I 

i 

1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1591 

T1Je PRESIDENT pro te;mpore. The question is on the motion of 

the Senator from Tennessee. 

.Mr. MILLER, of CaliforRia. I think we can dispose of thi bill 

in half an hour. If we keep right at it we can do it easily in half an hour. Most of the amendments are unimportant and can be readily 

pns ed on. I insist upon having a vote to-night. 

Mr. ALLISON. I thought the Senator from Neva<la [Mr. Jo ~ms] 

wanted to speak on Monday.. . . . 1\fr. MILLER, of Califorma. He has Withdrawn h1s request m 

that re~ard, and I ~hall be gl:;d i~ the nate will continue the con- sideration of the btll, and firush 1t to-rught. 

Mr. TELLER. I am wil~g ~o vo~ to continue this bill, but I 

have no idea that we can fimsh 1t to-mght. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. Let us try it. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The qne§Jtion is on. the motion of 

the Senator from Tennessee, that the Senate proceed \)the consideration of executive business. , The motion was agreed to; there being on a di ision-ayes 29, 

noes 22. 

The Senate thereupon proceeded to the consideration of executive 

business. After seven minutes spent in executive session the doors were re-opened, and (at four o'clock and twenty-five minutes p.m.) 

the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

FRIDAY, March 3, 1882. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prn.yer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

F. D. POWER. 

The Journal of yestm·day was read and approved. 

CLAIMS FOR. HORSES LOST. 

Mr. HASKELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 

No. 4776) to provide for the payment of claims for horses used in. the 

service of the United StaLes; which was read a first and second trme, 

1·eferred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

ESTATE OF JAMES RILEY. 

~lr. llA.SKELL also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. 

R. No. 4777) for the relief of the estate of James Riley; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Claims, 

and ordered to be printed. 

TRUE E. G. PETTENGILL. 

Mr. HASKELL also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. 

R. No. 4778) for the relief of True E. G. Pettengill; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Appropriations, 

and ordered to be printed. 

WILLIAM: C. BRIE..~. 

1\lr. HASKELL also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bili (H. R. No. 4779) for the relief of \Villiam C. O'Brien; which was read a. fhst and seeoud time, referred to the Committee on Claims, and 

ordered to h~ printed. SOLOMON SPITZER. 

1\fr. BLIS·i, by 1manimous consent, introduced a. bill (II. R. No. 

4780) for th u relief of Solomon Spi~zer; which was ~en.?- a. :first and 

second timtl, referred to the Comm1ttee on Appropnatwns, ancl or- dered to be printed. 

EVENING SESSIONS FOR PENSIO~ BILLS. 

Mr. BROWNE. I am directed by the Committee on Invalid Pen- sions to ask that the evenings of Monday and Friclay of next week 

be set aside for the consideration of private pension claims on the 

Calendar ; and that the House take a recess on those evenings from 

half past fom until G.1f past seven o'clock, for the consideration of 

such claims only, no other business being transacted. 

1\Ir. TURNER, of Kentucky. I object. 

1\fr. BROWNE. 1 Do I understand that objection has been made? 

The SPEAKER.• The gentleman from Kentucky ouj ct~:>. 

1\.fr. TURNER, of Kentucky. If in order I will state to the Rouse 

the r ea ons for my objection. 

MARINE HOSPITAL, MEMPHIS, TE~NESSEE. 

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 

S. No. 1233 be taken from the Speaker's table and put upon its passage at this time. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will cause the title of the bill to be 

rearl, after which objection will be asked for. 

The Cle1·k read as follows : 

A bill (S. :ro. 1233) to amend an act entitled " .An act to provide for the construc- tion of a marine hospital iQ. the city of Memphis, Tennessee." 

Mr. HOLMAN. Let the bill be read, subject to objection. 

The bill was read a first and second time. It is as follows: 

_Be it enacted, d':c. , That the act entitled " An act to pronde for the construction or a marine hospital in the city of M emphis, T ennessee," approved :May 3, 1880, 

bo, and the same is hereby, amended by inserting- after tbe word " purcha.se," in 

the second section of said act, the words '' at voluntary sale or by condemnation ;" so that it will read : · That the Slll'geon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service be, and b e is h er eby, 

·' 

authorized and empowered to procw·e a proper site in or near the city of Memphis, Tennessee, and cause ro be erected thereon a building suitable for a marine hospital, after plans and specifications which shall be furnished under his direction 

by the Sur.ervising Architect of the Treaaury Department. SEC. 2. rhat the sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be and 

the same is hereby, appropriated~ out of any money now in the Treasurynotother- wi. e appropriated, robe expendeu by the Secretary of the Treasury in the purchase, at voluntary sale or by condemnation, of said site and the erection of the aforP.said 

builtling thereon ; and the cost. of the site and the e~ection of the building shall in no event exceed the sum hereby appropriated. 

1\Ir. HOLMAN. I have no wish to object to the present consideration of the bill, but it seems to me that tke gentleman from Tennes- see ought to be permitted to explain why it is that this bill is neces- sary. 

Mr. MOORE. The appropriation for the construction of this building was made by the la-st Congress, but by the time the building was to begin it was discovered that there was a flaw in the title. The 

Department of J nstice, with a view to clearing the title, inserted this 

amendment to the original bill, and ask its adoption by Congress. 

This bill is therefore, Mr. Speaker, to clear the title only and permit 

the construction to go on. Mr. ATKINS. I will state to the gentleman from Indiana. that it 

is a mere re-enactment to cure a. faulty tit.le. The bill was ordered to be read a. third time, and, being read the 

third time, was passed. 

Mr. MOORE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. · 

The latter motion was agr~ed to. 

LICENSE FEES OF OFFICERS OF STEAM-VESSELS, 

Mr. RICHARDSON, ofNew York. Mr. Speaker, I am authorized 

by the Committee on Commerce to ask unanimous consent to take 

from the House Calendar the bill (H. R. No. 1302) in relation to 

license fees of officers of steam-vessels, and put it upon its passage. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will cause the title of the bill to be 

read, after which objection to its present C0118ideration will l)e asked 

for. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H. R. No. 1302) to amend section 4458 of the Revised Statutes, relating to license fees of officers of steam-vessels. 

l\Ir. 1\llLLS. Let the bill be read. 

The bill was read. It is as follows: 

B e it enacted, &c. , That section 4458 of the Revised Statutes be, and is hereby, amended by striking out the words " ten dollars " in the eleventh line, and inserting in lien thereof the words " one dollar and fifty cents," and by striking out the 

words " five dollars'' in the twelfth line and inserting in lieu thereof the words " seventy-five cents." 

1\Ir. DUNNELL. Ithinkthisisa.veryimporta.nt bill. Itinvolves 

the revenues of the Government quite largely, and there should be some explanation in reference io it. 

1\lr. RICHARDSON, of New York. I will make a. statement if the 

House will p ermit me. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of 

the bill? 

1\Ir. CAMP. I desire to object, but will reserve the objection until 

the gentleman makes his statement. 

Mr. RICHARDSON, of New York. I will state, 1\Ir. Speaker, that 

in 1852 the license fees were $5 for each engineer and pilot of steamvessels, and $1 for each renewal. In 1864 this was increased to $10 

for each, and no reduction on renewal. By an act passed Febrn-. ary B, 1871, the number of persons who were compelled to take out 

license was increased. All of these license fees have been accumu- lating in the Treasury, and are used to create a. fund with a view to 

making the service of inspection self-sustaining. There is now in 

the Treasmy of the United States over $600,000 collected from these 

fees, and also collected on inspectors of vessels, which sum is lying 

there in the Treasury at this time. This is the only class of individ· 

ua.ls in the Uu.ited States to-day who are compelled to pay a license 

tax, and these persons have been paying these fees into the Treasury for the last fifteen years. It is only just that they should be 

relieved from the payment of this personal tax. I ask, therefore, 

that the bill be taken from the Calendar and put upon its passage. 

Mr. REAGAN. In addition to what the gentleman from New York 

ha-s said I desire to state that in three different Congresses the Committee on Commerce have agreed substantially to this reduction. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a. third time ; and 

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. RICHARDSON, of New York, moved to reconsider the vote by 

which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. The latter motion was_ agreed to. 

MISSISSIPPI RIV'"ER IMPROVEl\-IENT. 

Mr. GIBSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 

47S1) making appropriations for the construction, repair, completion, 

and preservation of certain works on the Mississippi River in accord- ance with the recommenda,tions, plans, specifications, and est imat.es of the Mississippi River Commission; which was read a first a.ud 

second time, referred to the Committee on Levees and Improve- ments of the Mississippi River, and ordered to be printed. 
1592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MARCH 3, 

MAPS OF NAVIGABLE RIVERS, ETC. 

1\Ir. PAGE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution ; which was read, considered, ancl adopted : 

Resolved ~Y the House of Representatives of the United States, That the Secretary of War be directed to furnish for the use of the Committee on Commerce of 

the sa.id House a complete set of maps and engineers' charts of the navigable rivers 

and harbors of the United States, at the earliest pra{}ticable moment. 

Mr. P.A.GE moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid 

8n the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSTh"'ESS. 

Mr. TAYLOR and Mr. RANDALL called for the regular order. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is the morning hour for the 

call of committees for reports; this being F1·iday, only reports of a private natm·e are in order. 

GEORGE W. WICKS & CO. 

Mr. HASKELL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, reported a bill (H. R. No. 4782) for .the relief of George W. Wicks&: Co., of 

Louisville, Kentucky; which was read a first and second trme, re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole R:ouse on the Private Calendar, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

JOSEPH CO~. 

Mr. SPOONER, from the Committee 011. Military Affairs, reported 

back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. No. 1432) for 

the relief of Joseph Conrad ; which was referred to the Committee of 

the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying 

report ordered to be printed. 

GEORGE S. TRA..."\IEL. 

Mr. UPSON, from the Committee on 1\filit.ary Affairs, reported back 

the bill (H. R. No. 3'2) for the relief of GeorgeS. Tramel; and moved 

that the committe e be discharged from the further consideration of 

the same, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims. 

The motion was agreed to. 

EMANUEL KLAUSER. 

Mr. HENDERSON, froin the Committee on Military .A.ffairs, re- ported back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. No. 

1982) for the relief of Emanuel Klauser; which was referred to the 

Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the 

accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

WILLIAM T. M 7COY. 

Mr. JOYCE, from the CollliiLtttee on Invalid Pensions, reported, as a substitute for House bill No. 1421, a bill (H. R. No. 478;-l) granting a pension to William T. McC?Y; which was read a first and 

second time referred to the Committee- of the Whole House ~n the 

Private Cal~ndar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be 

printed. · DANIEL D. LOXG. 

Mr. JOYCE also, from the same committee, reported, as a substitute 

for House Lill No. 3064, a bill (H. R. No. 4784) granting a pension to 

Daniel D. Long; which was read a first and second time, 1·eferred to 

the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, 

with the acc0mpanying report, ordered to be pFinted. 

THOMAS S. HOPKINS. 

Mr. D.A. WES, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported, as a su bstitnte for House bill No. 2769, a bill (H. R. No. 4785) for the relief 

of Thomas S. Hopkins; which was read a first and second time, re- ferred to the Committee of-the Whole Honse on the Private Calendar, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordered t"o be printed.-

DE~~"'IS SULLIVAN. 

Mr. RAY, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported, as a substitute for H?use bill No .. 1012, !1' bill (H.~- No. 4786) granting an increase of pensiOn to Denrus Sullivan; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

Priv&.te Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be 

printed. CATHERL."'ffi SILVEY. 

