in requiring the New York, this individual must have been already
Government to pay damages which result to its indemnified.
citizens from the change of its laws. I agree that
it is the duty of every citizen to know the laws of
the land; but in making laws affecting revenue,
such as laws for the imposition of duties, there is
an equitable obligation on the part of the Govern-
ment to give reasonable notice of the change of the
system of revenue before the law goes into effect.
In all the tariff acts except one, this timely notice
has been given. The tariff act of 1832 was passed
on the 14th of July of that year, but the time at
which it was to take effect was postponed to the
3d day of March, 1833. The act of 1833 was
passed on the 2d of March of that year, and was
declared to take effect on the 31st of December,
1835. The act of 1846 was passed on the 30th
day of July, but it did not go into effect until the
first of December following.

Mr. RHETT. Will the Senator state when the act of 1842 went into effect?

Mr. SEWARD. The act of 1842 went into effect immediately, as the honorable Senator from Virginia has stated; and it is suggested to me that the reason for that was, that at the time it was passed it was supposed there was no existing revenue laws in force; and therefore that case was an exception. As I have said, it is the duty of the citizen to take notice of the laws of the land, but it is not the duty of the citizen to take notice of the laws before they are passed; and he has an equitable and just claim upon the Government if they levy assessments which shall affect contracts which he has made without giving him adequate time to provide for a change of his business so as to meet the change in the policy of the Government. As I have said, an act like this has already been passed, and the principle of that act is the same as that involved in this bill. It is now a long time since the year 1828. If this consideration addresses itself to the Senate, then I will say that there is no reason to apprehend a great number of applications of this sort; and if there were, justice would require that they should be considered and disposed of upon principles such as would prevail between private individuals.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Were the goods consumed in the country?

Mr. SEWARD. They were. The cost of the goods was $6,786: the duties paid upon them amounted to $5,467. It is a difference more than $3,000 between the duties existing at the time the contract was made and the duties the parties paid when the goods were entered.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I wish to make a suggestion. I asked the gentleman from New York,

Mr. HUNTER. The Senator from New York says that my argument is, that if we pay the claim in this case, we might perhaps pay many more equally just. Not at all. My argument is, that if we attempt to do justice with the imperfect information and imperfect means which we have of ascertaining what the case is, in the attempt to do justice in one case we may perhaps do injustice to the Government in sanctioning a hundred frauds. I said also, that we should fail in doing justice, because it would be impossible to ascertain the facts on which these demands were made, even if we were to admit the principle which Congress has heretofore refused to admit, that we are bound to rectify all the losses to individuals which may have been occasioned by our legislation on the subject of duties. Congress has determined that that is a risk which the merchant must take. Whether they decided rightfully or wrongfully, I do not now pretend to say; nor is it necessary for me to say. If the subject was brought up at the time when the transaction was recent and fresh, when everybody was informed in relation to it, the claim might have been allowed if it was thought that justice required it. But if they postponed it, and at this late period of time we come to act upon an isolated case, we cannot do justice. What is the evidence in this case? How do we know that these goods were ordered beforehand, and without a knowledge of this legislation? I suppose there is no other evidence as to that than the words of the importer. How do we know that he did not remunerate himself, if not for the whole, at least for a portion of the duties, by the additional price which he charged the consumer? How can we ascertain that? And if he did put on the additional price, as suggested by the Senator from Kentucky, surely he ought not now to have this money returned to him by the Government. How can we undertake to act upon the principle, that when the interests of a private individual have been injured by general legislation we will ascertain the amount of his damages and remunerate him? Why, there was a large class of persons in this country who believed that they were injured by the passage of the tariff act of 1842, who planted large quantities of cotton, expecting to get more than they did get for it under that tariff, and upon whom that financial measure came with almost ruinous force. Are they to come here and say to us, We lost so much by your legislation: we planted so much cotton, and would have had such prices for it but for the tariff of '42, and therefore we claim indemnity? Are any class of per

general legislation seems to have been sufficient for the relief of the agricultural interest; and I am for leaving the settlement of accounts between the Government and merchants, and other operators in the same mode and measure of relief, and would withhold special legislation, particularly in old cases like this, the precise merits of which the Senator from Virginia has very clearly shown cannot be ascertained, especially at so long a period after the transaction has taken place.

