Mr. RHETT. It appears to me that this grant would be vindicated by the legislation of Congress upon it. Certainly the President of the United States had a right to allow a temporary occupation of the land. It is true that, by long usage, it might be considered as a permanent right. And if he had allowed every religious denomination in the city to take a portion of the public land for the purposes of burial, I think we should ratify what he did. I know very well the locality of this burial place, and I do not consider it of much value. By making a point about it at all, and the fact that we do legislate upon it, is a sufficient vindication of the law. This is quite a small matter, and I hope the Senate will grant the sum asked for the banks of the Rio Grande where they were destroyed, by any such authority or for any such legitimate purpose as to make the Government responsible for their loss or destruction. Second. It is not in proper or sufficient evidence before us, that they were destroyed by proper authority, or for a necessary purpose. Third. Had sufficient time and warning to remove them beyond the danger, upon pretence of which they are alleged to have been destroyed. I said these good were not properly upon the Rio Grande-that is, to the extent of making the United States responsible for them. The expedition, with which they were carried there, was an unauthorized one. Not only unauthorized, but was regarded by the commanding general as so improper that, as soon as he received intelligence of it, he countermanded it, ordered the troops back to San Antonio, and placed the leader of it, Colonel Harney, under arrest. Mr. Callaghan, it seems, and as there is no doubt, accompanied this Mr. BAYARD. It is true it is a small matter; but I never consider a principle a small matter, however the Senator from South Carolina may regard it. I think the principle in this case is an important one. The question was then taken on the amend-expedition, and carried his goods by authority, ment, and it was not adopted. BRYAN CALLAGHAN. The bill for the relief of Bryan Callaghan was then read a second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. by order, if you will, of Colonel Harney. But as The bill was then reported to the Senate, and the expedition itself was an authorized one, as Colordered to be engrossed for a third reading. onel Harney himself, had no right to engage in it, and no authority to make such an arrangement as it is alleged he did make with Mr. Callaghan, or give him such an order, I say that the goods in question were not properly in possession of the United States, were not legitimately under the care and protection of the Government-certainly not to such an extent as to create any Government responsibility for them, or to make their loss the just foundation of a claim upon us for payment. The bil authorizes the Seeretary of the Treasury to pay to Bryan Callaghan the sum to which he may be found justly entitled as the reasonable value of merchandise belonging to him, and destroyed by order of officers of the Army of the United States, in 1846, on the Rio Grande, to prevent the said merchandise from falling into the hands of the enemy, or which were used by the forces of the United States, not exceeding the sum of $16,194 50. Mr. PRATT. I ask for the reading of the report. The report was accordingly read, from which it appeared that, in the opinion of the committee, the case submitted by the petitioner established the following facts: 1. That Colonel Harney was in command of a - portion of the United States troops at San Antonio, Texas, in July, 1846, and that he was without the necessary supplies of money and provisions for the subsistence of the force under his command. 2. That in an expedition which started from San Antonio to the Rio Grande, on the 23d of July, 1846, Colonel Harney found it necessary to contract, and did contract, with the petitioner, a resident merchant of San Antonio, to accompany the expedition with his stock of mechandise, that from the proceeds of the sale thereof he might furnish his army with such supplies and money as was necessary for its subsistence. 3. That the goods of the claimant were, in accordance with this contract, delivered to and placed under the control of Lieutenant D. G. Rogers, the acting quartermaster of the force engaged in this expedition, and were in part used in providing supplies, &c. 4. That when this expedition subsequently retired from the Rio Grande and returned to San Antonio, the residue of the goods, which had been surrendered to the quartermaster, were destroyed by the orders of the officer in command, to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy. 5. That the value of the goods originally delivered by the applicant to the quartermaster was $25,577 50; and that the value of that portion destroyed by the order of the United States officer, and for which the petitioner has received no compensation, was $16,194 50. The committee, therefore, believing the facts above enumerated to be sustained by the testimony, had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the claimant was justly entitled to be paid the sum claimed as the value of his goods destroyed, and they recommended the passage to provide for the payment of the same. Mr. BORLAND. This bill was discussed and passed at a former session of the Senate. For reasons which seemed to me to be sufficient, I opposed it then. For the same reasons, I feel bound to oppose it now. The grounds of my opposition are these: First. The goods for which this payment is claimed, were not in the possession of the United States, nor upon " Heretofore, it seems to have been considered a settled principle-at least it has been a governing rule in this body, since I have been a member of it-in deciding upon claims of this character, that, to establish their validity, it must be proved first that the appropriation or destruction of the property was by the lawful act of an officer or agent of the Government; and second, that such appropriation was proper for, or at least a conversion to, the use and service of the Government; or that such destruction was necessary and proper to prevent the property from falling into the hands of the enemy, to their benefit and our injury. Several cases within my recollection, and of recent Occurrence, have been decided upon the principle thus expressed. Government; for no loss incurred by him as a consequence of such disobedience of orders, or violation of the law, can he claim compensation at our hands. Yet he did so remain at the Rio Grande several days-perhaps a week. I do not state this from mere hearsay, but in part from personal observation, and from the familiar history of the time.. About the time Colonel Harney returned from the Rio Grande under arrest, I was at San Antonio; and my impressions of all the circumstances of this somewhat remarkable case, which made some noise, were very strong at the time, and are still quite distinct. Colonel Harney returned promptly, and yielded up his command in obedience to the order of his superior in command. So did all the regular troops return. The Texan volunteers, and Mr. Callaghan, with his goods, disregarded the order, and remained at the Rio Grande. Why they did so is unexplained. That they did so improperly and unlawfully, cannot be denied. And so long did this disobedience continue, that the officer who succeeded Colonel Harney in the same rank, went expressly to repeat the order, that