Mr. PARKER, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. No. 2148) granting a pension to Catherine Silvey; which was referred to the Committee of the vVhole House on the Private Caiendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

JOHN H. M 7BRAYER. 

l\Ir. CALDWELL, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported back the bill (H. R. No. 539) granting a pension to John H. 

McBrayer, and moved that the committee be disaharged from the 

further consideration of the same, and that it be referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

The motion was agreed to. 

:BENJAMIN F. DOBSON. 

referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

JOHN MACK. 

Mr. BURROWS, of Missouri, from the Committee on Pen ions, 

reported back with an adverse recommendation the bill (H. R. No. 

4022) granting a pension to John Mack; and the same was laid on the table, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

J. W. LHmER. 

Mr. WEBBER, from the Committee on Pensions, reported back 

with an adverse recommendation the petition of J. W. Linker, a sol- dier of the Mexican 'war; and the same was laid on the table, and 

the accompa(tyrng report ordered to be printed. 

CHILDREN OF JOHN PHEMESTER. 

Mr. WEBB~ also, ,from the same committee, reported back with an adverse recommendation the bill (H. R. No. 1262) granting a pension to the chif{b-en of John Phemester; and the same was laid on the 

table, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

MARY WADE, 

1\Ir. BROWNE, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. No. 1422) 

granting a pension to Mary Wade; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the accom- panying report ordered to be printed. 

ELIZA M. FRICK. 

Mr. BROWNE also, from the same committee, reported back the 

bill (H. R. No. 14~7) granting a pension to Eliza M. Frick, and moved 

that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of 

the same, and that it be referred to the Committee on PeD.Bions. 

The motion was agreed to. 

JOHN TAYLOR. 

1\Ir. W .A.DSWORTH. from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

reported back the bill (H. R. No. 1166) granting a pension to John 

Taylor; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the 

Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

WARREN HALL. 

Mr. HOL~I.A.N. I have a ~port to make from the Committee on War Claims, and before doing so I desire to make a statement to the 

House. Some time since the House passed a Senate bill for the relief 

of Warren Hall. .A. similar bill had been referred to the Committee on War Claims. The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. HALL] 

who had the bill in charge has teqnested me to report the bill back 

to the Honse and, in view of the fact that a Senate bill for the relief 

of the same person ha-s already been passed by the House, to move that the committee be discharged from its further consideration and 

that the bill be laid upon the table. It is Honse llill No. 1727, for 

the relief of Warren Hall. 

The bill was received and laid upon the table. 

MOBILE MARINE DOCK COMPANY. 

~Ir. OATES, from the Committee on Claims, reported back the bill 

(H. R. No.4.) for the relief of the Mobile Marine Dock Company, 

and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration and that the same be referred to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

The motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSTh"'ESS. 

The call of committees ·was resumed and concluded. 

Mr. McCLURE. I desire to submit a report from the Committee on Printing. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will submit the report. 

DISTRIBUTIO:N OF SENATE AND HOUSE JOUlli~ALS. 

Mr. McCLURE. I am instructed by the CA,.mmittee on Printing 

to report back with a favorable recommenda.t'ion the joint resolution (H. R. No. 131) directing the Secretary of the Interior to distribute copies of the Journals of the Senate and llouse of Represent- at ives to public and law libraries. 

The SPEAKER. That is not a private bill. .- 1\Ir. SPRINGER. It does not require any expenditure of the public money. There are surplus documents of this kind in the custody 

oftheSecretaryofthe Interior, abdhedesires authoritytodistribute 

them to snch. public libraries as have not a complete set of them, 

and where they would be of more use than in his possession. 

Mr. McCLURE. I ask that it be referred to the Calendar. 

The SPEAKER. It is not in order under this call. The Chair was of the opinion that the gentleman desired to submit a privileged 

report from the Committee on Printing. · 

JOHN G. ABERCROMBIE. 

1\Ir. LACEY, from the Committee on the Post-Office and PostRoads, reported back with amendments the bill (H. R. No. 28) for 

the relief of John G. Abercrombie; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accom- panying report, ordered to be printed. -. • 

Mr. :MATSON, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported, ORDER OF :BUSINESS. · 

aa a subsitute for House bill No. 2257, a bill (H. R. No. 4787) for the ~Ir. TAYLOR. I move that the HousenowresolveitselfintoCom·· :relief of Benjamin F. Dobson; which was read afirstandsecond time_. mittee of the Whole on the Private Calendi.l-J:· 
1S82. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1593 

Mr. \VILLIAMS, of Wisconsin. I ask the gentleman to permit me to submit a request to the House. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I have no objection, if it does not take up too much 

time. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Wisconsin. I ask unanimous con. ent of the 

House that the Committee on Foreign Affairs have leav to sit during the essions of the Honse while prosecuting the investigations 

which they have been directed by the Honse to make. 

The SPEAKER. What inve tigations t 

Mr. WILL~IS, of Wisconsin. In regard to the Chilian and Pe- ru vi an corre pondence, and other investigations which have been 

ordered. 

There was no objection, and leave was granted accordingly. 

AD:\-ITS ION OF SOUTHERN DAKOTA AS A STATE. 

Mr. BURROWS, of Michigan. I ask unanimous consent that Tuesday, the 4th of April next, be set apart by the House for the consideration of the bill for the admission of Southern Dakota as a State. 

Mr. RA.lWALL. I object, and call for the regular order. 

ORDER OF BUSh~SS. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is the motion of the ~entleman 

from Ohio, [Mr. TAYLOR,] that the House now re olve 1tself into 

Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. 

The motion was agreed to. . Mr. HENDERSON. Before going into Committee of the Whole, I 

desire to ask consent of the House to take up and consider a joint 

resolution granting permission to an officer of the Army to accept a position under the Government of the United States of Colombia. 

The SPEAKER. The House baa already decided to go into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. HENDERSON. If this joint resolution is to pa , it is very 

important that it should be pas ed now. Mr. TAYLOR. Can that interrupt the regular orderf 

The SPEAKER. The ,g-entleman asks unanimous consent. 

Mr. RANDALL. I call for the regular order. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I have been waiting for the river to run d!·y, but 

I see that I shall have to cross over the bridge after all, and I object. 

Mr. MILLER. I desire to submit a privileged report. · The SPEAKER. The House has already decided to go into Committee of the Whole on the P1·ivate Calendar. 

The Hou e accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, Mr. BELFORD in the chair. 

The CHAJRMAN. The House is now in Committee of the ·whole 

for the purpose of considering business on the Private Calendar. 

The first business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

670) for the relief of William M. Maynadier. 

Mr. HENDERSON. In the absence of the honorable gentleman 

from Alabama [Mr. WHEELER] whohaschargeofthis bill, I ask that 

it be passed over. Mr. HOLMAN. I hope there will be no objection to that. Ancl the 

next bill on the Calendar, for the relief of Major Candee, another 

payma ter of the Army, which was also sent back to the Committee 

of the Wbole, ought to be passed over. Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to have both bills passed over, not to 

lose their places on the Calendar. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

1\IARTHA A. LEWIS. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

2141) granting a -pension to Martha A. Lewis. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and be is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pla.{:e on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of .Martha A. Lewis, widow of William 

G. Lewis, late a private in Company B, Second Regiment Vermont Volunteer In· 

fan try. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Let the report be read. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2141) granting a pension to Martha. A. Lewis, have considered the same, and re~rt: . 

. The committee find the f!I-Cts to ~e as .stated in. House Report No. 1142, Forty- sixth Congress, second sesswn, which Sa1d report IS hereto annex.ed and made part of this report: 

"],fartl.La A. Lewis is the wirlow of William G. Lewis who was enliated as a private in Company B, Second Regiment Vermont Inf:u{try Volunteers, August 

15, 1862; dischargetl . aid service on account of disability February 12 1863 and 

died January 21, 1 71, of tubercular consumption. ' ' 

" ~t i~ alleged that his death was occasioned by disease contracted during his 

sem<'e m the Army. 

"The A.djut.ant-General reports: 'William G. Lewis sick in ho pital, Washing1~~.P· C., November and December, 1862; <llilcharged for disability February 12, 

" The Snrgeon-General reports: 1 Private William G. Lewis Compan:v B Second Vermont Volu!Jteers, ~dmitt~ to Epiphany Hospital, Wasbfugton, D."c.,'November 17, 1862; With febns typhmd, and transferred January 12, 1 63; was admitted to Col~mb1an 9ollege q.overnme~t Hospital, District of Columbia, January 12, 

1863, With febns typhoid, and discharged the service :February 11 or 12 1863. 

Cause, chronic hepatitis; not incident to service.' ' 

• I. Surgeon's certificate of disability for discharge states: 'William G. Lewis is 

mcapabfe of performing the duties of a soldier becaru;e of chronic hepatitis hav- in~, exis~d previous to enli~tment..' ' LeW1s L. Bat~ll!nn , LeV1 L. Munson, and Joseph Mears testify that they were comrades of LeWis m the service; that they knew him before his enlistment inti.-

mately; that he was to all appearance a sound man, and they so considered him; 

that while in the . ervice be was sick, sent to hospital, and discharged; that they- saw him immediately after the regiment was ron tared ont of service; that at that 

time his health was totally shattered, and that he was never well again. 11 The claimant files an affidavit in which she state her inability to procure the 

affidavit of the surgeon of aid regiment because of her ignorance of hi.; rc idence. 11 Dr. S. H. Griswold state that he was called to treat the said.L wis in ..c.\pril, 1 70, and found him suffering from tubercular consumption; that he continued to treat him till his death, in January, 1 71. "Dr. L. D. Ross testifies that he knew the sol<lier well prior to l1is enlifltment, :mel that at that time be knew him to be to all appearance a sotmd man ; that no di ease batl at that time developetl itself, and he continue : 1 Ha(l it been otherwi e, it would seem to me, from my intimate acquaintance 'vith him, I must have 

1.-nown it.' Dr. Ross says that ome time after the soldier·s discharge ho tr ated 

him profes ioually for a chronic cough, which the soldier claimed be contracted in 

the Army. At that time he was somewhat emaciated and unable to labor. Dr. Ross continues: 11 • Between the 2oth March aml20tb April, 1865, I was called to attend and treat said soldier for pneumonia, and found him with hi~h fever, difficult breathin~, 

grQat pain in left lung, distr sin~ cough, expectorating musty-colored sputa, left 

lung heavily congested, from whlch, after fourteen or fifteen days, he began to amend, and so far reco>ered as to be able to do some light work. He never fully 

reco>ered from the cough, which after a few months began to grow worse, and lie 

continued to lose flesh. This condition continued as long as I knew him until his 

removal to Rutland, Vermont, when I ceased to treat him. I am of opinion he ne>er was a well man after his discharge from the Army.' 

"The marria~e of claimant to the soldier is fully hown by competent testimony, 

aA is also the bu-th of the following children, u sue of said marriage: Laura, born 

February 7, 1860; Netti~ E., March 3, 1862; ~lla. L., May 15, 1864; Charles W., 

August 28, 1 68; Franlne L., August 3l, 1 68. The committee are sati~fied from all the evidence tbat the disease of whicl1 the 

soldier died was attributable to his Army service, and we therefore recommend the passage of the bill. 

1\ir. JOYCE. When this bill was under consideration in Committee of the "\Vhole a week ago there wa orne que tion rai ed by gentlemen here as to whether this claimant had made an application to 

the Pension Bureau. I could not then answer the inquiry definitely, 

although I statecl I had no doubt that such application hacl been 

made and rejected. I immediately took measures to find out the 

fact, anti have received from the Pension Bureau a line saying that 

the claim was made there and rejected. 

lli. BUCKNER. I ask the gentleman whether his communication 

:from the Commissioner states on what ground the application was rejected' 

?lir. JOYCE. It does not. I have only a line from the Commis- t~ioner of Pensions. 