sons to come here and say that our general legis- instance in the operation of the tariffs of 1842 lation has inflicted this or that pecuniary damage and 1846: Suppose an individual-as many unupon them, and claim relief? If we once open the doubtedly did-ordered goods under the tariff of door to inquiries of that sort, it will lead to innu- 1842, and did not introduce them into the counmerable frauds. I say it is the duty of the Gov-try until the act of 1846 went into operation, ernment not to embark in any system of legislation which greatly reduced the duties: would he, which will perhaps lead them into the practice of would any reasonsble man, have come forward a hundred frauds, without in a single instance ob- and tendered to the Government the difference taining justice. which he would have had to pay under the tariff of 1842, while it was in force, and that which he actually did pay under the act of 1846? If we are Mr. RHETT. Mr. President, the position to legislate in this way, equity requires that if we taken by the Senator from New York is, that the pay back to an individual any excess which he petitioner has lost money by the operation of our had to pay in consequence of the tariff being tariff laws. If the principle is good, I think it wi raised, we should also exact from individuals the apply to most of our legislation. It is next to im difference between the amounts which they would possible to make a law that will operate equaliy have had to pay under a tariff in operation at the upon all classes and all individuals in the country, time the goods were ordered, and that in operation especially when you interfere with the property of at the time they were brought to the country. the country. For instance; take the case of making ed Then, taking any series of years in the commer- roads. You set up a railroad: it is immediate cial operations of this country, the balance would followed by the dissolution and ruin of every turnbe in favor of the Government, because the tend-pike and canal that comes within the reach of its ency has been gradually, with occasional excep-influence; and in this way thousands are ruined.

Mr. SEWARD. The argument of the learned gentleman now is, that there may have been no loss sustained. It will be found, on looking at the documents accompanying the report of the committee, that such is not the fact. Document No. 3, shows that a heavy loss was sustained. I will read from that document:

"Fourth question.-Did the goods sell for profit?
"Answer.-No; but a heavy loss. It would have been

a great saving to have reshipped the goods; but it was gen
erally supposed that the duty would be refunded, or they
would have been reshipped. The change of duty was
enormous; on some things from thirty per cent. to two
hundred per cent. It was the time of square yard minimum
duty."

According to document No. 6, the following tions, to reduce the rate of duties. Therefore, in

facts were shown:

"In the report made to Congress last winter, the committee said that we do business with the full knowledge that Congress has power to raise or lower the duties at pleasure-meaning, I suppose, at any moment. But is this so? Has Congress ever acted upon or justified that prin ciple? On the contrary, has it not always been considered right and proper that ample time should be given to the merchant? otherwise he might be ruined, as we might have been, it all our importations had been bocking baize. The two invoices on which we claim was for twenty-five bales blankets, eight bales bocking, and eight bales flannel.

Sold then for....

Since my last, I have calculated the loss on three bales of the flannel, which were all of the same kind, low priced: First cost in England, £167........ 8742 50 Duty paid by the new tariff.... 832 00 Shipping charges, exchange, &c. 245 00 $1,819 50 1,250 00 $569 50 $1,460 00 569 00 $2,029 00 "The amount lost on the finer flannels and blankets it would be impossible to say exactly. The amount we claim is the difference of duty, $3,266."

Lost on eight bales bocking.
Lost on three bales flannels.....

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is the party's own

statement.

the long run, more goods will be found to have
been ordered under a high tariff, and come in
under a low one, than were ordered under a low
one and come in under a high one. The balance
would be in favor of the Government.

|

You set up a steam factory, and those who man-
facture by water-power may be ruined. A friend
of mine purchased on the south side of the Ar
kansas river, sixty miles of land: we admitted b
Texas into the Union, and he was a ruined man
It is impossible to lay a tax which does not operate
unequally upon the producers of the country. If
you lay down the proposition, that, whenever your st
taxation operates unequally, you are to comper ve
sate the individual whom it affects, in order to put
him on an equality with all other citizens; then
is impossible for you to lay a tax, without having
brought before you for legislation, a large class of
claimants exactly like this case which the Senator
from New York has brought forward. If you lay
a tax upon any particular production, you must
affect those engaged in it, and must operate on
them injuriously. Thus, if the principle which
the Senator from New York contends for, be ecran
rect, not only in this instance, but in almost every
other instance in which we legislate, affecting the