the remaining Texan volunteers should remain no longer, but return at once to San Antonio. Not until then, did they or Callaghan return; and then it was that they burned his goods-for the purpose, as alleged, of preventing their falling into the hands of the enemy. It does seem to me that such circumstances furnish a strange, a most extraordiary foundation for a claim. Its very inception is connected with and characterized by an expedition, as has been seen, wholly unauthorized, and deemed so improper as not only to be countermanded, but to subject its leader to deprivation of command. Individually, I pass no opinion upon the inherent merits of this part of the case, or of the persons implicated. I merely state the facts, and assume them as the legitimate basis of my argument. I here repeat the inquiry, and it is suggestive and significant, why did Mr. Callaghan remain at the Rio Grande after the order was given, and the main body of the troops, in obedience to it, had returned to San Antonio? He had obeyed the original order of Colonel Harney, which required him to to take his goods, and hasten to the Rio Grande, where he and they might be exposed to some danger from the enemy. Why not obey the order of General Taylor, which was certainly not less lawful, nor harder in its terms, when that would have carried him and his goods back to San Antonio in safety, and under proper protection? If his claim to compensation had its origin, as he alleges, in his obedience to the orders of Colonel Harney, supposing those orders to have been lawful, its validity could only have continued, and its consummation and present allowance can only be justified, by continued obedience to order's equally lawful, in consequence of which the loss he com But, supposing Mr. Callaghan, with his goods, to have been, by legitimate authority, and under lawful orders, on the banks of the Rio Grande in the first instance; and that if, while so there, his goods had been so destroyed, he would have a valid claim against the Government for their value. It does not follow that he had any such claim at the time, or under the circumstances, when his goods were actually destroyed. It is in proof, I think-at any rate it is true-that he remained at the Rio Grande after he knew that the expedi-plains of shall be proved. tion had been countermanded; after he knew that, for engaging in it, Colonel Harney had been arrested; and after that officer, and all the regular troops under his command, had returned to San Antonio. I say, with this knowledge, and after all this, he remained-voluntarily remained, along with some two or three companies of Texan volunteers, at the Rio Grande. Now, if any one shall say (as I have admitted for the argument) that the expedition was lawful from the beginning, and that Mr. Callaghan, with his goods, was there by the legitimate authority, and upon the just responsibility of the Government, and that if his goods had then been destroyed, he would be entitled to compensation for them; it cannot be said that this continued to be the case after the expedition was countermanded-after it was ordered back to San Antonio-after its commander (under whose authority alone Mr. Callaghan claims to have acted) was deprived of command and placed under arrest. If he was under military orders, as he claims to have been, and so readily and implicitly obeyed, under Colonel Harney to go to the Rio Grande, he was bound, as was every officer and every soldier of the whole expedition-whether regular or volunteer-to obey the countermanding order; to return to San Antonio; and every day, every hour, that he remained there after General Taylor's order was given for the expedition to return, was a disobedience of orders, and a a violation of the law. For no such act as this could he claim compensation as service to the It is said in the memorial, and set forth in the report, I believe, that these goods, at setting out upon the expedition, were delivered to a lieutenant of the army, acting as quartermaster. This, however, only embraces the time of the march to the Rio Grande, and while Colonel Harney and his regulars, of which this lieutenant was one, remained on that river. But it is not shown, nor alleged, for it is not the fact, that this acting quartermaster continued in possession and charge of the goods when the expedition was ordered to return. He returned to San Antonio with the other troops, leaving Mr. Callaghan with his goods, who chose to remain, in disobedience of orders, at the Rio Grande. But, Mr. President, it is alleged that these goods were destroyed by order of the commanding offi cer. Now, where is that order? And that their destruction was necessary to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy, where is the evidence of that necessity? This order may have been given-this necessity may have existed; but, sir, the decision of the question does not depend upon such a denial of an alleged fact. To maintain the claim, both the order and the necessity for it, must be shown. Now, sir, I do deny that either has been shown. Certainly neither has been shown by such evidence as has, always before, been required to maintain any claim of this character before this Senate. Mr. President, to my mind this case, more strikingly than any I have noticed for a long time, shows the propriety, the necessity, indeed, of having a Board of Accounts, or some sort of tribunal separate from Congress, to adjudicate private claims, if we would, at the same time, do justice to individuals and protect the Treasury. All claims come before us, and are necessarily passed upop by our committees upon ex parte testimony. We get, we can only get, one side of the question. The claimant comes forward, as Mr. Callaghan in this case, with all that can be said or shown in support of his claim. He, of course, says nothing, shows nothing,on the other side which could by possibility militate against his claim. Everything but what is favorable to him is, of course, carefully excluded. No one is here or before the committees to suggest objections, to find out testimony, or to cross-examine witnesses, in favor of the Government. Indeed, there are no witnesses to be cross-examined; ex parte affidavits, depositions without notice, as it were, being the only witnesses before us; and there they stand, fixed, dogged, and impracticable. Suppose, sir, proceedings in the courts of the country, involving rights and interests, as between citizens, were conducted in a similar manner, where one side only of a case was heard, what chance of justice would there be? One more word about that order for the destruction of the goods. I again ask, where is it? Sir, this inquiry is more significant now than formerly, for the reason, that in the discussion of this very point, at a former session, the same inquiry was made. It was not answered then; and, although a sufficient time to produce it has elapsed, if it was in existence, it is not here yet. I do not think it ever will be produced, for I do not think it exists, or ever did exist, in such a form as would sustain this claim. Such, Mr. President, are the grounds of my opposition to the passage of this bill. Upon them, I shall vote against it. Mr. PRATT. The proposition of the Senator from Arkansas, if right, should of course prevent the passage of the bill which is before the Senate. He assumes that we are to look behind the order of the officer in command of the forces; and that we are to ascertain whether