dertaken by Mr. Kuykendall of carrying the mail in four-horse coaches and an increased number of times per week in lieu of the two-horse coaches in compliance with his original contract, on the expectation, if not a direct promise derived from the Postmaster General, that when the improved condition of the revenues of the Post Office Department would admit of it, he would ratify what he had undertaken to do, and pay him accordingly. The service was undertaken because the necessities of that line required it, and because of the just expectation derived from his intercourse with the Postmaster General, that when the revenues would allow it, he would be paid. Here is the letter, which I think will answer the Senator from Delaware. It is from the Postmaster General, and is addressed to the Hon. George W. Hopkins, then chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads in the House of Representatives. He says: "But such was the difference on the route in question, that the two-horse stage service was accepted, with a reservation that the higher service might be ordered if the Department should think proper. The expenditures of the Department were at that time over its inconte, and economy was the sole consideration which induced the acceptance of the stage service, with the intention freely expressed to Mr. Kuykendall to order the higher service whenever the means of the Department would authorize it. "Mr. Kuykendall was then running four-horse coaches, and it was no doubt in anticipation of such an order that be continued that kind of service, and ran three times a week when he was bound to run but twice. "The anticipated improvement in the revenue did not occur, and the higher service was never ordered; and I have no doubt that Mr. Kuykendall had a hard time of it.” Now, I submit to the Senator who reported this bill from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, whether this is not a case which addresses itself to the equity of the National Legislature. This man has expended his money in the public service, and with a just expectation that the service he was performing would be recognized by the Department for which it was done, the fact being substantiated by this letter. And I submit, also, in addition to what has been said with more force by the Senator from North Carolina, that with respect to this bill, so far as the facts are concerned, we may safely rely upon the recommendation of the committee. Mr. BORLAND. I agree with the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] and the honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] with regard to the confidence that should be placed in the report of a committee, as to the facts in the case; and, in general, I have great confidence in the opinions of a committee. But the question raised by the honorable Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] did not relate at all to the facts in the case, or the opinions which may be expressed, but to the principle upon which the allowance is proposed to be given. This letter, as I understand, was written in 1844, years after the transaction to which it relates had taken place, and when the Postmaster General had gone out of the Post Office Department. It is, then, the letter of a private individual in relation to a certain transaction which had occurred long before, and was obtained with the intention of having it used to sustain this claim, and is a mere statement of the transaction as nearly as he could recollect it. It seems to me, in looking at this matter in respect to Mr. Kuykendall, that it suggests, I will not say the corruption, but I will say the impropriety of the recognition of such a transaction by Congress. An advertisement is put in the public newspapers, and individuals are induced to come forward and take contracts on the lowest terms. An individual comes forward with others, and makes a bid much lower than any one can afford to do the service, and of course he excludes all competition, and gets the contract. After he has done it, if we admit the power of the Department to make him an extra allowance for extra service, we put it in the power of the Department to do as was done in years past, when extra allowance was given to the postmasters throughout the country. We know what a complaint there was of the corruption which crept into the administration of the Post Office Department many years since, when extra allowances were made to contractors, to double the amount originally contracted, so that fortunes were made. Suspicions attached to the administration of the Post Office Department, and, consequently, certain officers were obliged to leave their offices. Whether these suspicions were well founded or not, I will not pretend to say. I mention it, to show that corruptions were supposed to have crept into that Department. Such was the general public sentiment at that time, and a controlling one, owing to the discretion exercised by the Department to change the whole character of a contract and make an increased allowance. Although this is not precisely of the same character, it involves the same principle. It puts up to the lowest bidder contracts for doing certain public service. All competition is excluded, if you admit that the Postmaster General can have a private understanding with any contractor; for he can change the contract to suit his convenience. I do not doubt that Mr. Kuykendall is a very correct sort of a man; but that does not change the principle in this case at all. Sir, if this can be allowed, we shall have changes in the mail contracts every day of the year. We recognize the discretion of the Postmaster General, and the contractors will act upon that, of course. If this principle be once recognized in these claims for extra allowance, I do not see how we are to reject these claims in future cases, which may come before us on precisely the same ground. Sir, there has scarcely been a month which I have sat here without having had applications from citizens of my State, asking for an increase in the mail service. They set forth that the interests of the country require it. And what am I toid when I make this request? I am told that the means of the country will not allow it. We are told that parties must carry out their contracts; that the Department has no discretion, and that the citi zens must submit to the inconvenience. The rule of the Department, I think, is a correct one, although I know that my constituents have suffered in consequence. Where increased service is asked on any route, the regulation of the Department is this: that the postmasters at the ends of the routes are required to weigh the mail matter; and if it exceeds a certain weight, the weight calculated upon at the time the contract was made, then the increased service is allowed and paid for. I think that that is a proper regulation; and I presume it was the regulation at the time that Kuykendall entered into his contract. All other portions of the country, and all other contractors being required to conform to that regulation, I do not think it proper to make an exception in this case; because, if you do, you will have the Senate filled with applications from all parts of the Unionmany of them equally meritorious with this case, however meritorious it may be. Mr. RUSK. I have never known, during my short term of service here, as well an established case as this fail to receive the favorable consideration of this Senate-to pay what is justly and equitably due to an individual. I admit that we should proceed with very great caution in the establishment of a principle to govern a future Congress, or anything of that sort. But these applications are not determined by law; because, if a law existed to determine them, they would not be before us. They come before us, and are applications