The honorable Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER, while speaking upon this subject, brought to my mind a speech delivered in the House of Representatives the other day, and which is published, and laid on our desks, in this morning's Globe; and I think the facts it sets forth present a very strong case in point. The Senator from Virginia suggested that there might be a loss sustained by another interest in this country by a change in legislation upon the subject of duties; that there might be a loss to the agricultural interest by raising the duties affecting their productions. Here is a case in point. Here is a table to which I would call the attention of Senators, which is very important in this view. The speech to which I refer is one delivered in the House of Represent-material interests of the country, and especially all atives by Mr. RANTOUL, of Massachusetts, in which he submits a series of tables, showing the effect of the tariff acts of 1842 and 1846 upon the prices of agricultural products for a series of years. I will not go through the whole of the tables, but merely refer to the tables marked A and B, preMr. SEWARD. It is; but it was submitted to sented in the body of the speech. It is here shown the Committee of the House of Representatives that the aggregate loss upon agricultural productwice or three times. Those who know Thomas tions, for a series of five years, under the operaH. Leggett would have no doubt at all as to the tion of the tariff of 1842, was $126,340,639. truth of his statement. I will observe further, that The loss on cotton alone was $89,661,531; the these papers were originally submitted to the Com-loss on tobacco was $16,786,197; the loss on mittee on Commerce in the House of Representa- || vegetable food was $8,519,803; the loss on protives, when Mr. Cambreleng was chairman. He reported a general law; but which was not passed. They were afterwards submitted, at two different sessions, to the Committee on Commerce in the House, who reported a bill in favor of Mr. Leggett; and those reports are here. The claim was first presented immediately after the transaction occurred. There was a report in favor of it. Then there was a general law recommended, the parties expecting relief under that general law, when it should have been passed, did not then press their claim. But they renewed it again before Congress; and it has been renewed in the House of Representatives from time to time. So that the further argument which was advanced by the honorable Senator from Virginia falls; which was, that this claim has become stale, or ought not to have due consideration, because it was not presented in due season.

Mr. BORLAND. The Senator from New York, I understand, bases this claim upon the ground of equity; and he says it ought to be allowed, because these individuals, under a prior law of Congress, would have been able to realize much more money by that commercial transaction than they have done under a subsequent law. According to my understanding of equity, if accounts are settled upon that principle, the equity should extend to the Government as well as to the individual citizen, whether the parties are entitled to the advantage they would obtain under the operation of the principle. Now, have we ever had a claim before Congress, or does any one suppose that these individuals would come before Congress, if they had ordered goods under a high tariff, and received them under a low tariff? Take an

visions and animal products was $4,373,108;
the loss on other exports, estimated in part,
$7,000,000; making a total of $126,340,639.
Well, sir, if an individual who had ordered goods
under a low tariff, and introduced those goods
under a high tariff, has any equitable claim before
Congress for relief for the difference between the
amount he would have had to pay under the one,
and actually did pay under the other, would not
the agriculturists have precisely the same equitable
demand for this immense difference between the
prices they would have received under the opera-
tion of one tariff, and the low prices they actually
received under the operation of another tariff? I
think no one can deny that. But the legislation of
this country, so far as is presented by these tables,
seems to be compensating in matters of sort. Thus
we find that, under the tariff of 1846, which was
intended to do justice to the agricultural interest,
which had been greatly depressed under the oper-
ation of the tariff of 1842, the prices of agricultural
productions were brought up; and upon these
same productions, for another period of five years,
there was a gain by the rise of prices, under the
tariff of 1846, to the amount of $148,486,274.
So the fact is, if an equitable settlement of ac-
counts is desired between the Government and its
citizens growing out of its revenue system, it will
be, as it has been, most easily and certainly at-
tained by general legislation. Such legislation, I
am aware, has been and may again be somewhat
fluctuating, but in the long run it will be as nearly
equitable as it will probably be in our power to
make it. No such legislation as this, therefore,
is required to do justice to the parties, or to give
them equitable relief. In the view presented,

its taxation, must necessarily be followed with a flood of petitions, to produce what he calls equity under the legislation of Congress. The principle upon which legislation always takes place is this: The Legislature endeavors to legislate for the good of the great bulk and majority of the people; and, although evil must necessarily be done to a portion of the citizens, yet, inasmuch as greater good is done to the greater part, the law goes into effect. and, consequently, in all the legislation affecting the material interests of the country, it never has been pretended, and it is impracticable to attempt to do perfect equity to those who may suffer unequally by the operation of such laws. Therefore the broad proposition is not applicable simply to the tariff, but to all the legislation of Congress; and the application which the Senator from New York has supported, it seems to me, ought to fail.