that officer was authorized to give the command; and that if he was not authorized the Government is not bound by the orders of that officer. Now, Colonel Harney was in command of the forces at San Antonio. He undertook to march to the Rio Grande. He had not sufficient provisions to carry the army under his command to that point. He took the goods of this merchant, placed them in charge of one of the United States Commissioners, carried them with his army to the Rio Grande, and used them for the support of the army whilst it was going there, and whilst it was there. These facts are conceded by the Senator from Arkansas; but he says that inasmuch as Colonel Harney was unauthorized by General Taylor to make that march--that because he had no such authority, the individual citizen, whose goods were so taken for the use of the army under the command of Colonel Harney, ought not to be paid. I think the Senate are not prepared to support that proposition. The Senator is mistaken in regard to one of the facts upon which his argument is predicated. He asks why this merchant remained at the Rio Grande with his goods? Why did he not bring them away? Why he stayed there after Colonel Harney's retreat? He did return with Colonel Harney, and his goods were destroyed prior to the army, under the command of Colonel Harney, leaving the Rio Grande. They were destroyed because the American army at that point was not in sufficient force to resist the enemy, and to prevent the goods falling into their hands. The wagons which carried them there being wanted to carry the materials of war back again, they were unable to carry the goods, and the goods were destroyed. My friend from Texas (Mr. RUSK] will read, if it is desired, the certificates of the officers, stating the facts that are set forth in the report of the committee. These facts, I understand, are conceded to be correct by the Senator from Arkansas. They are, in the first place, that the American forces were under the command of Colonel Harney; in the next place, that the goods of this man were taken possession of by order of Colonel Harney, and placed in the possession of one of the United States commissioners; that they were taken to the Rio Grande-part of them was used by the soldiers of the United States, and the other part was destroyed by order of the commanding officer to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy. The only point upon which the claim is resisted is, that Colonel Harney was unauthorized to make this march by General Taylor, who was in command of that division of the army, and who was some two hundred miles from him. I cannot concede, nor do I believe that the Senate will support the proposition, that where an officer of the United States Government, in the separate command of the United States forces, takes possession of individual property for the support of the forces under his command, uses a part of it,|| and burns the rest to prevent it getting into the hands of the enemy-that the individual from whom they were taken is not to be compensated because the officer has transcended the authority that is given him. I think, therefore, that the bill ought to pass. I am unable to continue the debate, owing to a cold which I have, and to give the facts and arguments as I otherwise would have done. Mr. BAYARD. I will ask the Senator from Maryland a question. I understand him to say that the goods were not destroyed until after Colonel Harney and the regular forces had left the Rio Grande. There is a question of fact. The report, I suppose, states that it was done by order of the officer in command. Was it, then, an officer of the United States Army who was left in command, or was it not? The Senator from Arkansas says that it was an officer in the Texas volunteers, and that they were destroyed after the troops of the United States left. If the goods were destroyed after the troops left, I do not see why compensation should be made; but if on the contrary they were destroyed at the time of withdrawing the troops of the United States, or before they were withdrawn, I think the compensation ought to be made. Mr. PRATT. They were destroyed by order of an officer of the United States Government. They were placed in possession of Lieutenant Rogers, who was acting commissary of the com. mand under Colonel Harney. ask any honorable Senator whether that man not entitled to compensation? At the time, Colonel Harney had had the power he wood have paid him instantly, and so would ary of us But he had no authority to do so. This man' goods were destroyed by the order of an officer of the United States. The only question is, will the United States indemnify him for the loss of the Mr. BORLAND. There seems to be a difer ence of opinion here as to a fact, about which there can be no doubt, I apprehend, when I ca attention to it. I understand the Senator from Maryland [Mr. PRATT] to say that these goods were destroyed by order of Colonel Harney, be fore he left the Rio Grande. Mr. PRATT. Oh, no; by an officer of the Government, not by Colonel Harney.. Captain Cady, the senior captain of the Texan volunteers that remained at the Rio Grande, wan commanded after Coloney Harney returned, gave the order to burn the goods. I do not quest en this. But I do deny the rightfulness of that or der, as I deny the rightfulness of Captain Cady, Mr. Callaghan, or a single man of the expedition (even if they went there rightfully at first) remaining an hour after the order had been given to them to return. Mr. BORLAND. Then I misunderstood the Senator. The fact is, the goods were not des troyed until some time after Colonel Harney had returned to San Antonio. Now, sir, as the Serator from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS] has stated some circumstances of his personal knowledge, it may not be improper for me to state some from m own, as it so happened that I was at San Antorió about the time of these occurrences, and befre Mr. Callaghan's goods were destroyed at the R Grande. I think it is a fact of my persona knowledge, that Mr. Callaghan did not retura from the Rio Grande until some time after Colore Harney's return, and until after the goods had been destroyed. I well remember it was said in San Antonio at the time, that Mr. Callaghan rad aided in setting fire to the goods. I mention the as a fact-not to censure him; for if it was right to destroy the goods at all, it was not wrong him to aid in their destruction. Again, I think it is a fact of my own knowledge, that no officer of the regular Army remained at the Rio Grande with the Texan volunteers, after Colonel Hargey and the regular troops returned. The goods he ing left behind, and Mr. Callaghan with them, the presumption is, as I doubt not the fact was, that they were in his charge and possession-that, he remained there voluntarily with them, for pur Mr. SHIELDS. Perhaps I may relieve the gen-poses of his own, (surely he was subserving tleman by stating what I learned in regard to this public interest,) and consequently on his own rematter. I am well acquainted with the claimant.sponsibility, and at his own risk. It is said that I saw him at the place where his goods were destroyed. I did not see the destruction, of course. That preceded my arrival there. I joined General Wool at that place. This expedition had preceded General Wool's expedition; and what I learned from Colonel Harney and this gentleman himself (we occupied the same house at the same time) was this, that