Mr. BUCKNER. Wben was the application made? 

1\!r. JOYCE. This line from the Commis ioner does not show that. 

Mr. BUCKNER. It seems to me that the application presented in 

this case is simply an appeal from the judgment of the Pension 

Bureau upon a question of fact, which should be determined either 

by a court or by the appropriate department of the Government, that 

question being whether the disease of which the claimant' husband 

died grew out of his service as a soldier. Now, I submit to the Horrse 

whether we ought not to put a stop to such proceedings as this. We 

have or~anized a tribunal with judicial powers to decide the e questions. "\Ve have prescribed the sort of te. timony which shall he 

required in order to make out a case; antl the tribunal e tablished 

by u , with jurisdiction over the que tion, has decided that thi party i>~ not eutit1etl under the law to a pension. Yet, in spite of ncb 

decisions, parties come here day after day and year after year a king us to review the judgment of this tribunal which we have authorized and whose decisiOn is conclusive upon the Government, though we make it inconclusive as to the pensioner himself. ' 

'\Ve have talked about establishing courts to decide ca.c;es of a private nature. What is the u e of doing so if we thus oust the jurisdiction of the tribunals we establish and take upon our elve the 

authority to decide que tiona of fact which have been once passed 

upon by a tribunal estab1isherl by lawf 

Sir, this Calendar is full of just such cases. We may sit here for- ever and neveacome nearer to right and justice than this couTt; for 

it is a quasi court-a tribunal organized under the law and exercising 

a q nasi-judicial power in the investigation of te timony and the decision of questions between the Government and these varion claimants. By declining to reconsider ca es which have thus been once decided we ought to put a stop to the pre entation of such cases here; otherwise we shall never get rid of these pri>ate claims of this 

character. 

The CHAIRl\I.AN. If there be no objectien the bill will be laid 

aside to be reported to the House with a recommendation that it pass. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

SAl\lUEL BURWELL. 

The next business on the Private Calenda-r was the bill (H. R. No. 

1979) granting a peu ion to Samuel Burwell. 

The bill was read, a follows: 

Be 'it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is h ereby, au- thorized and Mrected to place on the pensiou·roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Samuel Burwell. 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions was read, as follows : 

In the fourth and fifth line-s strike out the words "subject tO the pro"ri. ions and 

li.ntitations of the pension Laws," and add to the bill the words "at the rate of $20 per month from the passage of this act." 

Mr. HOLMAN. I wish to inquire of my colleague, the chairman 

of the Committee on Invalid Pensions, [Mr. BROW~~,] why these 

words should be struck out. 
1594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 3, 

Mr. BROWNE. If my colleague [Mr. HoL~IA....~] is addressing himself to me, I must say in response that I do not hear a word he says. 

[Laughter.] 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. l\Iy que tion is, why tbe words "subject to tbe 

provisions and limitations of the pension laws" should be struck out J 

Mr. BROWNE. Because, for rea on stated in the report, the com- mittee propose to fix in the bill a pecial rate of pension different 

from that fixed by the general law. I a k that the Clerk read the 

report. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1979) m:antina- a pension to Samuel Burwell, of La Salle Cotmty, illinois, having 

1•ad tlle same under con ideration, beg leave to make the folloWIDg report: It appears from the evidence submitted in this case that the petitioner enlisted as a pri\'ate in Company C, Twentieth Regiment Minnesota Vohmteers, June 27, 1861. He was discharged from the service March 28, 1862, in consequence of a severe attack of piles. The petitioner returned to his home in Minnesota, and was authorized to enlist soldiers for the Army, anrl by the 21 t of August, 1862, had 

succeeded in forming a company of one hundred and thr e men. On the 14th day 

of August, 1 62, he was commi sioned as second lieutenant of Uompany B, Tent.h. 

Re!riment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry in which capacity he servect until the w~ter of 1863-'64, when he was promoted to the positwn of first lieut-enant. He remained with the company, rendering active service nntil discharged at Fort Snelling, about Au~ust ~1, 1865. He was in the battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky, 

and in all the other oattles in which his regiment was engaged. 

.At the date of his first enlistment, in 1 61, the petitioner was a well-pre ervecl man of fifty-five years of age. He served continuou.ly during the entire war of 

the rebellWn, except three months in 1862, and durin"' that time he wa recruiting 

soldiers :lfr the .Army. While in the service he was troubled t~ some extent with 

diabetes, from which he still suffers. He is now more than seventy-six yea1·s of aae. is poor, havina no relatives upon whom he can depend for support, and no p~operty. He thinks the country he served so well should save him from a pan- per' portion the few remaining years he may live. The petitioner served also in 

the Mexican war. The relief :prayed for, if granted, must be at lea t partially in the nature of a gratuity pensiOn. and your committee ha.ve decided to report favorably on the prayer of the petitioner, and recommend the passage of the bill (H. lL N"o. 19i!J) 

amended as hereinafter stated, granting a pension to Samuel Burwell at the rate of $20 per month. 

Mr. CULLEN. I de ire to correct a typographical error which occurs in the second line of the body of the report. It should read 

"second regiment" in tead of "twentieth regiment." 

I will say, also, that this is the unanimous report of a fnll com- mittee. Tbe case is one of unusual merit, :Mr. Burwell being now over seventy-six years of age, and a man wbo deserves well of his 

country. I trust the bill w1ll pass this Committee of the Whole, a it did the Committee on Invalid Pensions, unanimously. 

The question being taken on agreeing to tlte amendment, it was agreed to, there being-ayes 67, noe 10. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, the bill as amended 

will be laid aside to be reported to the House with a recommendation that it pa s. There wa no objection; and it was ordered acco1·ilingly. 

JOHN B. TRA:rnER. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

1054) for the reliefof John B. Trainer. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Be it enacted, cl-c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay to John B. Trainer, out of any money in the Treasury not othenvise appropriated, the sum of $267.74-, for services as messenger in the House of Repre entatives dw·ing the years 1877 and 1878. 

Mr. CAMP. Let the report be read. 

The report was read, a follows: 

The Committee on Cla.irnfl, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1054) for the r elief of Jolm B. Traineri having had the same untler consideration, find that the same bill was before the ast Congress, and was unanimously report~d by the Com· mittee on Claims for favorable action. 

Mr. Covert, of New York, in his report for the committee. says : "The Committee on Claims, to whom wa referred the bill (H. R. No. 6580) for 

the relie f of John B. Trainer, report a follows: • " Your committee, aft-er a thorough examination find-the facts in the case to be ns follows: That John B. Trainer was duly appointed a messenger in the House of Representatives at the opening of the Forty-fourth Congress, and continued to do duty as such until he resi!med, February 1, 1878; that lle was rea-ularly paid 

until the month of October. 1 77, for which month and the month of N'ovember he 

recei\'ed, all told, $135.59; that under the representations of John W. Polk, Door- keeper of the House, ancl the a surance that he would surely be paicl, Mr. Trainer 

continued tododutyuntilheresigned, February 1, 1878; that Mr. Trainerreported 

for cluty and p rformed the same daily during that period is a fact well known to nearly every gentlema.n from .r ew York who was a member of Congress at that 

time. 

"Your committee find the salary due Mr. Trainer, and to which he was clearly 

entitled, to be: 

For October, No~ember, and December, 1877 .................. . ........... $300 00 For January, 1878 ...... . .................................................. 103 33 

403 33 Less the amount paid . ............ ,..................... ....... ........... 135 59 

Leaving amount duo him ....... , ......................... . ....... ... 267 74 

"Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill." 

The statements of the report are fully justified by the f:.wts, and the committee 

report that the claim is just and should be paid; and they recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. 

Mr. CAMP. i desire to inquire of the gentleman having thls bill 

in charge whether the compensation recommended in this case is at 

the same rate as that allowed to other messengers who performed 

like senrice. 

1\Ir. HUTCHINS. Tho same rate precisely. 

• 

There being no objection, the bill wa laid aside to be reported to 

the House with a recommendation that it pa . 

.TOfu~ H . I\IORRIS. 

The next bn, ine . ou the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

1136) for the relief of John H. l\lorris. 

The bill wa read, as follow·s : 

Be it enacted, cl-c. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, author- izetl alHl directed to pay to John II. Morris, late collector of internal revenue of 

the tenth district of New York, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 

~flrl~~~~J~ ~t~uilie &~! :~ri~~~~~!e~s~!sdfu~ ~~~~~a s!~~l~~lle:c~ t<?r for ti,Je term of one year and three days, ending April10, 1 64, under and by 

virtue of an act of Con_~e s/a sed July 1, 1862, and amended by an act of Con- gress passecl May 3, 1 63, Ra.i sum having been refunded by him, under prote. t, upon a claim made by the Secretary of the Treasury that the compensation for b is 

services should be governed and controlled by an act of Con !!Tess passed after be 

bad rendered the ervices for which he claimed the right to retain said moneys, and after his term of office had ceased, to wit, on the 30th of June, 1 64. 

The report wa :._:ead, as follows : 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill for the relief of John H. Morris, late collector of internal revenue of the t enth district of the State of New York, having had the same under consideration, woultl respectfn1ly report : The report of the Committee on Claims of the Forty-fifth Congress (No. 904) was as follows: 

"That the claimant was appointed collector of said district .April 7, 1 6.1, and 

bcltl said office and faithfully di charged the duties thereof for one year and iliree da~., when be re if!Ded said office and turned over the same to his successor. The 

right of t.be claimant to the relief prayed for depends upon the construction to be 

placed upon the laws relating to the compensation of collectors, and especially upon the act of June 30, 1864. 

"When Mr. Morris was appointed to this office he was entitled, under the act appro>ed July 1, 1862, as amended by the act ofMay3,1863, to compensation a.. fol· 

lows: Upon the first $100,000 collected a commis ion of 4 p r cent., and upon all sums over $100,000 a commi sion of 2 per cent., (the whole not to exceed $10,000 per year,) such commis. ions to be computed UJ?On the amounts paid over and 

accounted for by the collector. During the year following the appomtment of Mr. MoiTis. he' paicl over and accounted for' more than $4-00,000; and, under the laws 

in force during the whole time he held this office, he was entitled to the sum of 

$10,000 as his compensation for that year. During the three days following the 

first year Mr. Morris collected and accounted for the further sum of' $13,150.23, upon which, by the law as it then stood, he was entitled to a commis ion of 4- per cent., or the sum of $526; or to eompensa.tion at a rate not exceeding $10,1100 per annum. .After Mr. Morris had resigned, Congress passed the act approved Jun~ 

30, 1864, which contains the following provisions : "'That in the adjustment of the accounts of assessors and collectors of internal revenue which shall accrue after June 30, 1864, and in the payment of their com- pen ation for services after that date, the fiscal year of the Treasury shall b ob- served; and when such compensation, or any part thereof, shall be by commil ion. upon asse sments or collections, and shall during any year, in consequence of a u w appointment, be clue to more than one assessor or collector in the ame district, such commissions shall bo apportioned between such a e sors or collect~rs ; and the salary or commissions of asse sors ancl collectors heretofore earned and 

accrued shall be ad,iusted, allowed, and paid in conformity to the provisions of this 

section, and not otherwise.' 

"The Secretary of the Treasury, in settling the account of Mr. Morri.~ , claimed 

that under this statute, passed after Mr. Morris went out of office, the fiscal year of the Treasury should he ob. erved, and the commi~sion. earned by .Morris ana his 

predecessor during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1863, and those earn d by him 

and his successor during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1864, should be appor· tioned; the account of said Monis not havin~ been' adjusted, allowed, and paid' June 30, 1864, when the act was passed. If this construction of the law is on-ect, Mr. Morris bas no claim to the relief a.sked for, and if it is not correct, he is en- titled to the sum of $1,265. 4-. In passing upon this question of construction it will 

be observed that the question could never have arisen had the account of Mr. 