Mr. SMITH. I do not propose to discuss the merits of this bill at any length. It seems to me, however, to be an extraordinary case, and one in which we can grant relief without the violation of any principle. It is totally impossible to make change in the revenue laws of a country without producing some degree of inequality in the opera tion of those laws, and without doing some degree of injustice to this man or the other. In most cases it would be totally impossible to ascertain whether the party who presents a claim of this kind had sustained any serious damage or injury. Considerations, such as were adverted to by my honorable friend from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] would come into view, and it would be necessary to have regard to them in our decision. And in many cases, if we could say that there had been some degree of injury sustained, it would be very difficult to ascertain the full extent of that injury, or determine what should be the measure of relief.

Here is an extraordinary case, Mr. President, in which Congress, without giving any sufficient notice, or what may be termed an adequate notice in point of time, passes a law which is just as injurious to the citizen as though no notice whatever were given. Congress imposes suddenly, and without available notice to the party, the most enormous duties--duties which, by their operation, will take out of the pockets of these parties several thousand dollars. Now, while I would not inter

ཟ་་

So that by this section of the act of the 2d of March, 1833, there is a general provision that the existing laws shall remain in force until the time specified. It then goes on in words of the future tense, and provides what shall be the character of the subsequent legislation of Congress. Now, I know that it was considered exceedingly doubtful whether there was any existing law that would authorize the collection of one penny of duty. The then existing Administration, however, decided, that upon a proper construction of the law the Government was entitled to collect twenty per cent., and no more. But this was regarded by members of Congress as being exceedingly doubt-been ful-so doubtful, indeed, that it was carried to the Supreme Court; and that court decided that the construction which was given to the law by the Administration was the true and proper construction, and that under the provisions of the law the Government was entitled to take twenty per cent. Now, the law of 1842 was passed in such a form as to take effect immediately upon its enactment, and this, simply on account of the doubts and embarrassments of members of the two Houses of Congress in regard to the then existing state of

their use, so as to make the duties payable in four equal annual installments, said installments to be reserved by the Postmaster General for the use of the Treasury, out of any moneys which may be due said company for mail service to be performed by them. It provides, further, that before the delivery of any portion of the iron rails, the payments so deferred shall be secured by the bonds of the company, with good personal security to be approved of by the United States district judge for the State of North Carolina, and such authority, given in writing, to secure the reservation and payment by the Post Office Department, as may be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury, provided, that this act shall extend only to iron already imported, or to be imported within two years from its passage.

Mr. HUNTER. I feel bound to say, in relation to that bill, that if there were any bill for which I would vote, either to extend the time for the payment of duties, or to remit them, it would be precisely such a case as has been presented. But as it has been my habit to vote to keep the tariff of 1846 inviolate, I shall vote against this bill.

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

SAMUEL BRAY.

Mr. MORTON. It will be recollected by you, Mr. President, that some time since I presented a memorial to the Senate, numerously signed by the citizens of Apalachicola, in Florida, asking that relief may be afforded to Samuel Bray, the keeper of the light-house at Dog Island, for losses sustained by him in a tempest on that coast, in the summer of 1851. That memorial was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and with commendable promptness they have reported a bill for his relief for losses-I say for losses, I ought to say pecuniary losses, for some of his losses were beyond the relief of the Congress of the United States. That committee has promptly reported a bill, affording him a small pecuniary relief. He is now in a destitute and distressed situation; and if relief is to be afforded him, it should be done immediately. I ask, therefore, that I may trespass on the kindness of the Senate so far as to have this bill considered now.