Col. Harney did take possession of the goods, and took this man along with him; but whep || he was compelled to fall back, he left the goods in the custody of one of his officers, with instructions | Then, as to the want of transportation. I can that if the Mexicans should press upon him; if he not understand how that want came about. When was compelled to abandon his position too sud- the expedition went out they had sufficient transdenly, he should destroy the goods rather than let portation, for they carried, besides all other necesthem fall into the hands of the enemy. The offi-saries, Mr. Callaghan's $25,000 worth of goods. cer, in pursuance of that order, burned the goods Now, were not the means of transporting this -I saw the place where they were burned-so amount from San Antonio to the Rio Grande, saf that the man himself, of course, had no option ficient to carry back again the reduced amount of about it. If the goods had not been destroyed $10,000? My opinion is, that there was not, and they would have fallen into the hands of the Mex- could not have been, any want of transportation. icans. I did not hear the argument of the Senator Indeed, I well remember it was said at the time from Arkansas, but I believe his objection to this that wragons were burnt, together with the genda; bill is, that Colonel Harney's expedition was not and I had supposed that their estimated value mide authorized. a part of the $16,000 now claimed for loss. I may be mistaken in this, though such is my impression. I agree with the Senator from Illinois, that Colore! Hamey was in the habit, not only of giving orders with decision, but of having them obeyed also. But that Mr. Callaghan was carried along, clens volens, by force, and under the stringent operation of a military order, and that he did not wish to go, or was afraid to go, is not sustained by the cir cumstances of this case. He was an old tradera the Mexican country, across the Rio Grande, ard in the constant habit of traveling backwards and forwards from San Antonio. He was interested in working one of the Mexican silver mines, perhaps that of Santa Rosa. He was in the constant habit of trading backwards and forwards; and he kept a stock of goods suited to that business. One reason, perhaps the controlling one, why Col onel Harney made arrangements with him to e with the expedition, was the fact that he could carry goods which were suited to the Mexicans; and understanding their language, being familiar with their character and habits, and experienced Mr. BORLAND. That was one ground of objection. Mr. SHIELDS. That is true. He went there without authority. I happened to be at Monterey at the time, and heard General Taylor say some hard things about it. But if it had been successful-and, indeed, it was in the first instance, the Mexicans being driven away-Colonel Harney would have received a great deal of credit. But that has nothing to do with this man, as I understand. Colonel Harney was in the United States service; he acted on his own risk in that matter; and although he did not go in accordance with orders, so far as I understand it, he had not disobeyed any orders. But Colonel Harney took the goods from Callaghan, and kept them with him. I know Colonel Harney, and probably others here do. He was one of those men who would not give Callaghan time to raise any question about his conduct. He seized these goods and kept them there. They were destroyed by his orders. Under these circumstances, I will in trading with them, he would be able to render essential service to the expedition in procuring supplies; while he was, at the same time, serving himself by exchanging his goods for Mexican forage and provisions, which he was selling to the troops, and, upon the operation, realizing a handsome profit. Mr. SHIELDS. As far as I understand the Senator, his objection turns on the fact whether Colonel Harney authorized the destruction of the goods. such as was afforded him by his little escort of Mr. BORLAND. If the Senator had been in Mr. SHIELDS. I have already stated what I heard those gentlemen say. I hope the gentleman does not pretend to say that I stated that incorrecily. They told me I am not responsible for what they said, they may have told me falsehoods that Colonel Harney had gone there, had pressed the goods, had taken possession of them; and when he left that place, had taken the wagons, carried off the residue, and left these goods, with instructions that if the Mexicans came and forced them to abandon their position, the man whom he left there in charge of the goods-not Callaghan-should destroy them. I do not suppose the gentleman pretends to say that I did not hear these statements. Mr. BORLAND. I have said nothing at all about the Senator's statements. It seems to me he has introduced that unnecessarily. I am not questioning his statements upon any point; but I am stating the circumstances which satisfy my mind that the goods were not destroyed under the circumstances alleged in the memorial, in such a way, and by such authority as would entitle the petitioner to relief. I make no question of the Senator's statements, nor those of any other Senator upon the floor, or elsewhere; but I do question the validity of this claim most emphatically; and have presented the facts and considerations which, in my opinion, do utterly destroy the only foundations upon which it can pretend to rest. I may be wrong in the positions I have taken. If so, then the claim should be allowed. If the Senate shall be satisfied, first, that the expedition was an authorized one, that Colonel Harney had a right to make it, and to incur all the expenses and responsibilities which it involved, and that those responsibilities justly fall now upon this Government, then that ground of my objection is-to your mind, not mine-removed. Next, if you shall be satisfied that Mr. Callaghan rightfully remained upon the banks of the Rio Grande after the order, from unquestionable authority, had been given for the whole expedition to return to San Antonio, and after the greater part had so returned, and Colonel Harney with it, then the second ground of my objection is-to your mind, not mine-removed. And third, if it is satisfactorily proved to the Senate that the destruction of these goods was necessary to the public service, and that the order under which they were destroyed was from a lawful source, and really given, then that objection is--to your mind, not mine-removed. Now, sir, how far does this responsibility of the Government extend, in the opinion of Senators? The ill luck which Mr. Callaghan experienced in this famous expedition, did not at all deter him from a repetition of his trading excursions into the Mexican country, just beyond the Rio Grande. It was generally known that he made several after this time. Mr. SHIELDS. Under protection. Mr. BORLAND. If he had protection, I am not aware of it. I met him in the month of November, at Presidio, with no protection at all, save Mr. RUSK. Mr. President, I dislike to trouble the Senate, for I know that very frequently lengthened speaking on these small bills, instead of benefiting them, does them a positive injury. But there is some conflict here in regard to the testimony. The Senator from Arkansas says that this claim has been before the Senate for à long time. That is very true; but it has been up for action only twice. It was before the Senate sev eral years ago, and was then discussed at length. The honorable Senator