Morri been settled immediately upon his r etirement from the office in April, 1864. 

"The committee are of opinion that the constrnctiQn put upon this statute by the 

Secretary of the 'l.'reasury is not correct. The compensation fixed and determined 

by the law when this claimant assumed the dntie of this office, and which remained o fixed and determined during the whole time be held the office, is, by this con- struction, taken away from him by an act of Congress pas ed and approved some two months after be went out of office. The law passed June 30, 1864, is claimed to apply to this account between Mr. Morris and the Treasury Department simply 

because the account was not settled at the time the act was passed. It must be 

conceded that if the account had been settled prior to June 30, 1864, as it might 

and should have been, the claimant would have received for his services the amount he now claims. But when he resignecl the office and accounted for and paid over the property and money of the U nit.ed States in his hands, he had acquired a right to the compensation for his services which the law, up to that time in force, pro- vided for those services; and your committee are of opinion that Congre s dill not intend by the act of June 30, 1864, to take from him any part of that compensation. 

The act provides ' that in the adjustment of accounts of collectors,' &c., which 

shall accrue after June 30, 1864, and in the payment of compensation for services 

after that date, the fiscal year of the Treasury shall be ob erved; and when such 

compensation, &c., 'shall be by commission,' &c., 'and shall during any year in consequence of a new appointment be due to more than one collector in the same year, such commissions shall be apportioned between such asse sora,' &c. 

There can be no que~tion a to the meaning of this language. It was not intended to be retroactive, or to affect in any way commissions already earned. It speaks 

only of accounts "which shall accrue" and of " compensation for services aJter that date,'' and savs that as to tbem the fiscal year of the Treasury shall be observed. 

and where there shall be two or more collectors during any fiscal year there shall 

be an apportionment of their commis ions in a certain mann6'1'. 

The act further provides as follows: 

'·And the salary or commissions of assessors and collectors heretofore earned and 

accrued shaH be adjusted, allowed, and paid in conformity to the provisionsofthis 

section, and not otherwise. 

"And the claim is made that this provision makes the langnaa-e above q"Noted, relative to the ' fi cal year of the Treasury,' the 'appointment of two or more collectors' during the fiscal year, and the apportionment of tbejr commissions, applicable to all accounts of collectors which were nnsettlP.d June 30, 1864, aml, therefore, t.o the a-ecountof the claimant. Your committe think this construction 

of the law cannot be sustained. The accomplishment of the object for which the 

law was enacted does not require it. That object was to provide hereafter for the 

observance of the fiscal year in the settlement of these accounts, and as t,hei-eaf'ter 

the accounts of each collection district were to be settled upon a. fixed date ~thont 

r gard to the duration of the term or terms of office of the collector or collectors 

of the district, this provision for an apportionment of the commissions, where-there 

should be more than one collector in the district during any fiscal year, was a proper and necessary one; but there was no necessity for it when tho fiscal year 

1 

I ' 

/ 
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 1595 

was not observefl. Nor was there anynecessitv or propriety for the observance of 

the fiscal year in the settlement of accounts which accrued prior to June 30, 1864. "This provision for the observance of the fiscal year seems to have been one for 

the conYenience of the officials of the Treasury Department, in the keeping of the 

books of the Department; and it is not easy io see how Congress could have dis-

-:overed any benefit or convenience f{) the Treasnry by the ob ervance of the fiscal vear in the settlement of accounts pa t due. These could be settled at any time. 

There seerus, therefore, to have been no reason for the pa sage of a. law pro tiding 

for the ob. eiTanceofthe fiscal year in the settlement of account of collectors who 

before that time had ~one out of office; and your coiDllll ttee are of opinion that 

this proti.<5ion was not mtended to and does not apply to them. Tbe law bye:~~.--press 

terms provides for the observance of the fiscal yenr, and the apportionment of 

commissions in certain ca-ses, after June 30. 186-1, and thereby, l1y implicatjon, ex- cludes all other ca eR from the operations of tho e provisions of the law; and when 

the law further provide that the commis ions before that time earned shall b 

adjusted, allowerl, and paid according to the protisions of that section, it does not mean that, as to such commi ions and in the settlement therefor, the fiscal year of the Treasury shall be observed, but that where the term of any officer bou1d be 

le s than one year, his commissions should not be 4 per cent on the first. $100,000 

collected, and 2 per cent. on all over $100,000, without reuard to the time be held 

office, but that. in such cases the salary or commi<5sions s~onld be apportioned, so that he should in no case receive more than at the rate of $l0, 000 per year. .As the 

claimant served for more 1ban a full year, this provision of the law has no application to his case. The committee are of the opinion that the claimant i<5 entitled t.o the sum of $739.84 for his services for the year ending .April 7, 1863, and for his 

services for the three additional days he should be allowed compensation at the rate of$10,000 per year, which would b the sum of $83.33, in all the sum of$823.17. 

"The committee report a substitute for the original bill, and recommend that 

the same do pass." 

This committee adopt said report as their own, and therefore report back the 

accompanying hill, and recommend that the same do pa-ss. 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, the pending bill does not involve a large sum of money, not more than $1,200, but the principle involved is quite important, as under the le~islation of 18G4, in the 

adjustment of salaries between outgoing collectors and assessors and incomin~ collectors and assessors, there was a uniform rulinO' in harmony wtth the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury in this ca e. I apprehend therefore it will be found the principle involved in this 

bill of making compensation .on the basis adopted by the Committee on Claims will give rise to a large number of similar cases growing 

out of the same state of the law. I would suggest to the gentleman 

from New York [Mr. HUTCHINS] whether he would not deem it safer 

and better that the question of law involved, as well a the subjectmatter, should be refened to the Court of Claims. Let the Committee of the Whole House report the bill back with a recommendation 

that it be recommitted to the CommitteeonClaim, with instructions 

to amend so as to refer the subject-matter, as well as the question of 

law, to the Court of Claims. 

Mr. HUTCHli~S. I do not know of any other ca e than this, and 

I think there is no other case of the same kind. This would only have 

occurred in con equence of the incumbent of the office being entitled 

to more than 10,000, receiving his pay by commis ions. If he had re- ceived hls commissions on the amotmt, and been allowed that amount 

at the time he held the office, he would have been entitled to more than the committee reported, and it is only in consequenc•J of the 

commissions on the amotmt which gave rise to this question. The 

only question presented, Mr. Chairman, is where a party whose ac- count was not settled at the time of the pas age of the act, which did 

not apply to it in any way, can be deprived by it of hi just compensation. That is the only que tion. If Congress can pa s such a law a that, they can take away a man's claim if it occurred thirty years 

ago. There is no limit to it. But there was no intention to pass such a law; and if there was, it is an unjust law, and ouglit not to be 

allowed for one moment. This man is entitled to the money, and I 

wish the House to vote for or against it. 

Mr. HOLMAN. J\.Ir. Chairman, I apprehend the gentleman is mistaken as to whether the principle involved here is confined to this ca ·e. I can remember several myself. It was a difficult matter, 

tmder the laws of H!64, 186.5, and 1866, to determine exactly the proportion of salary of the outgoing and incoming collector or asse or, 

ta.king the ye:u together. Certainly the decision of the Secretary of 

the Treasury in thi ca e is in harmony with his other decision . The ·arne question occurred in my own district. If this gentleman 

receives what i~; here proposed, it will be making double payment. 

\\Te are paying the same money over again for the arne service. \Vho 

knows how mauy other cases of like character there aref 

Now, if my friend from New York had occasion to look into the 

practice of the Trea ury Department during that period in reference 

to outgoing and incoming collectors and assessors, I think his opinion would be modified. In that connection I would like to ask the 

gentleman from New York how it happened that a transaction oc- curring way back in 1864 should not have been determined in some form or other ~Lt an earlier moment. This question of law, at one time, was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. How clid 

it happen, if this gentleman had a legal right to thi money, he did 

not go to the Court of Claims and have it adjudicated Y 

J\.lr. HUTCHINS. I will answer the gentleman by saying this matter has been before Congress, and this is the third or fourth committee by which it has been favorably reported. If the claimant mistook his remedy and ought to have gone to the Court of Claims, the 

time has now gone by for that. 

There can be no reasonable objection to it. He earned the money, 

n.nd this House ought not to cut off salaries which are due. The 

House understands that it is always an honest principle to pay your debts. The Government owes this money. The gentleman does not 

deny it. It was earned, aml it should not .bo taken away from him. 

Any court in Christendom would have given it to him. It does not 

deserve any other considm·ation but favorable recommendation. 

1\Ir. HOLl\lAN. Do I under tand the gentleman to say the Government has not paid this money It necessarily was paicl to his suc- cessor. Mr. HUTCHINS. I do not know whether it was paid to his suc- cessor or not, or whether it wa all paid. .All I know, and all that 

it is neces ary to know in thi connection, is, that it was not paid to 

the man who earned it, and if paid at all it was paid to omel>olly else 

other than the person entitled to it. In this case the claimant was not paidhi alaryforthisperiod, beingl.i.rnited to lO,OOOperannum, 

to be made up on commi sion , and this snm was not paid to the man who should have received it. I might conceive a case-my own case for instance-where the Government might pay my salary to some- body el e, but if it did I should come in and claim it, and have a riO'ht to claim it, just a this man had a right to claim hi salary. 

The only question here is, who is entitled to the salary It is con- ceded to be due; there is no que tion in reference to that. It was due for two month before the law of 1 64 was passed. The only 

thing is, shall we pay it¥ He had a right to it before tho passage of 

that act, and could have gone before any court and brought suit for 

it; but he waited to have it audited, and becan e it was not audited 

before the pas age ofthat law, it was not paid. In point of fact he 

would be entitled, under a strict construction of the law, to orne five hundred dollars more than the Committee have allowed him, 

but in order to make up that amount he would receive commissions on the sum of 13,150.23 collected by him during the three days after 

the expiration of the year, and which at 4 per cent. would have 

amounted to $526. But the committee thought that for the e three 

days he shoulu be allowed at the rate of 10,000 per annum, in tead 

of allowing 4 per cent. on the amount collected. Mr. ATKINS. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a single 

question"? 

Mr. HUTCHINS. Certainly. 

J\.Ir. ATKINS. I wish to ask if this money has not been paid to 

the wrong person, and if it is not imply a malappropriatiou f 

Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes, sir; certainly. 

1\Ir. HOFMAN. But the question here is, was it paid to the wrong 

person Y Has it been paid to the person who earned it or not Y 

Mr. HUTCHINS. It has not been paid to the persou who earned it. 

Mr. HOLl\1AN. That is the question. 

l\Ir. HUTCHINS. Have you any doubt that it was paid to the 

wrong per on if it was not paid to the claimant, or that the claimant here wa entitled to the money earned by him prior to the passage of the act passed June 30, 1864 f 

1\Ir. HOLMAN. I have always -thought that the decision of the 

Secretary of the Treasury was entirely correct. 

1\Ir. B UTCHINS. But have you any doubt that he was entitled 

to this money at the time of the passage of that act f The gentle- man does not answer my question. 1\fr. HOLMAN. I caunot answer the gentleman in a word, bnt I 

will answer him. The yearly salary had not accrued. 

.Mr. HUTCHINS. But it had. 

1\Ir. HOLMAN. My friend is mistaken. If I understand the law 

the salary had not accrued in this ca:se until the end of the fi cal 

year. Mr. HUTCHINS. But that is just where the gentleman from Indiana is mi taken. The salary had accrued, but this act of 1 64 came in afterward, anu the Sec1·etary of the Treasm·y based his opinion on that act. · The salary wa due before the pa age of the act. 