Mr. NORRIS. I hope we shall proceed with the Calendar. There are other cases as important as that mentioned by the Senator, which we should take up; and I can see no reason for thus mixing up the business of this body. We have a Calendar, where these cases stand in their order, and I hope the Senate will adhere to the Calendar, and not take up business out of its order.

The motion to take up the bill was not agreed to.

IRA DAY.

The PRESIDENT. The next bill in order is the bill for the relief of Ira Day, of Vermont. It has been read twice, and is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HUNTER. The honorable Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] desired to speak on that question, and as he is now absent, I move that its consideration be postponed till next Friday.

Mr. UPHAM. This bill was postponed last Friday for the accommodation of the Senator from Delaware; but if it can be ascertained that the bill can be settled next Friday, I am willing it should be passed over.

ly wounded, and lost his leg; but he continued in
the service a certain length of time, and then re-
signed his commission in the Army. He received
his pension from the time he resigned his commis-
sion, although he believed all the while that he
was entitled, and as we think clearly entitled, to a
pension from the time of receiving the wound by
which he lost his limb. Since his death, his widow
applies for the arrears of a pension, due from the
time he was wounded up to the time he resigned
his commission in the Army. It is but to pay
arrears from the time he lost his leg up to the time
he left the Army.

On the motion of Mr. BORLAND, the blank in
the bill was filled with the word "thirty," so as
to make the bill read "thirty dollars per month."
Mr. CLARKE. I should like to know why
the committee put in the time so as to extend back
to 1813? This gentleman was in the service till
within a year or two.

Mr. BÓRLAND. If the Senator had listened to my remarks, I think he would have understood the reason. It is to pay arrears of a pension from the time he lost his leg till the time he resigned his commission in the Army.

Mr. CLARKE. I beg to say he never lost a leg. He was wounded in the knee. He had a stiff knee; but he had as many legs to be buried with as he was born with. I do not know why we should go back. He never asked it..

Mr. BORLAND. He did consider himself entitled to a pension from the time he was wounded till he resigned. He did not get it. He was put upon the roll only from the time he left the Army. But he always considered and asserted his right to be put upon the pension roll, and his widow now reasserts that right.

Mr. ATCHISON. I do not intend to oppose
this bill. I do not intend to make war upon the
widow of a gallant officer, but I would like to
know what was the grade of General McNeill
while in the Army.

Mr. NORRIS. He was a major.
Mr. ATCHISON. At the time he left the Army
what was his grade?

Mr. DODGE, of Wisconsin. That of a colo-
nel.

in the battle of Chippewa. After the fall of the
gallant Colonel Campbell-early in that contest-
the command of that regiment devolved upon
General McNeill; and such was his bravery and
military skill and daring courage on that occasion
as to receive the applause and approbation of all
his distinguished compeers in arms, and for these
distinguished and gallant services on that occasion
he received the brevet rank of lieutenant colonel.
Now, sir, only twenty days after—on the 25th of
the same month-a day which shed so much re-
nown upon American valor and American arms--
he led the same regiment to the bloody and
triumphant battle of Bridgewater. It was here,
in the heat of the contest, while at the head of the
column, urging it on by his example and by his
voice, in the face of a most galling and destructive
fire from the enemy's battery, that he was struck 43
in the right knee by a cannon shot, shattering and
rending it in the most terrible manner, and nearly
severing the limb. From the effects of that wound
General McNeill never recovered. True, he did
not lose his limb, as my friend from Arkansas
[Mr. BORLAND] supposes; but the knee was ren-
dered ever afterwards entirely stiff; and such was
the shattered and broken condition of the limb
that it was ever afterwards subject to a neuralgie
affection, pervading the whole system with the
most excruciating suffering, and which finally un-
dermined and destroyed his once herculean con-
stitution. For his gallant and distinguished con-
duct in this battle he was breveted a colonel.