to our discretion and sense of justice in the matter. Now, sir, the question arises here, will the United States receive service which was necessary to itself, which was reasonable, and which the Postmaster General himself encouraged to be made, with the view that we should pay for it, and then avail itself of a technicality to escape the payment of it—or will it pay what every man will see at once ought to be paid? What would have been the consequence, if this individual had not put on the four-horse coaches, and run his stages three times a week? Why the mails of the United States would have been delayed; and every man who used those mails would have been delayed, and thrown over in his correspondence. Every passenger going there would have had to do it at an increased expense, and be detained from his business in consequence of this interruption. This man then, by his increased service has benefited the Government, and benefited the public. He was encouraged to perform this service by the Postmaster General. He broke himself in doing so; and he now asks Congress whether they will pay him, or try to exonerate themselves from the payment. I hope the bill will be passed. Mr. BAYARD. I confess I cannot perceive the equity of this case, according to my ideas of equity. Grounds of compassion are too loose as ideas of equity, in my judgment. Acting here as Representatives, we have no right to disburse the funds of the nation as if we were dealing with our own private funds, on motives addressed to our feelings. We must act upon our judgment in relation to claims against the Government. The danger which I think grows out of legislation on cases of this kind, arises out of this: our laws require that the contracts shall be made in writing by the Postmaster General, (previous notice having been given,) and with the lowest bidder. When the contract is made, and after the service has been performed, after a lapse of eleven years, are we to suffer a party to come forward and, on ex parte testimony, to interpolate practically into that contract a private understanding with the Postmaster General, and say that the Government is bound to pay it? This individual did nothing more than by the terms of the contract he was bound to do, as regards the United States. The terms of the contract bound him to carry the mails of the United States, and the passengers on the route, in two-horse post coaches. If he pleased to extend the power for the performance of the duty, he had a right to do so; but he was bound to perform the duty, and he would have lost his contract, and been liable to forfeiture for a violation of it, if he had not gone on and performed the service. The danger is, that you ask now a violation of our own law, (and there is no use in the law if cases of this kind can be brought up, and made exceptions to it after this lapse of time,) which guards against the exercise of discretion on the part of the Postmaster General, when it is not evidenced in the written contract of the party. You require that the Postmaster General shall give a contract to the lowest bidder; and you seek now, in defiance of the contract, to interpolate a private understanding, or a private expectation held out to him. I consider this is a dangerous principle, and one that ought not to be tolerated, however hard it may be on the party. Under the particular circumstances stated by the Senator from Virginia, I cannot recognize the principle of equity of the case, unless you establish to my satisfaction that there was a fraudulent collision between some party and the officer, for the purpose of ruining this individual or taking advantage of him. No such intimation is made-no such evidence exists; and therefore I cannot see any equity in the claim. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. WILLIAM A. CHRISTIAN. The bill for the relief of William A. Christian was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to pay to purser William A. Christian, in the being the amount disallowed him in a former setsettlement of his accounts, the sum of $2,643 74, tlement of his accounts, for payments to warrant officers of the United States steam-ship Princeton. Mr. BRODHEAD called for the reading of the report, and it was read accordingly. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. G. THOMAS HOWARD. The bill for the relief of G. Thomas Howard was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It authorizes and directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to audit and settle the claim of G. Thomas Howard, for compensation and traveling expenses as bearer of dispatches from Texas to Washington city in the year 1845, and to allow him compensation, at the rate of $6 per day, for a period not exceeding twenty-five days, and traveling expenses at the rate of 10 cents per mile, from Austin, Texas, to Washington city, computing the distance according to the most usually traveled route. Mr. BAYARD. Is there any report in the case? If there is, I should like to hear it read. The PRESIDENT. It was reported by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. NORRIS,] but there is no written report. Mr. PRATT. As the Senator who reported the bill is not in his place, I would suggest the propriety of laying it over. The PRESIDENT. There is a letter from the Secretary of State on the subject. Mr. BADGER. I would like to hear it read. The letter was read accordingly. It states that there is no precedent on the files of the Department to determine the reasonableness of Mr. Howard's claim; and that the compensation usually allowed to bearers of dispatches to and from countries, is $6 dollars per day, and all other necessary traveling expenses. Mr. BAYARD. Unless there is some report in relation to the circumstances of this case, I would prefer that it should lie over. The compensation of a bearer of dispatches, I believe, is a matter of useless patronage. I do not think it is always paid. I have certainly known cases where the office of bearer of dispatches was a mere nominal one; and surely it is an almost entirely useless one. I move to postpone the further consideration of the bill until Friday next. The motion was agreed to. WILLIAMS, STAPLES, & WILLIAMS. The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill from the House of Representatives for the relief of Williams, Staples, & Williams. It authorizes and directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to pay to Williams, Staples, & Williams, of the city of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, a sum not exceediag $1,156 50, being the amount of duties paid by them on one hundred and twenty-one hogsheads of sugars which were destroyed by fire while in the public store, at the city of Norfolk, on the 14th of June, 1848; which sugars were imported by them into the port of Norfolk on or about the 6th of June, 1848. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be read a third time, and was read a third time and passed. JAMES FERGUSON. The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill from the House of Representatives for the relief of James Ferguson, surviving partner of the firm of Ferguson & Milhado. It authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to James Ferguson, surviving partner of the late firm of Ferguson & Milhado, of the city of Norfolk, Virginia, a sum not exceeding $735 60, being the amount alleged to have been paid by them in discharge of their bond given to the United States, dated May 22, 1848, for duties on one hundred and forty-two hogsheads of molasses which were destroyed by fire in the public store on the 14th day of June, 1848. It was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be read a third time, and, being read the third time, was passed. WILLIAM WOODBRIDGE-HENRY CHIPMAN. The bill to provide compensation to William Woodbridge and Henry Chipman, for adjusting titles to lands in Michigan, and for other purposes, was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to William Woodbridge and Henry Chipman, late judges of the United States for the Territory of Michigan, at the rate of $500 each per annum, for services in ascertaining, adjusting, and settling claims to land, and performing other duties, in conformity with the acts of April 21, 1826, and May 28, 1830. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. SARAH FLINN. The bill for the relief of Sarah Flinn was read the second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It authorizes and directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to pay to Sarah Flinn $80, for supplies furnished by her to Captain William Rowell's company of Florida Mounted Militia, while in the service of the United States, on the 24th day of March, 1839. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. MAISON ROUGE GRANT. On the motion of Mr. DOWNS, the Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the bill to grant the right of preemption to settlers on the public land known as the Maison Rouge Grant. It provides that every person, being the head of a family, or widow, or single | specifically applies to the Maison Rouge Grant, The amendment is to extend to the Bastrop Grant a provision which prevails among settlers on the Maison Rouge Grant. It does not affect the United States at all. Its object is to enable parties to settle controversies, to enable them to divide legal subdivisions of land to which they may become entitled. There is no necessity to send it to a separate committee, because it involves exactly the same principle. man, over the age of twenty-one years, who, prior to January 27th, 1851, was an actual settler on the public land known as the Maison Rouge Grant, in the State of Louisiana, and resided thereon on that day, or the heirs and legal representatives of such person, shall be entitled to enter land at the proper land office, in legal subdivisions, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres (to include the residence and improvements of the settler) at the minimum price of such lands, on the same terms and conditions and under the same limitations as are prescribed in the act "to grant the right of preemption to certain purcha-emption rights granted by it are precisely the same 'sers and settlers on the Maison Rouge Grant, in the event of the final adjudication of the title in favor of the United States," approved January 27th, 1851. Mr. DOWNS. I have an amendment which I wish to offer. It is to add, at the end of the bill, these words: And that the provisions of the third section of said net be, and the same are hereby, extended to the settlers on the Bastrop Grant, in the same land district as the Maison Rouge Grant. These two grants are exactly similarly situated. Preemption rights have been extended to settlers on the Bastrop Grant, and I want now to extend to them the provisions of the 3d section of the act of 27th January, 1851, which describes the manner of proceeding when there are two or more settlers on the same quarter section. That provision of the act of 1851 is in these words: "That if the residences and improvements of two or more persons, entitled to preemption as aforesaid, shall be found on any one of the smallest legal subdivisions of the public lands, the same may be entered jointly by the parties, in order that they may secure and divide the same, according to their several rights; and in default of one or more of the parties taking the proper steps within the time prescribed to secure the benefit of this act, it shall be lawful for any one of the parties of this class to make the entry of the whole of such legal subdivision for his sole benefit." Mr. FELCH. I would like to inquire from what committee this bill comes? The PRESIDENT. It was introduced by unanimous consent by the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. DowNs,] and is now reported from the Committee on Private Land Claims. Mr. DOWNS. I will give a word of explanation of the merits of this bill. At the last Congress a bin was passed giving the right of preemption to the purchasers and settlers who had purchased from the former claimants on the Maison Rouge Grant. It was intended to apply to those who had settled merely, as well as to those who had purchased of the original claimants. But the Land Office had construed that law so as to exclude that portion of settlers who had no written title from the former claimant. I understood, at the time that bill was passed, that by its operation, as soon as the grant should be declared to be public land, the rights of preemption would accrue to all settlers; but the Land Office decided otherwise. There is a provision in the act of 1841 that preemptions shall not accrue to any reserved lands; and there fore, though many of those persons have lived on this land for a number of years, the Land Office has decided that their settlement amounts to nothing, because this grant was construed to be reserved land. This bill now is to place them upon precisely the same footing as those who purchased from the original claimants, and therefore obtained preemption rights. This is merely to grant what was intended by the act as it originally passed, but was not embraced in it from a misconstruction, as I conceive, of the law. Mr. BAYARD. I would ask the Senator from Louisiana, whether the amendment he has proposed does not extend the right of preemption to settlers on public land other than that known as the Maison Rouge Grant. Mr. FELCH. I wish to inquire further of the Senator who reported this bill, whether the pre as those granted under the general law relative to preemption rights; whether the same oath is required of persons who claim them, and the same proofs and testimony to be introduced before the proper officer, in order to enable them to avail themselves of the benefit of the law? Mr. DOWNS. As I understand it, the same provisions are required. This is only to extend to those settlers without title, the same privilege which was conferred upon others by the act passed motion to embrace this provision of the bill, beat the last session of Congress. I have made the cause I thought, by the operation of the law and the construction which has been placed on it by the land office, a certain class of persons had been excluded, to whom nobody objects, to whom the land office does not object, and who are everywhere supposed to have a perfect right to this preemption. It is simply to supply an omission of the law passed at the last session. The amendment was agreed to; the bill was reported to the Senate as amended, the amendment was concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. DAVID OSBORN. The bill for the relief of David Osborn was read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. k authorizes and directs the accounting officers of the Treasury to pay to David Osborne $220 40. for supplies furnished by him to Captain William Rowell's company of Florida mounted militia, while in the service of the United States, on the 17th of April, 1839. It was reported to the Senate without amend ment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. THOMAS D. JENNINGS. The bill for the relief of Thomas D. Jennings was read a second time, and considered as in ComJennings, of Florida, to enter, at the minimum mittee of the Whole. It authorizes Thomas D. price of public lands, a quantity of land not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, embracing the improvement on which his late father, Lawrence D. Jennings, resided before his death, on due proof being presented to the register of the proper land office, that he would have been entitled to a preemption, but