from Arkansas on that occasion showed just as much zeal as he has now shown to prevent the passage of the bill. Still, the bill was then passed by this body. I propose now to read some of the testimony in this case, as there seems to be some conflict in regard to it. I hope, therefore, the Senate will pardon me for reading from the testimony. I will first read the statement of Captain Cady, a gentleman under whose orders the goods were destroyed: "In July, 1846, Colonel Harney ordered my company to escort Mr. Callaghan's goods to the Rio Grande. Mr. Callaghan told me that he was taking the goods to sell for the purpose of purchasing supplies for the commands-atter we arrived at San Antonio. I know that Mr. Callaghan sold goods for provisions and forage, and turned them over to the quartermaster for the use of the troops. Colonel Harney ordered three companies of volunteers to remain on the left bank of the Rio Grande until further orders, and with the balance of the command marched for San Antonio, taking with him all the wagons but two. Mr. Callaghan für nished his own transportation, and had previously sent his carts to San Antonio. "A few days after Colonel Harney left, we received an wounding several of our men. "Sworn to, and subscribed before me, this May 3d, A. D. That is the statement of Captain Cady, an offi- Upon the return of the last troops to San Antonio, he master: "I do hereby certify, upon honor, that I accompanied the expedition under the command of Colonel Harney to the Rio Grande, and acted as quartermaster of the same. The forces composing said command, left San Antonio on the 2d day of July, 1846. Benjamin Callaghan, a resident merchant of San Antonio, accompanied said expedition with a large stock of merchandise, which said stock, and the proceeds of the sale thereof, was subject to my order, for the use and subsistence of the army, after the same had reached the Rio Grande. A part of said merchandise was disposed of by Mr. Callaghan at the Rio Grande, and the funds paid over to me. A large portion of the same was destroyed, by "September 21, 1846." and The facts of this case are shortly these. Colonel Harney-whatever quarrel there may be, and we have no evidence that it was an authorized expedition, except the opinion of gentlemen-was at a separate post. Every body knows Colonel Harney to be a bold man." He made an expedition from San Antonio to the Rio Grande. Nobody contends that he did that against orders; but he was ordered back by the commanding general. He left San Antonio with sufficient force, in my humble judgment, to whip all the Mexicans who would dare to come near him. Colonel Harney could not get along, could not support his forces without taking these goods with him; hence he made a contract with Callaghan, and the goods were turned over to the quartermaster to supply the troops with forage and provisions. After he got to the Rio Grande he received the order of the commanding general to return, and he did return with a part of his command, taking all the baggage wagons with him except two. When he returned to San Antonio he left Captain Evans, Captain Cady, and Captain Smith in possession at the Rio Grande, where they remained, where these goods remained to support the troops. It seems that afterwards an order was received from Colonel Young, who had superseded Harney in command, directing these men to retire from the Rio Grande to San Antonio. For the purpose of doing so, they sent a detachment over the river to procure transportation, in order to take the goods to San Antonio. Coming back they were fired on by the Mexicans, and their boat was de-. stroyed. There was no transportation on this side' of the Rio Grande, and they could procure none on the other side. The goods were in the possession of the officer of the quartermaster's department, by no fault of Callaghan, at the instance of the colonel in command, and under the sanction of the quartermaster, who was responsible for his conduct in his accounts with the Department here. The troops were ordered by the commanding officer to return. They had but two baggage wagons, which were barely sufficient to transport the sick. What did they do under these circumstances? They held a council of officers. I happen to know these gentlemen. Mr. Evans, who was for a long time a very creditable officer of our judiciary, and a man of talents, respectability, and couage, was one of them. Captain Smith, another one, was also distinguished for his courage and ability. I have not the pleasure of knowing Captain Cady personally, but I understand that he is very much of a gentleman. These three officers it seems, from the statement of Captain Cady, under oath, held a council to determine whether they should go off and leave Callaghan's goods to be taken by the enemy, and thus give them encouragement and support, or to abandon the place and destroy the goods. They chose the latter alternative, and destroyed the goods. Now, if this does not make a legal and just claim against the Government of the United States, it is difficult for me to conceive what would make a just and legal claim. If this state of facts, and this testimony, does not justify the claim, I do not know what could. I might have read more testimony in corroboration of the points of the case, but I did not choose to delay the Senate on that subject. Something has been said with regard to Mr. Callaghan. It is said that he is a Mexican trader. He is a gallant Irishman. I know him well; and I do not believe that he is capable of bringing before Congress, even upon his own unsupported statement, an improper account. He is a man who has had dealings with the Mexicans, and is very well liked by them. He is a man of high reputation as a merchant. I happen to know that after this time, when General Wool made his expedition into Mexico, Mr. Bryan Callaghan, without asking any pay out of the Treasury of the United States, went with General Wool, was his guide, went on at the head of the army with a fatigue party, and bridged the streams, so as not to delay the General when the safety of the army depended on his joining General Taylor immediately. He did all this under the impulses of a warm heart and a gallant disposition, and claimed no pay from the Government of the United States for it. If, under these circumstances, it is necessary to make a sacrifice of Bryan Callaghan to the amount of $16,000, be it so; but I must protest against it. Mr. BORLAND. Before the vote is taken, 1 desire to say that it seems to me that the advocates of this bill undertake to put it on a foundation upon which it does not rest. If a bill were brought forward to be passed on grounds of gradtude to Mr. Callaghan, or on his personal merits as an individual, I should not have a word to say against it, because I concur in what has been said in his favor in this respect. I have cause to know that he is a very clever man. This is my opinion from some personal knowledge of him. For that reason I do not wish that this debate should give any such color or direction to my remarks as to reflect on Mr. Callaghan as an individual, or on any one else. I do not oppose the bill on that account. If that were a proper ground for it to stand upon, I should zealously support it; because personally I entertain for him very kind personal feelings, perhaps more kind than for any other man I met in Texas. My objection to this bill does not apply to the personal merits of Mr. Callaghan at all. The evidence