Mr. HOLMAN. He had resigned before the year terminated. The 

salary had not accrued- ·- l\1r. HUTCHINS. The gentleman from Indiana is totally mistaken. 

The salary had accrued. The money was due him when here igned. 

There is just as much di.fl'erence a there is between thi side of the 

Potomac and the other. The salary was ea,rned at the rate, for three 

days, of a urn not to exceed the rate of ~'10,000 per annum. The 

committee have allowed the amount that he was entitled to for the 

year ending April 7, 1863, and think that for the three days over he 

should be paid at the rate of 10,000 per annum. J\.Ir. HOLMAN. This salary wa-s paid by commissions on the 

amount collected by this officer. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. At a rate of 10,000 a year. 

1\fr. HOLMAN. At a rate not to exceed$10,000 a year;- and these 

commis:sions, as my friend will take notice, clid not accrue day by 

day during the year, but the sum of all the commissions made up the 

yearly salary, aml this sum was ascertained in a; great multitude of cases at the expiration of the year, and for that rea on you could not 

estimate a definite period of time in one year which would complete 

the ·salary of 10,000. That was the trouble with the Secretary of 

the Treasury. Now, this gentleman went out of office and was entitled to certain commissions on sums of money that went into the 

Treasury after that time. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. No, sir ; on sums of money that had gone into 

the Treasury before that. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Not all. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. Yes, all. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I think the gentleman is mistaken. That was just the trouble with the Secretary. Therefore, the Secretary of the 

Treasury, taking into account the sum to be awardeu uetween this 
1596 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 3, 

party and his successor, gave one part to one of them and the other 

to his successor, and in that aiTangement the successor of this gentleman received this sum of money. 

Now, it can haJ"dly be supposed that the Secretary of the Treasury 

would make a decision so unfair to the Government as that one party should receive all of the commissions while at the same time 

another party. is entitled to a portion of the commissions. 

This involves a principle of considerable importance. The question should go to the Court of Claims, to be decided there. The rea- son why I am more pertinacious is because the matter was within 

the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims for a long time after this claim 

accrued, and yet this gentleman did not seem to think it proper or necessary to avail himselfofthat tribunal. I think he should have 

gone into the Court of Claims. This presents a question of law for 

the House to decide, which if decided one way overrules the decision 

of the Secretary of the Treasury'. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. :Mr. Chairman, I have but a word to say in 

response to the gentleman from Indiana. Here is an unlettered man, 

who perhaps did not understand the law as well as my friend from 

Indiana, who has ueen here for four or :five sessions of Congress trying to get relief, and now to tell him that he should have gone into 

the Corut of Claims I think is a gross injustice. 

1\fr. HOLMAN. I will make the motion which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That the bill be report.ed to the House with the recommendation that it be re· committed to the Committee on Claims with instructions to amend the bill so ~ to refer the subject and question of law to the Court of Claims. 

The question being taken on Jltlr. HOLl\fAJ.'\18 motion, there were- ayes 12, noes 40. 

So the motion was not agreed to. 

1\fr. HOLMAN. I think there should be a quorum to decide upon a question like this. I will not, however, insist on a quorum, but 

will ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. HuTCHINS] when this 

goes to the House to admit a motion to recommit before the previous 

question is called. . M:r. HUTCHINS. I agree to do so. Mr. HOLMAN. That is quite satisfactory. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it d? pass. 

LIEUTENLU.'T HENRY R. LEl\fLY. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I ask that by unanimous consent i.he Commit. 

tee of the Whole House take up for consideration the joint resolution (H. R. No. 54) to authorize Lieutenant Henry R. Lemly, United 

States Army, to accept a position under the Govel'nment ofthe United 

S\ates of Colombia. 

I think it will take but a moment. It is recommended by the Secretary of War. His letter and the repol't of the Adjutant-General, 

which are given in the report of the committee, state what the facts are. The joint resolution simply gives an officer who had sick 

leave of absence the permission to accept a position as instructor 

while in the United States of Colombia, which pel'mission is toterminate on the 1st of _April, 1883. · There being no objection, the joint resolution was read, as follows: 

Resolved, &c., That Lieutenant Henry R. Lemly, of the United States Army, be, 

and he is hereby, permitted to accept !rom the Government.ofthe United States 

of Colombia a. position of instructor at the military school at Bogota. 

The joint resolution was reported by the Committee on Military 

Affairs with the following amendment: 

.Add to the joint re.'!olution these words: 

"f\rovided, however, Tbat the permission hereby given shall be held to termi- nate on the 1st day of April, 1883." 

The amendment was agreed to ; and the joint re olution as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

HEIRS OF COLONEL STEPHEN H. LONG. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

2756) to settle the claim of the heirs of the late Colonel Stephen II. 

Long, of the United States Topographical Engineers. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Be it tmacted, <f:c., That the claim of William D. Long andLucyL. Breckenrid~e, 

cbildre.n and heirs of Colonel Stephen H. Long, for compensation for the adoptiOn 

and use by the United States Government of a certain invention in relation to the 

improvement of rivers and harbors made by said Stopheu H. Long, and for which 

he obtained letters-patent numbered 31811, under the description of" dredging ma- chine," be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, which court is 

hereby vested with jurisdiction in the premises, and whose duty it shall be to hear 

and determine whether said Colonel Stephen H. Lonl!n was the inventor of said 

dredging machine, and what amount of compensation, u any, his said children auc.l 

heirs are justly entitled to receive from the United States for the use of his said 

invention before or since the date of his letters-patent for the same up to the time 

of atl,judieatiou, and for a full and entire transfer of said patent to the United 

States· and in rletermining tbe am01mt to be so paid for the use of said invention, and the transfer of the patent therefor, the court shall take into consideration the 

fact that while the saicl Stephen H. Long was en,:!:aged in perfecting said invention 

he w~s in the service of the U~t~d States as an officer of Topographical Engineers: Provtdecl, That the amount to be allowed by the Court of Claims for the use and 

transfer of said invention shall not exceed $20.000. Either party may appeal from 

the ,judgment of said Court of Claims to the Supreme Court of the United States 

within ninet.y davs after the rendition of such judgment, as in other cases of ap- peal; and any judgment rendered in favor of the claimants shall be paid in manner as other judg)llents of said Court of Claims ; and the payment of the same shall vest the right to said patent in the United States. 

The report was read, as follows : 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred tho bill (11. R. No. 2756) to settle 

the claim of the heirs of Colonel Stephen H. Long, have had the same under con- sideration, and report: 

Stephen H. Long was colonel in the Army of the United States, and was in the 

department of Topographical Engineers. On the 26th of :March, 1861, he was ~nted 

by the Go>ernment a patent for aili·edgingmachine, called" Long's scraper. ' This 

patent is Tecorded in volume 127, page 24 of records of patents, Interior Depart· 

ment, and is numbered 31811. Colonel Long remained in the service of the Gov- ernment till his death, on the 4th of September, 1864. The Engineer Department 

found the scraper of great advantage in the works at the mouth of the Mississippi River, before the war and before it was patented. It was then used by the inventor, who was in charge of tha.t work. Since his 

death it has been used in the improvement of the Upper Mississippi, and found to be very serviceable. It is still being used by the Engineer Department of the Go>- ernment. Colonel Macomb, of the Engineers, says: 

" There has never been a. question as to the usefulness of 'Lon~·s scraper' in 

affording the temporary relief to navigation of the Upper Mississippi River, as described in the written report of Captain Davis; and that sort f)f relief will be 

required in every season of low water until a permanent syste)ll of improvement of 

the Upper Mississippi shall have been provided for and executed, as contemplated 

in the reports and estimates from this office for improving transportation routes to the seaboard." 

Captain Davis, of the engineers, says he bas used "Long's scraper," and testifies to its efficiency, and the great advantage the Government has derivell from 

its use in the Upper Mississippi River; he recommends the continuance of theu!'le 

of said scraper. 

There is no doubt of the efficiency of the scraper; il.s constant use by the Gov- ernment proves that. It is contended by some of the Army officers and others that, as Colonel Lon"" was an officer in the Army a.nd in the pay of the Government, he was not entitJea to pa:v for the use of his patent during his life-time. However 

that may be, after hls aea.th the Government had DO right to use his patent with· 

o11t payment to his heirs. This patent is property which they have inherited from 

their ancestor, and they are unller no such obligations to the Government as it is 

contended their father was. They therefore ask permission to go before the Court 

of Claims and recover, if they can, compensation for the use of said scraper or dredging machine. To this request we think they have a right to a favorable 

response; and we therefore report back the bill to the House, and recommend its passage. 

Jltlr. BRAGG. This bill belongs to a class of applications to Congress which it has been my fortune heretofore to oppose, and I ha1·dly 

feel willing to allow this bill to pass without stating what the objections to it in my judgment are. This officer was an officer of the Army of the United States. H,., was educated at the expense of the United States, educated at the 

school at West Point, wherein he graduated as an engineer, undertaking for the pay which the Government gave him, and for the ed uc a- tion which they had given him, to use his brains and his ability at 

all times and under all circumstances for the Government that had 

educated him. He was assigned to duty as an engineer in charge of 

public improvements involving the question of dredging, and by the 

education which the Government gave him, and in the discharge of 

his dnty as an offic6r superintending such work, he devised, as au aid 

to him in the discharge of hi duty, this system of dredging, which 

he had patentetl. .A.nd I maintain, sir, that so far as the Government 

of the United States is concerned they ought not to be required to 

pay for that invention to him, which was the result of the education 

which they gave him and the application of the principles of that 

education to the department of work to which he was assigned in the 

discharge of hi duty. The fact that it is necessary to come to 

Congress for a bill to authorize these claimants to go to the Court of 

Claims sho-ws that there was no provision in the law by which a rem- edy against the Government of the United States was secured by law. 

Therefore, when we are called upon to pass a law to give a court jurisdicti-on to take up a case of this kind, I think we ought to consider 

the circumstances attendant upon the case; and if we find the invention, as this is, to be the product of the education given by the United 

States, we should decline to give any court jurisdiction to render a judgment against the United States. 

1\Ir. MORRISON. The gentleman from Wisconsin has tated very 

clearly and very fairly the manner in which this claim ori~inates. 

This Colonel Long was an officer ofthe .A.rmy, and while in tne performance of his duties he invented this machine, which has been found 

to be useful and valuable to the Government of the United States, 

and which is still in use by them. Now, the very fact that the Government of the United States patented this machine called "Long's 

scraper" to Long was evidence that under the law the property was his. I do not know the object of a patent unless it is to secure to a man his own invention and his own property. I do not know, in fact, 

what more I can say as to this claim. 

This bill is an exact copy of the bill in what is called the Dahlgren 

case, a case considered here in the House and reported favorably by 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Jitir. HARRis,] the chairman ofthe 

Committee on Naval Affairs. It will be remembered that in that case Admiral Dahlgren, while in the service of the United States as a Navy officer, invented certain. ordnance, anti the Government 

availed it-self of that invention, a.Ld used it both before and after it was patented. .A.nd the Con!ITess of the Unitetl Sta,tes authorized 

him to go into the Court of cTaims and establfsh what he reasonably ought to have for that invention and that property which was vested 

in_him by reason ofhis patent. 