for the removal of the family after the death of the father. It was reported to the Senate without amend ment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. JOHN MCREYNOLDS. Detroit, in the State of Michigan, was read a see The bill for the relief of John McReynolds, of ond time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It directs the payment of $1,036 86 to John McReynolds, of Detroit, Michigan, for ex penses incurred by him in the commencement of the erection of a light-house on Beaver Island, after which he was directed to erect said lighthouse in another place. Mr. DOWNS. To settlers on another granted to be engrossed and read a third time. It was reported without amendment, and ordersimilarly situated. Mr. BAYARD. The proposition contained in the amendment has not been referred to any committee, and of course not reported upon. It extends to other lands than those mentioned in the original bill. Mr. DOWNS. It contains precisely the same principle. Mr. BAYARD. But it is really a new subject, which has never gone to a committee, and has never been reported upon. Mr. DOWNS. There are two Spanish grants in the same neighborhood, of the same date-the Bastrop, and Maison Rouge Grant. SAMUEL BRAY. The bill for the relief of Samuel Bray was read a second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Samuel Bray, keeper of the Dog Island light-house, such amount, not exceed ing $500, as may, upon satisfactory proof exhib ited and produced by Samuel Bray, cover the losses by him suffered, while keeper of said lighthouse, during the gale of 23d and 24th of August, 1851. It was reported without amendment, and orderThe billed to be engrossed and read a third time. THOMAS RHODES, Mr. RHETT. I should like to hear some explanation of that bill from the Senator who reported it. | time to time, with the consent of the township, and it is now too late to make that objection. But it does not arise in this case, because the school selection had actually been made from this section by the Secretary of the Treasury; and it is not now a question between the petitioner and the United States, but a question between Carson and Bowmar. land; and that so much of section 2, of the act of The bill for the relief of Thomas Rhodes was March 3, 1849, entitled "An act for the relief of read a second time, and considered as in CommitThomas J. Carson," as confirms the selection tee of the Whole. It authorizes and directs the made by the Secretary of the Treasury of said Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Thomas lot No. 27, for the use of public schools, be reRhodes the sum of $3,175 11, in full satisfaction pealed; provided, that nothing m the present act for the expenses incurred by him in opening and shall be so construed as to reduce the quantity of constructing a road from Mobile, in Alabama, to lands to which said township is entitled by law. Pascagoula Bay, for the transportation of the On the request of Mr. ATCHISON the report Mr. PRATT. I regret to interfere in this matmail, in the year 1828, in pursuance of an implied was read; from which it appears that the memori- ter; but if I understand the question, there is an authority and contract from the Postmaster Gen-alist settled on the lot stated, and becaine entitled important principle involved in it. The contest eral. to a preemption in consequence thereof. That is not between the township and the individual lot having been improperly selected for school pur-grantee, but between two individual grantees— poses, upon an appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, the selection was revoked, and on January 4, 1849, the memorialist was permitted to enter his preemption. Before the entry was actually made, however, Congress, in ignorance of the rights of the memorialist, passed an act for the relief of Thomas J. Carson, by which he, Carson, was permitted to enter the sixteenth section, and lot twenty-seven was reserved for school purposes. The proper officers, in the mean time, before the act of Congress was known to them, permitted the memorialist to enter his preemption, and granted the certificate on May 16, 1849. With the obstacles arising from the act of Congress for the benent of said Carson, a patent is refused to the memorialist. Under the circumstances of the case, and with the concurrence of the inhabitants of the township, the committee are of the opinion that relief should be granted to the memorialist, and report a bill for that purpose. The proviso is added to secure the right of the township to the quantity of land which the law allows it. Mr. SOULE. This bill has been several times before the Senate, reported upon favorably, and acted upon. It comes again before us, on account of its never having been reached in its order in the House of Representatives. There have been several reports in its favor. One of them may be taken up and read, and it will explain the situation in which the committee found themselves on investigating this claim. It is one which pleads loudly for justice, and requires at our hands that we should act upon it. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think this is an admirable bill, and one which ought to pass. It is the first affirmation which I ever recollect having seen here of the doctrine of the right of making roads to carry the mails. I think it is an admirable bill. The bill was reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. PHILIP MILLER. The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill from the House of Representatives for the relief of Philip Miller. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Philip Miller, of Kentucky, on the roll of invalid pensioners, at the rate of $8 per month during his natural life-to commence from and after the 1st of May, 1848. It was reported without amendment, ordered to be read a third time, and being read a third time, was passed. ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, WASHINngton. The bill for the relief of St. John's Church, in the city of Washington, which was reported from the Committee for the District of Columbia, was read a second time; and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that the lot of ground now used as a burial ground by said church, occupying square No. 276, situated near the northern limits of the city, and which the late President Madison permitted the said church to occupy for said purpose, be granted in fee-simple to the church, and that the Commissioner of Public Buildings be authorized and required to convey said lot to said church by a proper deed, as evidence of this grant; and also that the $200 heretofore paid by the church be repaid to the rector for the use of the church, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Mr. BORLAND. Is there any report in the case? The PRESIDENT. There is not. There is nothing but the petition. The bill was reported from the Committee for the District of Columbia, by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] not now in his seat. Mr. BAYARD. Unless some reasons be given for making the grant of $200 to the church, I move to strike out that portion of the bill. But as the Senator who reported it is not present, 1 move to postpone its further consideration until next Friday. The motion was agreed to. JOSEPH H. D. BOWMAR. The bill for the relief of Joseph H. D. Bowmar, reported from the Committee on Private Land Claims, was read a second time; and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that a patent shall be granted to the said Bowmar, of Carroll parish, Louisiana, for the lot or fractional section No. 27, in township 19, and range 3 east, in the district of lands north of Red river, subject to entry and sale at Washita, in the State of Louisiana, containing 145 13-100 acres, on the final settlement of certificate