which has been furnished in this case does not satisfy me that this claim rests on the only foundation on which the Senate of the United States or the other House of Congress have ever paid a claim. We may suppose that evidence to exist; but what the Senator from Texas has read does not meet the objection; that evidence, such as is usually required is not before us. The Senator read the vague and cautiously-worded statements of the officers, but he has not produced the order. He has not produced evidence or circumstances to show that the order 'ought to have been given, or the fact that it was given. I find by one of the affidavits read by the Senator from Texas, [Mr. Rusk,] that my memory, in one particular, was sustained in point of time and of fact. It is as to the date of the burning of these goods at the Rio Grande-the 28th August, 1846. I arrived at San Antonio on the 25th of August, 1846; and early in September of that year I first saw Mr. Callaghan, and heard from him the first account which I did hear of the burning of his goods, on the Rio Grande. I knew, then, that he intended to bring forward a claim for them; and, if my memory serves me, I told him even then, that I did not think it was a valid claim. It was then talked about freely, and the impression on my mind was, that it had no foundation in justice. It cannot be considered a reflection on this gentleman, who does not think so, that he brings forward the claim. There is no question of honor involved in it. If we are to assume that it is evidence of dishonor for an individual to bring forward a claim when others think it unjust, we should brand some of the best men of the nation as dishonorable. But that is not the point. The question is this: Was this claim established before us by testimony such as has always been required, and such as well-recognized and established principles require we should have, to warrant us in paying a claim of this character? This has not been done to my satisfaction. I therefore must vote against it. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. On motion by Mr. MASON, it was Ordered, That the executors of Robert Porterfield have leave to withdraw their petition and papers from the files of the Senate. EXECUTIVE SESSION. On the motion of Mr. BRADBURY, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned until Monday. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. ACCOUNTS OF PROSPER M. WETMORE. Mr. ORR: I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move to take up a message from the President of the United States, which was read a few days ago, and laid on the table for the purpose of being printed. I make the motion with a view of having the message referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It is a message from the President transmitting a copy of the report in relation to the accounts of Prosper M. Wetmore, late Navy agent in the city of New York. I do not desire to debate it now, but simply to move its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I ask that all the communications on the Speaker's table may be taken up and referred. Mr. ORR. This communication is not upon the Speaker's table. It was read and laid upon the table, and I simply ask now that it may be taken up and referred. Mr. SEYMOUR. Well, I have no objection to that. The SPEAKER. Is the proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina objected to? Mr. BROOKS. I object, and call for the regular order of business. Mr. SEYMOUR, of Connecticut, moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar. Mr. HOUSTON. I do not know what is the purpose of the gentleman from Connecticut in moving to go into a Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. The House will remember that we have only until Tuesday to complete the deficiency bill, and if the object of the gentleman is to contend for to-day and to-morrow, why, I shall have to contend with him for both of those days. It is possible that, if the House would sit to-morrow, we might finish the deficiency bill by Tuesday. Mr. DANIEL. So far as I am concerned, I am disposed to compromise with the gentleman.. The question was then taken on Mr. SEYMOUR'S motion, and there were-ayes 60, noes 32; no quorum voting. Mr. CHANDLER demanded tellers. Mr. STANLY demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. BROOKS. I desire to make an inquiry of the Chair. If the deficiency bill is not disposed of by Tuesday next, will it not be then superseded by another bill, which has been made the special order? Mr. CHANDLER. The amount has been expended to pay Mr. Polk's debts. Mr. HALL. No, sir: it has been expended to satisfy your extravagance, and I am opposed to indulging your wastefulness any further. Mr. BROOKS. We challenge inquiry in the Committee of the Whole, that we may refute the assertion of the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. HOUSTON. There is no chance now to debate these things in Committee of the Whole. I shall have an opportunity to make an hour's speech. I was, however, disposed myself, on the assurance of gentlemen around me, that they would give to-morrow, and Monday, and Tuesday, to the deficiency bill-1 was disposed to let private bills be taken up to-day, as a day has not been devoted to that business for three weeks. yeas and nays on Mr. SEYMOUR's motion, and there were-ayes 25, noes 70; no quorum. Mr. FOWLER demanded tellers on ordering the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER. We cannot do any business until there is a quorum present. Mr. HALL. It does not require a quorum to order the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that it requires a majority of the House to do the busi ness of the House. Mr. HALL. But less than a quorum can order Housethe yeas and nays. Suppose there is a call of the The SPEAKER. That is quite a different thing, It is for the purpose of getting a quorum to do business. Mr. ORR. It seems to me it is a very hard mat ter to get a quorum this morning. I move that there be a call of the House, that we may see who is absent. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion. That will answer the same purpose as the call. The yeas and nays were ordered; and the ques tion being taken on the motion that there be a cal of the House, it was decided in the negative-yeas 64, nays 95; as follow: Bibighaus, Bowie, Bragg, Brenton, Brooks, Buell, Chan YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Willis Allen, Barrere, Bennett, dler, Churchwell, Conger, Cullom, Curtis, John G. Davis, Dawson, Eastman, Edgerton, Evans, Fanikner, Fich, Floyd, Freeman, Goodenow, Gorman, Harper, Hart, Haven, Thomas Y. How, Jackson, James Johnson, J. Glaney Jones, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Martin, McDonald, MeLanahan, McMullin, Meacham, Miller, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Morrison, Orr, Samuel W. Parker, Penn, Phelps, Porter, Robinson, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Sm, Stanly, Stratton, Taylor, Townshend, Tuck, Venable, Wallace, Welch, Wilcox, and Yates-64. NAYS-Messrs. Allison, John Appleton, William Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Bartlett, Beale, Bocock. Barrows, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Joseph Cable, Thomp son Campbell, Chapman, Clark, Clingman, Cobb, Daniel, Dimmick, Dockery, Duncan, Dunham, Durkee. Edmundson, Ficklin, Fowler, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Gilmore, Grow, Hall, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Huris, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard, Hillyer, Holladay, Horsford, Houston, Howard, Ives, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, Gea