:Mr. HUMPHREY. I desire to say in connection with this case that 

if a man is educated by the Government and any patent that he invents belongs to the Government, it seems to me it would operate 

to prevent the bringing into requisition that skill which the party 

perhaps has obtained by rea on of the Government having educated 
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1597 

him. And another point, it eems to me, is this: that if I should educate a man and he should happen to get up an important iuventi<,n, 

the natural consequence would be according to the principle which 

has been laid down in this case, that his invention belonged to me because I educated him. I hope no such principle will obtain here. The Government educates a man to draw out of him all that is in 

him, and if he has the brains to bring forward an importa,nt invention that is of benefit to the country, I say that which emanates from 

his brain belongs to him, is his property, and does not belong to any 

one eb;e. 

Mr. MILLS. l\Iy friend from Wisconsin [Mr. BRAGG] has stated 

that this man, Colonel Long, was educated at the expense of the Government of the United States, which I do not deny. And he contends, as do a great many others, that whatever invention this offi cer may 

have made while he was a salaried officer of the United States and 

under the pay of the Government it is right for the Government to 

use it withont any payment to him. 

Now, I will not undertake to make any issue with the gentleman on that question in this case. I do not agree with him, but it is un- necessary in the disposition of this case for me to take issue with him on that point, because the facts show that the Government of the 

Unit-ed States has taken this patent and used it after the death of 

Long, and when the patent belonged to his children. My understanding of the object of ~ranting a pa.te.pt, as my friend 

from Illinois [Mr. MORRISON] says, 1s that it is for the purpose of 

giving to the patentee the exclusive right of proprietorship in the 

patented article, as well against the Government as against the whole 

world, wherever the jurisdiction ofthe Government extend. 

What a piece of nonsense it would be for the Government to gra'.lt 

to a man the exclusive proprietorship in an article, and then to take 

that article away from him. If the Government did noli int nd that 

he should enjoy tht> rights that follow the grant of cxclu 'ive proprietorship conveyed by a patent it should not have stultified itself 

by giving him such a grant. 

Now, to test the matter: does the Government of the United States 

still pay the salary of Stephen H. Long to his children ? TlJ ground 

upon which gentlemen claim here that the Government ha ' the right 

to us€1 thiR inv ntion of Long is that he was a pensioned officer of 

the Government, that the Government had educated him to discharge 

these duties. Doe~ the Government still carry him upon its rolls and 

pay him 7 Does the Government pay his children now that he is iu 

his grave f Is that argument sound as against the children of Long' 

What ri~ht has the Government to take this property from the 

ehild who inherited it from his father and to continue to use it without paying for it' It has the right which the brigand has on the 

highway. It has no other right on earth to take the property of the 

child bt>r.:mse it educated his father than ha the brigand who on the highway puts his pistol to the head of the traveler and demands 

his goods. 

l\Ir. BRAGG. I am a great deal surprised at the judicial intellect 

of my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. HuMPHREY] and at the legal 

attainments of my friend from Texas [~Ir. MILLS] which have been 

brought to boar upon the question I have presented for the consideration of the House. 

Both of those gentlemen, with all their sagacity and clo e application, have entirely omitted to see the point which I made. And one of them has run o:tf on one tangent, and the other, in order to bal- ance him, started off on another tangent. One comes in here with a brigand and a baby, and the other comes in with a sort of judicial 

equity, and t.hey proceed to consider the case. Now, sir I have beard all this sort of argument before. I heard 

it pressed here in the Dahlgren case, that had been defeated ses~:~ion after se sion. I heard it when the Dahlgren case was actually forced 

through this House by the u.,e of parliamentary practices which 

ought never to have obtained. And the very next day after the passage of that bill an envelope was sent to me containing info1·mation 

which showed that discoveries had been made proving the utter 

groundlessness of the entire claim. 

The point I made is this: the Government educated th.Ls man for an engineer, under the contract that as an engineer he would serve the Government faithfully. The Government assigned him to duty as an eng-ineer. When he reached the place where he was to discharge his duty had he a right to seat himself down and say : "If I use my brains I can do this work ; but as an officer of the Army I am not required tons~ my brains, and I will therefore sit here until 

somebody else comes alon~ with brains enough to prepare means which I can utilize to pertorm this work." Had he a right to do 

that¥ No. 

Now, what was his duty as an engineer? It was to proceed with 

that work, and in doing lt to use the best mea,ns which the education given him by the Government suggested to his inventive brain 

to employ. Having applied his brains to the work, having prepared 

the means for perfmming t,he work, then those means, so far as the 

Government was concerned, became Government property. ·when, at a subsequent time, he received a patent for his invention, I maintain that he received it subject to the use of the United 

States without payment of royalty. [Mr. MILLS rose.] Wait one moment. That is the English law. I cannot now turn to the case, 

but if any gentleman der;>ires to refer to i>t he will find a report made 

by the Committee on Military Affairs in the Forty-sixth Congress, 

written by myself, in reply to an application for the payment of $40,000 

for the discovery of a method of eros ing streams, which an officer 

of th Army had discovered in the Oregon campaign against the 

Rogue Ri\-er Indians. That officer claimed ~is right to demand payment from the GoYernment for his discovery of t.he pra-cticabilit.y of 

oro!!! ing streams by means of ponton-boats. That officer was Captain Buchanan. Congress has recognized impliedly that the right to u e without the payment of royalty exists, because there is no provision by which any court or anybody else ever had any jurisdiction 

to render judgment againl!!t the United State in such case . In all 

other ca es where liability on the part of the Government ha.s been 

recognized jurisdiction has been conferred on the Court of Claims. That no jurisdiction is conferred for cases of this kind is patent be- cause we are now asked t.o confer jurisdiction. Still further: in 1 67 or 1868 Congress, in order to prevent any further question upon this subject, passed a law reserving expressly to 

the United States the right to u e these patents without royalty. If we go on in this way, what do we do Y We have an ordnance office 

here in Washington. It is said by inventors (I do not know how 

truly) that no improvement in arms can be introduced unless the 

invention comes through somebody c<mnected with the Ordnance Department; that all private citizens who make snob inventions have 

to hold them subject to the action ofthe OI·dnanceDepartment, which 

is liable to condemn them. Every little while we find an invention 

coming out of the Ordnance Department, sometimes taken out in the name of the officer himself, at other times in the name of one of his 

employe , by whom it is subsequently transferred to him. Thus we find officers of the A.l·my coming here and making application for 

pl-l.ymeut for the use of their inv ntions in respect to arms, caps, &c. Though the very purpose of putting them into this department was their supposed special adaptation for it, select-ions for the En~ineer 

a.nd Ordnance Departments being made from the graduates ot West 

Point in order to give us the ben fit of their brains, yet in a few 

years they come here under one pretext or another and ask us to pay 

them in addition to their official compensation large sums for the use of tht>ir inventions. I say that such a policy ought not to be tolerated by Congress. The CHAlRl\IAN. If there be no objection, this bill will be laid 

aside to be reported favorably to the House. The Chair hears none. The Clerk proceeded to read the title of the next uill on the Calendar. 

1\Ir. BRAGG. What has become of the bill just under consideration f 

The CHAIRl\IAN. The Chair stated t,hat if there were no objec- tion, the bill would be laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

Mr. BRAGG. I suppo ed I had made an objection. 

l\Ir. MORRISON. I suppose the Chair took it for granted that the 

gentleman from Wisconsin would be satisfied with working this man as long as he lived, and did not want to work him after he is dead. 

The question bei-ng taken on laying the bill aside to be reported 

to the House with a recommendation that it pass, there were-ayes 

28 noes 24. irr. BRAGG. I call for tellers. 

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. BRAGG and l\Ir. l\liLLS were appointed. 

The committ-ee divided; and the tellers reporiied-aye 62, noes 28. 

So the bill was laid aside to he reported to the House with a recom- mendation that it pass. 

JOSEPH L. STEVENS. 

The next bu ine son the Private Calendarwas the bill(H. R. No. 

1014) for the relief of Joseph L. Stevens. The bill was read, a follows : 

Be it enacted, cf:c., That the -proper officers of the Post-Office DeJJartment are hereby authorized and directed to crectitin the account of Jo eph L. Stevens, post- mast-er at Manchester, New Hampshire, the sum of$3,285, being the value of cer· tain postage-stamps which were stolen from the safe in said post-office on or about 

the 16th day of June, A. D. 1877, without the fault or negligence of said postmaster. 

Mr. HOLMAN . . I think the report ought to be read. The report was r ead, as follows : 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Joseph L. SteveDR, ha>e considered the same, and respectfully report: Petitioner is postmaster of Manchester, New Hampshire. June 16, 1877, he 

deposited forty-seven hundred and eighty.five dollars' worth of stamps in a s:=tfe 

in his oflice beiongi.Bg to the Government. June 26, 18n, it was disco>ered that 

three packages of these stamps, worth $3,285, were missing. He asks to be reli ved 

from the loss. The only persons who had the privilege of acce s to the safe were the postmaster, the ass1 tant po tmaster, and a clerk, who is the postmaster's son. The testimony satisfies us beyond a doubt that all three of these officials h..we 

~::IJ ~~t_ tl:,e ftf~: ~ ~a:!~ter, and that there is no reason that any suspicion 

The stamps were kept in one of the compartments of the safe. l:ipofford, the as is tan t, t estifies : "On the 16th clay of June, 1877, there-were deposited in the1owerleft-band apart- ment of aid safe postage-stamps of the amount and denominations as follows: 

2 packages of 50,000 t~rees each ...... ------·· . . ...... -.. __ .. . . _ ..... . _ ..... $3,000 

1 package of 40,000 threos _ .. _ .. __ - __ ... __ .• -......... _ .... __ ......... _ . _ . _. 1, 200 

1 package containing 20,000 twos, 2,000 sixe , 650 tens ...•. .. ·--- . . .. -··-·.. 585 

4, 785 

" That on said day I took from said compartments fifty ten.cent stamps for sale, and observed the packages to be all pro ent. I did not have occa ion to observe 

th o e particular packages again until the 26t.b of said June, when I discovered that 

all but one package, containiug50,000 tllree5, weremissiDg. The package beiDg in 
1598 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

the lower part of the safe, their absence would not be so readily disco'\'ered as if 

located higher in the safe. unless attention was particularly called to this apart- ment ; but I am very confident that they conld not have been taken any considerable len~h of time before the discovery of the theft. The three upper packages 

weTe taKen , leaving the bottom one undisturbed. During business hours it was our custom to leave the safe unlocked, as it is necessary to nave access to some portion of its contents at all hours of the day, and it is impracticable to lock and unlock 

it every time a{l(less is had to it." 

The Post-Office Department was promptly nottiied by petitioner of his loss and 

dispatched a special agent to Manchester, who reported as follows: 

"BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, February 8, 1878. 