Sir, at the close of the war, such were the distinguished merits and skill of General McNeill that, notwithstanding his injuries, he was retained upon the peace establishment as major of the 5th regiment. In 1818 he was advanced to the rank of lieutenant colonel of the 1st infantry. Again, sir, in 1822, when in command of the post a Chicago, while leading a detachment of his men to the relief of a vessel in distress-having on board supplies for his troops-he was severely in jured in the right arm, rendering that limb almost entirely stiff and greatly impairing its use. In 1824 he was breveted a brigadier general for faithful service. In 1826 he was still further promoted to the advanced rank of colonel in the army. In Mr. ATCHISON. He then received his full 1830, on the 23d of April, he resigned his commis pay as an officer, of the grade he held in the Army, sion in the army; his constitution having been up to the time he resigned; and from that time for- broken down and his health impaired by reason of ward he received his full pension. Now, this is severe sufferings from injuries received in the puban additional amount of pay; not an arrearage of lic service. From that time he has received a pena pension, but an increase of pay while an officersion from the Government for full disability. And, i in the Army. I am perfectly willing to vote for it sir, I would here state that in 1815, as soon as the as a speceial case, but to adopt such a principle as nature of his wounds would permit, he applied to a general rule, it strikes me would make a very the War Department to be placed upon the roll of great inroad into the public Treasury of the United invalid pensioners of the United States, under the States, to an amount of millions perhaps. I want contract that he alleged he had made with the it clearly understood that I vote for this case as Government when he entered its service. He being a special case, and without reference to any made also an application in 1819. Upon both oc principle whatever. [Laughter.] casions his application was refused. And why, sir? Was it because he had not been seriously and permanently disabled while in the line of his duty in the public service? No, sir; for that was apparent to all. But he was told that the War Department had made a rule that no officer, while he retained his commission in the army, should be placed upon the roll of invalid pensioners. To that act, and against that decision, General Me Neill then, and ever afterwards, protested. He claimed that under the law of 1812 he had a right to be placed upon the pension roll of the United States from July, 1814.

Mr. NORRIS said: If this is a special case, there have been other special cases before. But I contend it is not a special case. I was in hopes that this bill would have passed without objection. Having introduced it into the Senate, it becomes my duty, under the circumstances, to give some further explanation of this bill, and to state the grounds upon which I think it ought to pass. In doing this, sir, it is not my intention to enter into a detailed account of the services of General McNeill. A very brief summary will show the true

The bill was accordingly passed over inform-grounds upon which this bill stands. ally.

MRS. E. A. MCNEILL.

The PRESIDENT. The next bill in order is the bill for the relief of Mrs. E. A. McNeill, widow of the late General John McNeill, and is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HUNTER. Is there any report accompanying that bill?

That he was a brave, distinguished, and skillful officer-that he received permanent and severe disabilities while in the line of his duty, in the public service is well known to every Senator here. That he suffered severely and almost constantly from these injuries, from the time of their reception up to the time of his death, is equally well known to every person who had intercourse

with him.

Sir, General McNeill entered the Army of the United States in March, 1812, as a captain of the 11th infantry-a regiment constituting a part of the forces raised under the act of the preceding January. So meritorious was his conduct as an officer, that he was promoted to the rank of major in August, 1813. It is unnecessary for me to

The PRESIDENT. There is no report. Mr. BORLAND. I will state that I reported that bill from the Committee on Pensions. There is no written report in the case. We did not make a report, because we considered the case so plain, and one in which most of the facts were known to the Senate and the country, that a very little explanation would be sufficient to satisfy the Sen-state to the Senate, here, that he discharged the ate of its merits. It is proposed to pay to the widow of the late General John McNeill, a very gallant officer in our Army, what we consider arrears of a pension. General McNeill was severe

duties of his advance-rank with singular abilities,
with distinguished credit to himself, and honor to
the country. On the 5th of July, 1814, his regi-
ment consututed a portion of the forces engaged

Sir, I have made this brief and true statement of facts to show the ground upon which this bill rests. This bill proposes to give arrears of pension thus claimed by General McNeill in his lifetime to his aged widow, who is now in straitened circumstances, who for thirty-five years watched over and cared for the veteran with that soothing attention and care which no other hand could administer. Sir, I will not invoke the sympathies of the Senate-I never did such a thing; but if there ever was a bill in which such feelings would be justified, this is one. But, sir, I place this bill upon the ground of his legal rights, upon the broad principle of the equity and justice in the case; and if I do not show the Senate that he entitled to the pension, I will allow the bill to fail, so far as I am concerned. Sir, what was the contract under which General McNeill entered the Army?

The 14th section of the act of the 11th of January provides "that if any officer, non-commis