W. Jones, George G. King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Mason, MeNair, McQueen, Millson, John Moore, Morehead, Newton, Olds, Andrew Parker, Peaslee, Penniman, Perkins, Polk, Pow ell, Price, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Scurry, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Snow, Benjamin Sta ton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, Stuart, Sutherland, Benjamin Thomp son, Geo. W. Thompson, Thurston, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Wells, Addison White, Alexander White, Wildrick, and Williams-95. So a call of the House was not ordered. Mr. DANIEL. I hope my colleague will now withdraw his call for the yeas and nays, and per mit the House to go into Committee of the Whole, with a view to take up the Private Calendar today. Then I am willing that the balance of the week shall be devoted to the consideration of the deficiency bill. We have done scarcely anything, as yet, upon the Private Calendar this session, and I hope the House will consent to take that busi ness into consideration to-day; and under the pressing necessity of the case, I will not insist upon taking up the Private Calendar to-morrow; but I will concur, and I hope those who are disposed to take up the Private Calendar will concur, with the proposition of the gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. HOUSTON,] to take up the defi ciency bill, and continue its consideration until it is disposed of. I hope the motion to go into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar will prevail. Mr. STANLY. If I thought the House would certainly meet to-morrow, and as gentlemen upon the other side of the House desire to go into Com. mittee of the Whole on the Private Calendar to day, I would not object to it. I will withdraw the call for the yeas and nays. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I ask the con sent of my friend from North Carolina, to allow me to ask the unanimous consent of the House to submit a proposition, that the resolution providing for closing debate upon the deficiency bill, be se modified as to read, shall cease in one hour after the committee shall next take the subject under consideration." I ask permission to state to the House that I I now have the floor in committee on that bill, and The question was then taken on ordering the when the that I wish to debate the bill itself. I had occu Mr. DANIEL. I have no objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Arkansas; on the contrary, I think that his request ought to be granted. I think that his explanation ought to be made, concerning items affecting the Indian affairs; and I am perfectly willing to agree in any arrangement which will afford him an opportunity to make the necessary explanation. All I wish is, that this day shall be devoted to the consideration of private business; and then, when the deficiency bill comes up to-morrow, I will concur in any proposition of that kind. Mr. JOHNSON. If the Speaker will put the question to the House, whether there is unanimous consent to modify the resolution as I have indicated, that will decide the matter, and nothing more need be said upon the subject. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I will suggest to the gentleman from Arkansas to change his request, so as to ask the unanimous consent to take up the motion, which was laid upon the table, to reconsider, and then the matter will be again regularly before the House. Mr. JOHNSON. That will take up more time. I ask the Speaker whether the proposition will not accomplish my object, if I have the unanimous consent of the House? The SPEAKER. It will; and it is the only form by which the object can be effected. Mr. BROOKS. If I can make a bargain with the gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. JOHNSON,] I will not object to his proposition. But under the existing arrangement, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. HOUSTON] has an hour to close debate. It is now proposed to give the gentleman from Arkansas another hour; and no one upon this side of the House will have any opportunity to reply to any attacks which may be made. Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection that the gentleman be allowed one hour, or ten hours, in the discussion of the bill. But this bill has been before the committee for several days, and gentle. men have spent all the time in discussing irrelevant matters, and have not once touched the bill. Mr. BROOKS. Not one word have I said. Mr. JOHNSON. I will say to the gentleman that I intend to speak in favor of the estimates of Government in relation to the Indian Department; so that my proposition need not meet with objection upon that side of the House. Mr. BROOKS. I will not object; but I desire an hour to reply. Mr. DANIEL. May not the proposition of the gentleman from Arkansas be entertained as well to-morrow, when the deficiency bill comes up, as to-day? The SPEAKER. Just as well. Mr. DANIEL. Then I hope the matter will be postponed till to-morrow, and come up then. The SPEAKER. Does the Chair understand the gentleman to object? Mr. DANIEL. I will not object to it, but I should prefer that the gentleman from Arkansas would withdraw it for the present, and allow it to come up to-morrow. Mr. JOHNSON. Then I will withdraw it. But I give notice that I shall make the request to morrow. Mr. CABELL. All parties seem to agree that it is important this deficiency bill should be taken up and acted upon immediately. The reason given for going into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar is, that two days will be sufficient to dispose of that bill. Now, I would sug gest that we go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and take up the deficiency bill, and see what progress we make upon that bill. Then, if there is a prospect of getting through with it, we can go into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar to-morrow. I do not think that two days will be found sufficient to dispose of that bill. bill as also the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Howe] who last occupied the attention of the committee upon this subject, said that the contract The SPEAKER. The Chair must remind gentlemen that this discussion is wholly out of order. Mr. CABELL. With the understanding I have stated, I now move that the rules be suspend-in this case was, that the Creek Indians who were ed, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The SPEAKER. The question must first be put upon the motion to go into Committee of the Whole upon the Private Calendar. This being private bill day, that motion takes precedence. Mr. HAVEN. Upon that motion I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Tellers were then demanded, and ordered; and Messrs. PENN and GENTRY were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 70, noes 61. So the motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House, (Mr. CHANDLER in the chair.) HEIRS OF GENERAL JAMES C. WATSON. The CHAIRMAN. The first business in order is bill No. 106, for the relief of the legal representatives of General James C. Watson, of the State of Georgia. [The bill proposes to pay the heirs of Watson the sum of $14,600, with interest, being the amount paid by