"SIR: I have the honor to return case No. 2107 B, and to inform you that I have 

made personal inve ti~~tion and search relating to the loss of postage-stamps from 

the MancheRter, Jew .tl.ampshire, post-office. "I found that the postmaster, J. L. Stevens, took account of the number of his 

stamps that were kept in the safe in the office J nne 16, and at that time the amount wa8 correct. On J nne 26, when he again made an examination, he found that two original packages and parts of broken packages, amounting in the total to $3,285, 

namely: 

200 sheets two-oontstampg ------. -··- ... ---- . . . -- ... -··---........ -... -. $400 00 900 sheets three-cent stamps. ---- ........ . ............. ------ ....... ----. 2, 700 00 20 sheets six-cent stamps .................. . _........................... 120 00 ~ sheets ten-cent stamps...... .. ...................... . ............... 65 00 

were missing. He at once commenced a thorough search for the same, but failed to find any tra-ce. The postage-stamps were kept by him in the safe at the office, the safe being kept open during office hours. Beside the stamps there was kept in the safe money-order funds, post-office money, and his private funds. Nothing 

but the stamps was molested. At no time between the 16th and 26th of June (at 

which latter time he discovered his loss) was the safe without a large sum of money 

in the same, and yet no money was taken. The safe was located in the office, 

about twenty feet from the office window, where the clerks at all times are em- ployed. and about fifteen feet from a rear door. · During t,he warm weather this 

door was left open, and at a part of the day (6 to 7 p.m.) there was at times but one clerk on duty, and at no other time of the day or when the office was open 

wonld there be le s than four of the employes present. " The only theory as to the loss arrived a twas, thatduringthetimet.berewas only one clerk in the office, his attention being called to the window for stamps or money-orders, and back being turned to the safe, some one came into the office 

through the rear door, stepped to the safe, and stole the packages. As ten days had passed between the time of Mr. Stevens knowing his amount of stamps 

in the safe and the discovery of his loss, we found it impossible to arrive at any 

conclusion who the depredator was. Every effort has been made by Mr. Stevens 

and myself to find some clue to the loss. He has employed private detectives and 

devoted his own time in following every trace and studymg every theory, but 

without success. "Mr. Stevens has hel(l the office of postmaster for the last eight years, and has 

the best of records, is an industrious and energetic man. alwa~ s at his post, and 

this is the only serious trouble that has occurred at his office during his term, " From the thorough investigation made by me, and after a. close study of all 

the faets relating to this loss, I am satisfied that he gave the same care to the De- partment's property intrusted to him that he did to his own, a at no time but 

what there were his personal funds and funds to the money-order department in 

the safe. 

" In summing up, I can only add, that after a moRt thorough search and investigation no trace of the stamps or depredators could be found. " Very respectfully, "CHARLES FIELD, '' Special Agent Post- O.Jfice Depat'tlnent. "DAVID B. PARKER, 

" Chief Specia:f. Agent Post-Office Department, WaBhington, D. C." 

We have also examined aplanoftheoffice. We are of the opinion that the petitioner u ed ordinary care and the same that he took of his own property; he had on hand only the usual amount of stamps ; we find that said theft was committed 

without fault on the part of the claimant in the opinion of your committee; he took 

prompt. and active meaSDI·es upon the discovery of the loss to find out and appre- hend the thief and recover the stolen property, and employed the best detectives at home and in Boston, at large expense, but without avail, and that he ought to be 

relieved from the loss. 

The claim of said Joseph L. Stevens was presented in both Houses of the Forty· 

fifth Congress, and referred to both the House and Senate Committee on Claims 

respectivcly, by whom the matter was fully heard and investigated, and their con- clusions and findings embodied in Senate Report No. 789 (by Senator HoAR) and House Report No. 33, third session, Forty-fifth Congress, (byRepre entative.Ellsworth ;) also in the Forty-sixth Congress, second session, by the House Committee on Claims, report No. 874, (by Representative Barber.) 

All of said committees unanlmously recommended t.he passage of a bill allowing the 

claim. The Senate bill was dnly passed by that body, but failed of passage in the House being received so late in the session that it was not rea{lhed for action. 

'Ve report the accompanying bill, and recommend it.s passage. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I am aware, sir, that it seems to be the present 

policy of the House of Representatives to pass this class of bills; but 

I wish to call attention to this measure and the report accompa.nying 

it as indicating where we are drifting in relieving public officers from 

liability. The report of the special agent of the Post-Office Department, who was sent to inquire into the circumstances of this case, 

says: 

I am satisfied that heThis postmastergave the same care to the Department's property intrusted to him that he did to his own. 

The committee state: 

We are of the opinion that the petitioner used ordinary care and the same that 

he took of his own property. 

The question whether Congre s is prepared to relieve a public officer from loss by robbery committed by some person unknown, when 

the fact appears that he simply used ordinary care in the custody of 

the pnulic property intrusted. to him, has never been so well presented as it is in this case. lfitis understood that a public officer who 

loses Government funds intrusted to him, and in regard to which he 

has simply exercised ordinary care, is to be relieved of liability, it is 

not at all surprising that these defalcations and embezzlements are crowding upon us in unexampled number. 

I do not think it improper for me to say that twenty years ago a 

mea ure like this could not have received the sanction of Congress, 

as the earlier history of our Government fully demonstrates. At that 

time a public officer was held to the highest diligence in the discharge of his public duties. It was held that public property placed 

in his care was entitled to receive the highest degree of protection 

which human capacity and intelligence could bestow upon it. lf 

Congress had confined itself to the practice of relieving from loss by 

robbery or embezzlement public officers who had used the highest 

(legree of care, perhaps such a policy could not have been condeUlllP.d 

except upon the single ground thatthisrelieffrom responsibility might 

tend to weaken the inducement on the part of public officials to 

extreme vigilance. 

But, independently of that, the rule I have allnded to is not an unreasonable one, that if it shall be shown in the fulfillment of his 

public trust and public duty he has brought to the task the highest 

degree of ability and vigilance of which he wa-s capable, and which 

might properly belong to a man of fair intelligence, that then he is 

to be relieved, and perhaps no public interest would suffer. But to 

relieve him on the mere showing that he has simply used ordinary care of the public property is going beyond what I think is safe. I 

cannot vote for such a bill; I cannot vote to relieve a public officer 

from such loss upon the ground merely that he has used ordinary 

caTe in protecting the property of the Government. 

I do not think this bill ought to pass. I am aware ouT practice is 

to act on the report of the committee, and finally we act on t he jndgment of a single member. For, as tomattersoffact and as to the terill.E! 

in which the report is couched, that report is, a-s we all know, the 

determination j1Ild judgment of a single gentleman. Yet as a general thing these bills are passetl. I have not known during the present session of Congress a single bill defeated that proposed to relieve a public officer from embezzlement. While this policy continues, 

and we relieve gentlemen from responsibility for makin~ use of only 

ordinary care, who shall complain if fraud, dishonor, ana. dishonesty 

shall everywhere pervade the public service. 

l\fr. RAY. l\fr. Chairman, I hope the House will not look upon this case unfavorably, merely because the honorable gentlelllan t:rom Indiana t,hinks there was a want of proper care under the circum tances. 

Perhaps the language used in the report to describe the degree of care actually taken of this stolen property by the postmaster of Manchester is a little inaccurate, and <loes not convey to everybody precisely the idea intended by the committee. I have been taught to 

believe, sir, that "ordinary care" is a relative term in the law; that 

what would be ordinary and sufficient care in respect to common things or articles of small value might not be ordinary care in respect 

to the custody of a large sum of money or other valuable property 

deposited with a per on for safe-keeping. 

Now, the reason why this particular expression was made use of in 

the report, probably/ was because the legal definition and interpretation of the phrase ' ordinary care" has been established in my sec- tion of the country by the more recent and best-considered judicial 

decision to mean that degree of care which a prudent person takes 

of his own property. 

In my judgment, if this postmaster, being a depositary of public 

property, took as good care of that which was stolen out of his cus- tody-considering its value and what it consisted of-as a prudent man would take of his own, then he completely filled the legal measure of what was required of him, whether you call it ordinary or extraordinary care. When this House, by a large majority on both sides, has exoner- ated and relieved the assistant treasurer of the Government at 

Boston, who had millions of the public money in his keeping, from an admitted embezzlement thereof by one ofhis subordinates amounting to more than $500,000, it will not, I trust, stultify itself by refns · ing to apply substantially the same principle, or to extend the same relief to a New Hampshire postmaster, shown to be free from fault or ne~ligence, for the robbery of postage-stamps, quite small and insignificant in amount when compared with the Chandler case at Boston 

before referred to. According to the evidence laid before the committee, Mr. Stevens 

is a man of most excellent character. Among those who certify to 

his honesty, integrity, and efficiency as a public officer are Hon. 

Samuel N. Bell, formerly a member of this body; Hon. James A. Wet~­

tou, formerly a governor of New Hampshire; Judges Stanley and 

Clark of the New Hampshire supreme court, all Democrats residing 

in the same city with Mr. Stevens; also, Hon. Daniel Clark, formerly a United States Senator, now Umted States district judge for New 

Hampshire; Judge I. W . Smith, ofour Statesupremecourt; ex-Gov- ernors Smyth, Shaw, and Cheney, all of Manchester, and many others, 

among the most prominent business men of both political parties in 

that city, who have had occasion daily t~ transact business with 1\fr. 

Stevens, both in an official and private capacity. No man has ever 

come before Congress with better certificates of character for honesty 

and for faithfulness in the discharge of duty than 1tfr. Stevens. The 

bill ought to pa8S. Mr. Chairman, I now move it be laid aside to l>e reported to tlito 

House with the recommendation that it be passed. Mr. HOLMAN. Let us have a vote on t hat motion. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 52, noes 11. 

Mr. HOLMA.i~. No quorum has voted. Several ME~fBERS. Do not make that point. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I do not wish to break the quorum, but I am anx-
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1599 

ions the views of Congress on a question like this shall be clearly 

defined. If there is no objection to having a yea-and-nay vote on the 

passage of the bill in the llouse, I will withdraw my demand for a quorum. 

l\lr. RAY. If the gentleman insists on a vote in the House by.yeas 

and nays, and that will satisfy him, of course we cannot object. 

Mr. HOLMAN. If that is agreed to, there is no objection. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. If the gentleman will be satisfied with the vote 

in the House, very well. 

:Mr. HOLMAN. Certainly; and with that understanding I do not 

make the point of order that no quorum has voted. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears no objection, and the bill i laid 

aside to be reported to the House with the recommenuation it do 

pass. JULIAETT PRESCOTT. 

The next lmsine on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

3541) directing the issue of a check on the Pequonnock National Bank 

in place of one heretofore issued to Juliaett Prescott, a pensioner of 

the United States, and lost. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Whereas the Pequonnock National Bank of Bridgeport, which in titution i 

located at the city of .Bridgeport, county of Fairfield, State of Connecticut, on the 

4th day of October, 1879, mailed a letter directed to the National Shoe and Leather 

Bank of New York City, inclosing, with other checks and coupons, a draftdra.wn 

bv D. W. Gooch, pension agent, dated October 3, 1879, on the assist.ant treasurer of the United States at the city of Bo ton, Stat.e of Massachusetts, numbered 

134210, pavable to the order of, and indorsed by, Juliaett Prescott, for the sum of 

$1.318.46, 'vhich check was cashed by said Pequonnock Nationalllmlk of the city of Brid~eport, in Connecticut, and made payable to said National oe and Leather 

Bank or the city of -ew York; and - Whereas said draft, with the other checks and coupons mailed with the same, were lost while being transmitted by mail f1·om said city of Bridgeport to said city of 

NewYork; and 

Whereas duplicates have been issued for the other checks and coupons mailed 

with the abo>e-described draft, but no duplicate has been issued for such ru·aft, 

no1· has the same been ever found or paid: Therefore, 

B e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

.America in Congress assembled. That the pension agent at the city of BoRton, in the tate of Massachusett , be, and he hereby is, instructed toi. sue a check for $1,31 .46 

in favor of said Peqnonnock National Bank, in lieu of the one lo t in the mail 

October 4. 1879, as aforesaid: Provided, That said bank shall first execute a bond, 

with sufficient sureties, to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, for $2,000, to hold the United States harmless against loss, cost, or damage on account of said 

original check. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Clailns, to whom wa referred the bill (H. R. No. 83) directin • the issue of a duplicate check to JuUaett Prescott, having had the same under 

eonsideration, beg leave to submit the following report: It appears that Juliaett Prescott. of Connecticut, a pensioner, hanng received a check for $1,318.46 from D. W. Gooch, United States pension agent at Boston, 

Massachusetts, dated October 3, 1879, numbered 134210, drawn on the United 

States assistant treasurer at Boston, payable to her order, negotiated said check 

by indorsement to the Pequonnock National Bank of Bridgeport, Connecticut., and 

received of said bank the full amount thereof. Said bank, the next day, namely, October 4, 1879, inclosed said draft in a letter directed to the National Shoe and 

Leather Bank of the city of New York, together with other checks and coupons, 

the same having been duly indorsed and made payable to said National Shoe and 

Leather Bank. The letter was lost and the contents never received. The Pequon- noc k National Bank asks to have another check issued in place of the lost one, and 

is ready to indemnify the Trea. ury therefor, but the laws of the United State.~ 

(Revised Statutes, sections 3646, 3647) do not provide for issuing a duplicate check to replace a lost one for a sum larger than $1,000; wherefore the Pequonnock Bank 

prays for the passage of an act authorizing the issue of a duplicate check in order 

that they may receive back the money they advanced in good faith to said J uliaett 

Prescott. 