No. 9977, issued to said Bowmar May 16, 1849, on the payment of purchase money on said Mr. ATCHISON. I do not know whether, upon a close examination of the matter, I would have any objection to this bill or not. But, sir, it appears to be somewhat complicated, and for the purpose of having an opportunity to examine it, I propose that it be permitted to lie over. Mr. DOWNS. I can explain it now. Mr. ATCHISON. But I would rather examine the report. I think we have done enough for Louisiana to-day, in the way of preemption rights. I doubt whether Congress, having once vested a right by law in the township, can now, by repealing that law, divest the township of any right; and if you do that, and authorize or require the Commissioner of the General Land Office, or the President, to issue a patent to this individual to this land, whether or not he would not have just claim against the Government for the value of the land. I move that the consideration of the bill be postponed until next Friday. Mr. BADGER. I will vote cheerfully for the postponement, if my friend who makes the motion will pledge himself that between now and next Friday he will examine the case. If he will not, I think it is unfair to move the postponement. Mr. DOWNS. I hope the postponement will not take place. This is an exceedingly simple case. There is a provision of law that a certain amount of land, in each township, shall be set apart for public schools. Instructions were issued to the land officers in Louisiana, many years ago, to make the selections. It happened that m some townships more was reserved than was necessary. The authority has been exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury, when the matter was under his control, and by the Secretary of the Interior, since the organization of that Department, when this was ascertained to be the case, to relieve the surplus from reservation, and allow entries to be made. In a case of this kind, Bowmar made application to be allowed to enter this lot, and on a hearing of the whole case, Mr. Walker decided that he had a right to do so, because the township had enough besides. But, in the meantime, Congress, knowing nothing about it, and a claim pending here for Carson to be allowed to make his entry on this same lot, they passed a law authorizing him to make such an entry. If the committee had known these facts when Carson's case was before them, they would not have reported in his favor. It is now clear that the proper title belongs to Bowmar, and it is necessary to repeal that portion of the act referred to in the bill. As to the observation of the Senator from Missouri, that it is not competent for Congress to take back any of these school lands, they do it always, with the consent of the township. It has been the practice for twenty years. I disapprove of it. I think it is wrong; but it has been acted on from Carson and Bowmar. Now, the Supreme Court have decided, in a case which I have had occasion recently to examine, that wherever a party is entitled to a preemption and has made a claim to make an entry to the land, that inchoate preëmption conters such a right as cannot be interfered with by any subsequent action of Congress. Here, if I understand correctly, by one act of Congress, the right to enter land was given to a man by the name of Carson. Another man, by the name of Bowmar, claims a prior right of preemption. If he possesses that prior right, under the decision of the Supreme Court, the judicial tribunals of the country are open to him. It will be for those tribunals, and those alone, to decide between the relative rights of these individuals. I do not think it is the province of the Senate of the United States, in any case, to act judicially. When there are individual rights legally existing, when the tribunals of the country are open for decisions upon these rights, we are not the proper tribunal to take them in hand; nor do we possess the constitutional power, in my humble judgment, to enter upon such a question. The case which is now presented is precisely the one which I have stated. If I understand it correctly, I do not think the bill ought to pass. I think the contest between these two individuals should be carried on in the tribunais of the country, where it could properly be decided as to their rights. Mr. DOWNS. There is no doubt that the doc trine of the gentleman is precisely correct. I agree with him in every particular, and it is conclusive. The position which he takes proves that this bill ought to pass, and that it must pass. He says that Congress cannot divest these preemption rights. That is the position of Mr. Bowmar here. He had a preemption right; he was permitted to enter it, and got his certificate. Not only had he a right, but it was actually vested in him by the initiatory title of the certificate issued to him. The Secretary of the Treasury, on a full hearing of the case, put him in possession of it; but Congress, not knowing anything of this at the time when Carson presented his application, passed a law authorizing Carson to enter the land. Congress could not divest Bowmar, who not only had his title but had made his entry, it is perfectly conclusive that this bill ought to pass; not to divest the title, but to secure to this man a title which was vested in him. I hope the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD] will join me in supporting this bill. I hope he is perfectly satisfied with it. If Mr. ATCHISON. I think the Senator from Louisiana has shown, conclusively, that this is a question between Carson and Bowmar. Well, let the courts decide that question. Let them decide who has the title of the land. Let them decide whether the law of Congress divesting Bowmar, or attempting to divest him, and to invest Carson, should be sustained; or whether the preemption law, under which Bowmar claims, should sustain him. Now, this is the question. From the gentleman's own showing, Congress has nothing to do with it. But I prefer to have an opportunity of examining it. I make no pledges about it. I will not pledge myself either to read the bill or the report. Sometimes I do read the bills, and sometimes I read the reports; and I think now I will do so in this matter, but I will not pledge myself. As the Senator from Louisiana has alluded to the Senator from Kentucky, I am utterly astonished that he has not interposed and examined this matter. Why, sir, it may affect somewhat the distributive share of the State of Kentucky, under his proposition to distribute the public domain. I trust that the vote will be taken on the postponement. The Senate is very thin, and I dislike to call for the yeas and nays. If I should do so, probably a quorum would not answer. Mr. DOWNS. The argument of the Senators from Maryland and Missouri proves that this bill ought to pass. Congress have already interfered. As it is, they have given the right to enter to Carson, and he will get the patent unless this bill is passed, while, according to their doctrine, he is not entitled to it. I want this act to pass, to give the other man a patent. There is a provision in the bill that these two individuals shall fight out the contest. The passage of the bill will not interfere with any other person. I hope, if the gentlemen want to see a fair fight, they will vote for the bill. Mr. ATCHISON. This man Bowmar claims under a preemption law, either of 1838 or 1841, or of a prior year. Carson claims under an act of Congress, vesting him directly with the title to this land. The Senator from Louisiana tells me that Bowmar proved his preemption, deposited his money, and obtained a certificate-the initiatory to a title. Then Congress, without knowing anything about it, upon Carson's petition, passed a law vesting in him the right to this land. The Senator says, that unless we interpose by this bill, Carson will obtain a patent. What advantage will that patent be in the courts of Louisiana, or in the courts of any other State of this Union, to Carson? I presume none. I do not know that this bill will be of any disadvantage to the United States; but it may be to Carson. These individuals now stand upon the same platform. Let them go before the courts of Louisiana, and let their titles be decided by the courts. I renew the mo tion to postpone. The motion was agreed to. AMERICAN CEMETERY IN MEXICO. By unanimous consent, the bill appropriating a sum of money for the interment of officers and soldiers, who died in Mexico, in the American Cemetery, near the city of Mexico, was taken up, read a third time, and passed. REPORT FROM A COMMITTEE. By unanimous consent, Mr. UNDERWOOD, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported various amendments to a bill which had been referred to that committee, providing for the survey of lands in California. The amendments were ordered to be printed, And then, on motion, the Senate adjourned until Monday. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. L. F. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. GOODENOW. Mr. Speaker, my name is not recorded upon the vote laying upon the table the resolution of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] to close debate on the homestead bill. I voted in the negative upon that proposition, and ask that the Journal may be so corrected. The SPEAKER. The Journal will be corrected, as suggested by the gentleman, unless objected to. Mr. CLINGMAN. I move to suspend the rules, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with the view of taking up the special order-the bill to authorize the continuance of the work on the Capitol. CONTESTED ELECTION FROM NEW MEXICO. I re Mr. WEIGHTMAN. I gave notice yesterday to the honorable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PHELPS,] that if he did not bring up the question of privilege from New Mexico, in reference to the contest of my seat, I should do so. gret extremely he is not in his place. I would like very much to have him in his place before I go on. I cannot stand here and permit such charges as have been preferred against the honorable gentleman who fills the executive chair in New Mexico to go uncontradicted any longer. I have given the gentleman from Missouri, (who I regret is not in his seat,) an opportunity to be here. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New Mexico moves to proceed to the consideration of the petition presented by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PHELPS,] contesting the seat of the Delegate from New Mexico. Mr. OLDS. Was not that petition withdrawn? The SPEAKER. The Chair did not understand that it was withdrawn. The pending question was to refer to the Committee of Elections, and to print. Mr. HALL. My colleague is not in his place this morning. I do not know what keeps him away. A MEMBAR. Here he is. He has just come in. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PHELPS,] when this petition was introduced by him, was upon the floor proceeding to submit a few remarks in reference to the question involved. Does the gentleman from New Mexico insist upon occupying the floor upon this question? Mr. WEIGHTMAN. I insist that the question be taken up. I cannot consent that the distinguished friend of mine shall be subjected to the odium of such charges any longer. I call upon the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PHELPS] to call up that question. Mr. CLINGMAN. I insist upon my motion. The SPEAKER. It is competent for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union-that motion having been submitted by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN.] The question submitted by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PHELPS,] it is true, is a privileged question, but the House may proceed to other business. Mr. POLK. Does the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. WEIGHTMAN] desire to make a personal explanation? I will consult his wishes upon that subject, so far as my vote is concerned. Mr. WEIGHTMAN. I do not desire to make any explanation connected with myself personally, or in regard to the petition which is offered to be referred to the Committee of Elections. I have no manner of objection to that; but with it are connected charges of corruption against the distinguished gentleman who is now filling the executive chair in New Mexico. Mr. POLK. I wish to know if it is the desire of the gentleman to do so now? I would be willing to assist him in doing it. Mr. WEIGHTMAN. I desire it now. The question was then taken upon Mr. CLINGMAN's motion; and it was agreed to. THE EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL. the amendment I have proposed, is less than was asked for by the Secretary of the Interior, and the accomplished architect in charge of the work. Their estimates were made last fall, and a large portion of the time in which the money was to have been expended having elapsed, it is deemed necessary now to appropriate only this amount, which will be sufficient for the period between the passage of the resolution and the end of the fiscal year, terminating June 30, 1853. The Committee of Ways and Means have not provided in any of their appropriation bills reported to the House for the extension of the Capitol. The House very appropriately referred the subject to the Committee on Public Buildings, and that committee, after inquiring into the propriety of the appropriation, and in view of the fact that no regular appropri ation bill to which this can be attached, will, in all probability, be passed before the end of the session, have directed me to urge it now. The work has been commenced. I cannot doubt that it is the intention of Congress to complete it. One hundred thousand dollars have already been expended, and, I am happy to say, judiciously expended. This appropriation is needed, and must be made, and it is wiser to make it now and permit the work to proceed with a ful complement of hands, than to make a small appropriation which may not last until the regular ap propriation bills are passed. It will be the best economy to complete the building as speedily as it can be done consistently with a proper execution of the work. Mr. WOODWARD. If I am in order in making the inquiry, I should like to know whether it is likely that the special committee, relative to the foundation of the wings of the Capitol, will prob ably make a report? The question of what is to be the amount of appropriation may be affected by the report from that committee. I should like to inquire, if it be in order, when that committee may be expected to report, and what is likely to be the character of the report? Mr. McNAIR, (chairman of the committee.) We shall report next week, and we are now almost ready. Mr. WOODWARD. I ask pardon of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. STANTON] for interrupting him. Mr. STANTON. I have no objection to the king his statement. gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MCNAIR] ma The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. SEYMOUR, of Connecticut, in the chair.) The CHAIRMAN. The first business in ordering No. 2, authorizing the architect of the Capitol to is the special order, being "Senate joint resolution continue in employment the mechanics, laborers, and others, employed upon the two wings thereof." Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I have been instructed by the Committee on Public Buildings and Public Grounds, of which I have the honor to be chairman, to report an amendment to the resolution now pending, by way of substitute, and insist upon its adoption. The amendment was then read, as follows: That there be, and hereby is, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the period between the passage of this resolution, and the end of the fiscal year terminating June 30th, 1853, the sum of $500,000, for the continuation of the work on the two wings of the Capitol. Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. The necessity which gave rise to the original resolution has passed. It was intended only as a temporary expedient to prevent a total suspension of the work on the two wings of the Capitol. The appropriation of the last Congress for this improvement was only $100,000, and that was exhausted at the commencement of the present year. Since then the work has necessarily been suspended, the mechanics and laborers discharged, and the important object to be accomplished by the extension of the edifice, consequently delayed. I earnestly hoped taken up the resolution of the Senate, passed it, that at an earlier period the House would have and permitted the work to be continued. Had this been done, two months of fine weather would not have been lost-the work would have been in a state of progress, and the nation could not have reproached its Representatives for refusing to do for so long a period what need not at any time have occupied more than five minutes. The appropriation of $500,000, contemplated by Mr. McNAIR. The investigation has been goon regularly, and we are now almost ready to report. We have found the wall in a dreadful condition-in a condition that has astonished us all. When we came to examine it, we found that wall with shells built up on the outside, and small stones thrown in on the inside. We have found it in a very bad condition. There are no stones headers, and there is no bond work. running through the wall to bind it. There are no Mr. WOODWARD. I understand from the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. STANTON] that he had not concluded his remarks. I supposed he had, or I would not have made the inquiry. Mr. STANTON. If I do not lose my right to the floor, I have no objection to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McNAIR] proceeding. Mr. McNAIR. The mortar that has been put in there we have found to be entirely insufficient, as we believe. It has been in there about three months, and it is not yet set. Men with picks just dug out the inside, and threw out the stones with their hands, and threw out the sand or mortar, or whatever you call it, with a shovel. We have, as one member of the committee expressed it, realized our very worst anticipations. We had no expectation that this large appropriation would be sprung upon us at this time, for the architect himself asked but $350,000 in his report to the President of the United States. That report have in my possession. We believe this thing ought to be investigated fairly, and that all things House before this appropriation is made. If this connected with it should be brought before this appropriation is once made, we will be powerless to change it. We will be all fastened, and you will put up a building which will cost $5,000,000, upon an appropriation of $100,000 made by this House on the 30th day of September, 1850-an appropriation made in three lines and a half, giving to the President of the United States $100,000, and power to appoint an architect-that architect to produce a plan, of which he shall approve; an then the money was to be expended from the commencement of the extension of the Capitol. That money has been under the control of the architect himself, who has drawn it out of the Treasury himself. It has been expended; how, we know not. I have here a statement of the money drawn from the Secretary of the Treasury by the architect himself in sums of $20,000, and expended or disbursed by him, I know not how. This matter requires an inquiry, and I want this House to know and to understand how this business is progressing, and whether this foundation will be so frail and so weak that the superstructure raised upon it will fall down. One of the best architects, perhaps, in the State of Pennsylvania was here, who has no interest whatever in this work, and probably never will have, and he declared to me, when he looked at that wall and examined the formation of it, that he would venture his life the building would fail down if built upon it. Now, that is the opinion of a respectable architect who has no interest in this matter, and I therefore want the House to pause before making this appropriation. Mr. DUNCAN, (interrupting.) I wish to ask the gentleman, who that architect from Pennsylvania is? and whether he has been examined before the committee? Mr. McNAIR. No. I did not say that he had been. The gentleman is a friend of Mr. DIMMICK, and was visiting him; he may give his name if he chooses. [Cries of "No!" " "No!"] Mr. DUNCAN. As he is represented as a person of such high reputation, we want to know who he is. [Cries of "Name!" "Name!"] Many MEMBERS. "No!" "No!" Mr. McNAIR. He was introduced to me by Mr. DIMMICK. [Loud cries of "Name!" "Name!" and "Oh no, go on!"] [Renewed cries of "Name!" "Name!"] Mr. FLORENCE. Oh no; the reputation of Pennsylvania may be at stake. [Cries of "Order," and laughter.] Many MEMBERS. "Name!" "Name!" Mr. MCNAIR. Well, his name is Knowles. [Laughter.] Mr. DUNCAN. Where is he from? Mr MCNAIR. I wish gentlemen to know something about the disbursement of that money, before they judge whether everything is perfectly right. Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York, (interrupting.) I wish merely to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whether he has any knowledge of the misapplication of these funds, or any suspicion of their misapplication? Mr. McNAIR. I have a knowledge that the money has been drawn by the architect. He has drawn it; and there has been no return made by him for the disbursement. Mr. WOODWARD. I simply wish to suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that I did not expect a debate of this character would spring up. My inquiry was strictly as to the business before the committee, and related to the manner of constructing the wall. I never for a moment had the least suspicion of a misapplication of the funds, and I should be very glad if my friend would restrict himself to the matter of the construction of the wall. Mr. FLORENCE, (Mr. MCNAIR yielding the floor.) As the great object to be attained just now is, to arrive at a definite conclusion by which this House can vote to-day upon this bill, may I beg to ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, whether there has been a vote in that committee upon the subject of the wall?-whether there has been any conclusion arrived at by the committee that may enable this House to arrive at a conclusion? whether the whole of the committee agree with the chairman?-and further, whether experienced gentlemen-persons competent to judge of the strength of that wall, have not given certificates that it is adequate for the purposes for which it was built? Inasmuch as the chairman of the committee has been asked to give us information, and as we are all interested in knowing it, it is perhaps as well that he should state now whether such certificates have not been given. My reason for asking it is, that I have understood from expe rienced persons that the wall is quite adequate for Mr. NCNAIR. I have told the gentleman, as I Mr. McNAIR. There has been such testimony, but there has also been contradictory testimony. After the testimony was all given, we went out and examined for ourselves. We formed our own opinions in regard to it, and have given them in full in the report. For my own part, I must say that I was very much disappointed, and I think the other members of the committee-if they are here-will say the same for themselves. Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky, (resuming.) Mr. Chairman, I was about to remark, when was interrupted, that it had been the misfortune of all great men who had the genius and resolution to undertake works of this magnitude, to be harassed and annoyed by the criticism and censure of petty minds, who have not the capacity to comprehend or the skill to execute a great design. In this remark I do not allude to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but I do allude to that description of meddlers who, from motives of disappointment at having failed to secure contracts on this work, come into this Hall to harass the House, and, I had almost said, to lead intelligent and honorable members of Congress into dilemmas, of which, when they learn the whole truth, they will be ashamed. Mr. McNAIR. Who are they? Mr. STANTON. Such men as your particular friend, Mr. Coltman, who, you said yourself, had been the instrument in bringing about this investigation. Gentlemen who have read the history of the construction of that great edifice on the north bank of the Thames, at Westminster, will recollect that Sir Charles Barry, the distinguished architect charged with the design and construction of the work, was annoyed at every step, from the time the first foundation stone was laid to the completion of the building, with special committees and investigations, like those we have authorized here, but which resulted in nothing but the complete vindication of the great architect and his noble structure. Sir, the truth is, in all great undertakings of this magnitude, success is best accomplished by relying upon individual responsibility. You acted upon that principle when you gave the President power to adopt the plan for the edifice, without other limit than his own discretion; and you must, to some extent, act upon the same principle in permitting him to complete it. You can delay, embarrass, and ruin the work, by listening to the idle clamor of the ignorant and the envious; but such a course will be more discreditable to you than to the President, the architect he has employed, or any one acting under them. The lamented Taylor would never have conquered at Buena Vista, nor Scott have taken the city of Mexico, if at every emergency these brave generals had been restrained and controlled by the unenlightened suggestions of the War Department. Nor will your new Capitol ever be creditable to the nation, if the work and the plans are changed and modified by the action of special committees, raised at the instance of every stupid fellow who imagines that he sees a brick awry, or some small crevice not perfectly puttied up. I am rejoiced that this debate has arisen, because I had some curiosity to hear what the honorable member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MCNAIR,] who is chairman of the special committee, would have to say upon the subject of the foundations; and I wished to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing my own opinions on the subject freely and fearlessly. When I heard there were doubts as to the stability and firmness of these foundations, I confess I was amazed, for I could not conceive that any intelligent gentleman, who saw them as they presented themselves to the eye of everybody, could have any other opinion than that they were unnecessarily strong. I am glad, however, that the committee have made their investigation most thorough and complete; no matter what may be their conclusions when they take the sense of the members. They have not only, as we have been told by the chairman, dug into the center of the walls to test the quality of the work, but, I have been informed, they have employed an accomplished scientific gentleman of this city, (Professor Johnson,) at an expense of some $20 or $25 per day, to make extensive experimental tests of the solidity and strength of the gneiss rock of which these foundations are built, as well as of its capacity to resist the action of the atmosphere. Now, there is not a laborer engaged on these foundations-not even the most ignorant of themwho does not know that not a square inch of the surface of those walls will be exposed to the action of the elements. The outer surface will be covered up by the earth, or the terraces which will surround it, and the inner surface by the arches or floors above it, so that no part will be exposed. The chairman of the special committee, [Mr. MCNAIR,] in advance of the action of the committee, gives us his judgment as to the character of these foundations, and pronounces them shamefully defective. Now, as to the character of the material: I happened to have a conversation with Professor Johnson as to the result of his experiments, in which he kindly gave me the facts which will follow. Mr. McNAIR. Was he upon his oath? Mr. STANTON. No, sir; but I presume his word upon this subject would be as good as his oath. Mr. BEALE. He took six or seven specimens of stone from different parts of the building, so as to ascertain the average quality of the stone. Mr. STANTON. I shall state it all fairly, as I have no disposition to do any one injustice. The weakest and most inferior specimens of the stone used which could be found, when subjected to pressure, by accurate machinery for that purpose, bore a crushing weight of over 8,000 pounds to the square inch, or 1,152,000 pounds to the square foot. Now, the heaviest portion of the material of which the walls of the edifice will be built weighs only 175 pounds to the cubic foot; and as the building will be about 60 feet high, the weight which each square foot of foundation must sustain is only 10,500 pounds, or less than one hundreth part of what the walls are capable of sustaining, supposing the whole foundation to be built of the most inferior material. The best portion of the stone used bore a pressure of 20,000 pounds and over, or one and a half times more than the most inferior. Not one stone in a hundred used in the foundation, I am authorized to say, was of the inferior quality of the first specimen to which I have referred; and taking a medium between the worst and the best, as the proper average quality of the stone used, and these foundations, so much decried, are really capable of bearing, according to scientific demonstration, 2,450,000 pounds to the square foot, or two hundred and thirty-three times more than is actually required. These are some of the results which had been obtained by the gentleman referred to, at the time of our conversation. They certainly will be conclusive, to all unprejudiced minds, as to the strength and durability of the stone. I have no information as to the result of his experiments to test the capacity of the stone to stand atmospheric action. They had not been completed at the time referred to. But I care not what may be the result. My own practical experience teaches me that the stone is sufficiently strong, solid, and durable, for any purpose of the kind. I agree with the learned Professor, that these experiments can be of no practical value, for the reasons above stated, and that this part of the investigation had as well been dispensed with. They are only a waste of genius and of time. But the chairman of the investigating committee has told us, with great gravity, that he went to one of these foundation walls, with pickaxe and crowbar in hand, and dug up a portion of it; that, to his great surprise, he found his worst anticipations realized. The wall, he alleges, is built of small stone and bad mortar, and is insufficient to sustain the structure to be erected upon it. Now, let me disclose a secret in regard to this digging operation. The honorable chairman satisfied himself by digging in a single spot, and that spot happened, fortunately for the purpose of the gentleman, to be just where the workmen terminated their labors. Now, it is known to all prac |