said Watson for certain slaves purchased of the Creek Indians, which had been captured by them from the Seminole Indians during the Florida war.] engaged in the services of the Government, were entitled to the plunder which they ght take from the Seminoles. That is the word, plunder. They say that negroes do not fall under this appellation, and that plunder does not embrace slaves, according to any legitimate reading of the English language; and that such being the contract, and this being a transfer of slaves, or a right to slaves, that, therefore, the applicant in this case is not entitled to relief. The question, Mr. Chairman, is not now how the word plunder is understood in Pennsylvania or New York-not how it is understood in any particular locality in this Republic, but how the parties understand it? What was the intent of the parties to the contract? What did they mean, and how do you arrive at that meaning? What are the rules of construction by which the legal meaning is arrived at, and the terms and operation of the contract determined? The rule of construction, fair, ancient, well established, and uniform, is that the words must be used in the sense, and interpreted in the sense, in which the parties used them; and in connection with this rule, for the purpose of arriving at the intent of the parties, the cotemporaneous exposition put upon the words by the parties themselves, is to be resorted to as a standard to guide the judgment of others. How did they regard it? How did the Creek Indians themselves regard it? How did the government officers regard it? They regarded it as embracing negroes and slaves; and for the purpose of estab Mr. NEWTON. I desire to ask the House to postpone the consideration of this bill until next Friday, on account of the sickness of the gentle-lishing that fact, I call the attention of the commitman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. JOHN W. HOWE,] who had the floor upon it when last before the committee for consideration. Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia. I shall be compelled to object to the request made by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. NEWTON.] Some of my constituents are interested in the passage of this bill. I do not desire to deprive the gentleman who last had the floor [Mr. Howe] of the opportunity of being heard; but it is uncertain when he will have so recovered as to be able to attend in the House. Mr. NEWTON. He is now convalescent, and will be in the House in a few days. He is now able to be about his House. Mr. JOHNSON. I apprehend from the character of the claim, and the discussion which will be elicited, that it will not be determined by the committee in a day. Such being the case, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Howe] will have an opportunity to present his objections when we shall again reach the Private Calendar, which will not be until next Friday. The bill was then read by its title, as indicated above. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not desire, upon this occasion, to make a speech, but simply to call the attention of the committee for a few moments to the consideration of a few facts. Mr. ALLISON, (interrupting.) I understand that, by the rules, when an objection is made to a bill, and discussion arises thereon, it goes over as a matter of course. The CHAIRMAN. This is not objection day. Objection days are only the first and fourth Friday of each month. tee to a few facts. I must state, in this connection, that this case involves a great number of facts, and that it is a case of importance to some of my immediate constituents, and I hope they will pardon me for referring to, and reading a few extracts: NEWNANSVILLE, (FLA.,) September 17, 1837. SIR: In addition to the inducements held out to the Indians who may enter the service, is that of the Seminole property. Their negroes, horses, and cattle, (and they are rich in that description of property,) will be given to the captors; the Creek warriors, who captured but a small portion of the Seminole property, received for their captures between fourteen and fifteen thousand dollars. TH. S. JESUP. Captain WM. ARMSTRONG, Choctaw Agency, Arkansas. ST. AUGUSTINE, September 24, 1837. SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant. There are thirty-three Seminole prisoners here, two at Tampa, and twenty-four at Fort Pike, in Louisiana; sixteen died, and the remainder, being relatives of the Creek Indians, were allowed to go off with them. "There is one Indian negro here, seventeen at Tampa Bay, about eighty at Fort Pike, and seven have died. The Creek Indians were entitled to all the Indian property they captured. I compromised with them by purchasing the negroes from them on account of the Government." TH. S. JESUP. Hon. C. A. HARRIS, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE INDIAN AFFAIRS, May 9, 1838. SIR: The decision, made a few days since, that the negroes captured by the Creek warriors in Florida should, in compliance with the engagement of General Jesup, be delivered to the delegation now here, has been communicated to them. C. A. HARRIS, Commissioner. Captain S. COOPER, Acting Secretary of War. TAMPA BAY, September 7, 1837. SIR: All Indian property taken will belong to the captors. The Seminoles have large herds of cattle and horses, and several negroes. I am well acquainted with all their positions, and will find them in five or six days after I commence the campaign. TH. S. JESUP. Captain DAVID S. WALKER, Talladega, Alabama. FORT GILLILAND, September 17, 1837. CAPTAIN: In addition to their pay as soldiers, they [the Choctaw warriors] will have all the Seminole property they capture; and those Indians are rich in cattle, horses, and negroes. The Creek warriors received between fourteen and fifteen thousand dollars for their captures. TH. S. JESUP. Mr. JOHNSON, (resuming.) I desire to call the attention of the committee to a few facts, which in my estimation, ought to determine the equity and regularity of this claim. This claim has been before the Government for a number of years. It has been pressed upon the Government from the year 1839, at each session of Congress, up to the present moment, and, so far as I have been informed, it has never been acted upon. It has never been approved or rejected; but it has excited objection and strong opposition. I apprehend that Captain B. L. BONNEVILLE, 7th Infantry, the principal difficulty in this case is not with the Commanding Choctaw Warriors, merits of the bill itself, but with the facts connected Choctaw Agency, Arkansas. with it, involving, as it does, as was said by the The negroes captured by the Creek warriors in gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. HOWE,] the Florida were to be delivered to them. Such was sale and transfer of negroes. Gentlemen oppose the interpretation put upon this contract by the this bill because a vote here, of the indemnity pro- officers of the Government, and proves that the vided for in the bill, and asked for by the petition-word plunder was understood by them as embraers, would be, as they say, to recognize the fact that slavery exists, and to recognize the further fact, that its existence is legal. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SACKETT] in opposing this cing slaves, cattle, horses, and all kinds of property, known and recognized by the people as property. What was the meaning of, and what were they to have under the agreement? They |