No good reason occurs t<> your committee why the relief prayed f01· should not be granted by authorizing the pension a~ent at Bost.on (from who e office was isRued tlle lost check) to issue another of me same amount payable directly to the 

Pequonnock National Bank, provided the said bank shall first execute a bond, 

with sufficient sureties, to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, in the sum of $2,000, to save the United States harmless against loss, cost, or damage on account of the original check. Your committee therefore report the following bill as a substitute for the one referred to us, (H. R. No. 83,) and recommend its passage. 

Mr. RAY. I move to strike out the preamble. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Has the gentleman any particular object in striking out the preamble T 

Mr. RAY. Only to save space in the statute-book. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House 

with the recommendation that it do pass as amended. 

TIMOTHY E. ELLSWORTH. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (II. R. No. 

1143) for the relief of Timothy E. Ellsworth. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Be it enacted, cf:c., That the Secretary of the Treasnry be, and is hereby, authorized and directed, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to refund to Timothy E. Ellsworth, late collector of customs at the port of Sns~ension Bridge, New York, the sum of$2,580.50, being the balance of moneys paid mto the Treasury of the United States by mistake by the said Ellsworth during the 

fiscal years 1870 and 1871. 

The report was road, as follows: 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1143) for 

t.he relief of Timothy E. Ellsworth, respectfully report as follows : Timothy E. Ellsworth was collector of customs at the port of Suspension Bridge, New York, from March 5, 1870, to 1878. Entering upon the duties of his office, be 

found a letter from the Treasury Department, directing that all moneys, of every description, received by the collector not received by warrant on the Treasury 

should be turned over to the United States, or that they would be charged against him. By law he was entitled to ~etain for his own compensation as collector out 

of his receipts from storage a sum not exceeding $2,000 per annum, and sufficient to make his yearly compensation from all sources equal to $4,500. 

Not being fully advised of hi rights, and unwilling to enter into a conte t with 

his superior officers. Ellsworth obeyed in tructious. The result was that during 

his entire term of office he received less than $2,600 per annum, when he was entitled by law to $4 500 tor each year he served. 

At or near the close of hi term of office he brought suit in the Court of Claims 

for moneys exacted from him by the Trea ury order. The court rendered a Lmau- imonsjudgment in his favor for the moneys so paid by him sub eqnent to June 30, 1871, this being all that wa within their jurisdiction to consider or render judg- ment. for under the tatute of limitations applicable to actions in that court. (Soo 

14 Court of Claims Reports, 382.) The case then went t() the Supreme Court, and 

the decision of the court below was unanimously affirmed. (SeelOl United States ~J~~rts, 170.) The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Clift'ord delivering the opinion, 

"Peremptory instructions were gi>en to the officer that all moneys. of every description, not received by wa1Tant on the Treasury mnst be actually deposited. * * * His compensation at~ received wasderive(l wholly from the other statutor-y sources of emolument, the findings of the court showing that he was not P,aid any 

thing out of the yearlyamountscollectedfromrentandstorage. * * * l'he pay- ments in question mrulo under the peremptory order of the commissioner cannot be 

regarded as volunt~ in the sen ·e thaL the party making them is thereby pre- cluded from maintaining an action to reco>er back so much of the money paid as he was entitled to retain. Call it mistake oflaw or mistake of fact, the principles of equity forbid the United States to withhold the same from the rightful owner." 

As there is no dispute about the facts in the case. and a the exact amount of 

Ellsworth's money paid into the Treasury is stated by the upreme Court, and as he has only received a part of it, he now a ks Congress to authorize the balance to be returned to him. This balance amounts to $2,580.50, beinrr the amount due him 

for the year 1871 and a part of the year 1870 ; it is now in the Treasury, and yet the 

Supreme Court has decided that it belongs to Ellsworth. 

Undet· these circumstances the simple quesqon is whether the United States will 

retain the money which h~ been legally a certained to belong to a citizen, mtlrely because its reco>ery is baiTed in the Court of Claims. 

Thourrh no statute of limitations concludes the action of Congre s, there are times when, in analogy to the action of the courts, stale claims or those remlered 

doubtful by lapse of time aud the laches of the claimants may properly be disregarded. But your committee are of opinion that this claim is not one of that class, 

and that, under the circnmstan es and the absolute freedom from all donut as to theexact facts, the Government caunothonestlvcontinue to withhold this balance 

fmm the claimant. They therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying 

bill. 

The bill wa laicl a~ide to be reported to the House with the 

recommendation that it do pass. 

WALLACE W. SCREWS. 

The next busine son the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

1957) for the relief of W~:1>llace W. Screws. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Be it enacted, cf:c., That the ecretary of lhe Trea ury be, and he i hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay 'Vallace W. Screw·s. of Montgomer.Y, Alabama, the sum of $365.25, out of any money in the Trea ury not otherwise appropriated. for 

advertising, in 1865, 1866, 1 67, and 1868, by direction of the officer of the United 

States Army commanding the forces of the United States then at Montgomery. Alabama. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1957) for 

the 1·elief of 'Vallace W. Screws, haye had the same under consideration, and 

report: The claimant is the publisher and proprietor of the Montgomery Daily .Advertiser, published at Montgomery, Alabama. In the latter half of the year 1865 he 

published in his paper, by order aJid direction of MaJor-General Henry R. Davies, 

jr., then commanding the United States forces in the military district of Alabama, 

undry adverti ements of sale of Government horses and mules, proposals for bids 

for Army supplies, general orders, and other notices. 

The committee fu:id the everal items composing said claim to be just, not barred 

by lapse of time, and that the claimant has been diligently striving to obtain pay- ment thereof. Your committee therefore recommend the passage of said bill, with an amend- ment striking out "Wallace W. Screws,'· both in the title and body of said bill, 

and inserting in lieu thereof''. William Wallace Screws." 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment recommended 

by t.he committee, which the Clerk will report. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Amend the title and body of said bill by striking out " Wallace W. Screws "aJld 

inserting "William Wallace Screws." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be re1)orted to the House 

with the recollllllendation that it do pass. 

STEAl\IER JACKSON. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was tho bill (H. R. No. 

2156) for the relief of certain owners of the steamer Jackson. 

The bill was read. It is as follows : 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and be is hereby au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasru-y not otlle-rwise 

al?propriated, to A. R. Godwin, the sum of$1,290.17; to John P. tockey, the SUill 

of $1,290.17; to John R. Ely & Co .. the urn of $2.580.36; to Thomas 'M. White, 

survinng partner ofT. and J. M. White, the sum of$2,580.36; to S. and J. E1·win, 

the snm of $2,580.36; and to Elli'lon & Hughes, the sum of $2,580.36, with interest on each of said sums from the 15th day of September, 1871, being the amounts then 

found to be due to said parties, and which were wrongfully paid to Barnett and Fry on their bond of indemnity, which is now held by the Government. 

The report is as follows : 

The Committee on Claims, having had tmder consideration t.he bill (H. R. No. 

2156) for the relief of certain owners of the steamer Jackson, beg leave to report 

thereon as follows: 

This claim was before the Hou eat tho third session of the Forty-sh.-th Congress. and was referred to the Committee on Claims. That committee submitted :t report, 

detailing the circumstances out of which the claim arises, which report tblli com- mittee adopt as their own, substantially as follows: An agreement or charter-party wa entered into on the 18th day of JtUJe, 1865, between the United States and Samuel J. Erwin, agent for Daniel Fry, ouptain, for 

the charter of thb steamer Jackson, which agreement is in words and figru·es as follows: 

"This indenture, made this eighteenth day of June, 1865, betweeD the Uniletl 
1600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.=_HOUSE. 

States Gi>>ernment, of the first part, & Samuel J. Erwin, agent for Daniel Fry, 

captain of steamer Jackson, of the second part, witnesseth- '' Tha.tfor & in consideration of the sum of ninety (90) dollars per day, to be paid 

by the United States Government to Capt. Daniel Fry or his agent, at such times as the government may direct, he, the said Capt. Daniel Fry, does hereby charter 

the !'aid steamer Jackson to run on the Chattahoochie & Apalachicola. Rivers be- tween the cities of Chattahoochie and Eufaula in the service of the United State . He further agree to furnish the crew to run the said steamer Jack on, also the 

rations, fuel, oil, & all other necessary articles for the succes ful operation and 

running of the steamer Jackson, the said steamboat at all times to be Rubject to the oraers of the chief quartermaster Cavalry Corps, M.D. M., until released 

from this contract. The said Capt. Fry does 'hereby bind himself not to carry freight for private parties; he is, however, authorized & :eermltted to carry pas- sengers in the ea bin of said steamer Jackson, so far 38 it will not, in his judgment, 

interfere with the transportation of government property & freight. 

"W.M. E. BROWN, 

" Oapt. 4th Ca•1'ly, & Act'g Oh'j Q. M. Oav'ly Oorps, M. D. M. 

"Sam. J. Erwin, ag't of Daniel Fry, Capt. st'm 'r Jackson. 

"(Written aero s face:) Approved. J. H. Wilson, Maj. Gen'l." 

On or about the 28th day of June, 1865, while the said steamer Jackson was in 

the performance of the foregoing agreement, one Captain M. B. Peters, a special 

agent of the Treasury Department of the United States at Eufaula., Alabama came a board said steamer and commanded the captain thereof to take on board 

and transport a quantity of cotton, about one hundred and fifty bales, belonging to the Government, and consigned to one H. H. Nobles, assistant special Treasury 

agent at .Apalachicola, from EUfaula to said Apalachicola. 

-:Much of this cotton was unbaled and loose. The captain of the steamer Jack- son, for this rea on, protested against taking the same aboard. But the aid PeterR, 

having the military force at hand, and threatening to use it if neces ary to enforce 

his command, the cotton W38 taken aboard, and while the same was being trans- ported to Apalachicola the aid steamer Ja~kson, near Apalachicola, W38 burned, suppo ed to have taken lire from the loo e cotton stored in the engine. It appears that the original stock of !:laid steamer was divided into fifteen shares, 

owned or subscribed for 38 follows: D. Fry, two fifteenths; Farley & Davis, one fifteenth; J. R. Ely, one fifteenth; J. B. tQckey, one thirtieth; A. R. Goodwin, one thirtieth; William J. Davis,jr., one fifteenth; Davis & Wilson, four fifteenths; 

.A. Barnett, one fifteenth; J. Erwin, one-fifteenth; J. F. Hughes, one 1ifl:.eenth · T. & J. M. White, one fifteenth. But one of the shareholders representing on~ fifteenth interest in said vessel failed to pay his share of the expense of construc- tion, and said share was afterward paid out of the earnings of the ve sel by the purser, and it thus became the joint property of the other shareholrlers, thereby 

mcrea.sirig the value of each share from one fifteenth to one fourteenth. 

Suosequent to the burning, to wit, on or about the 20th day of March, 1866, Dans & Wilson, who were the general agents of said steamer, transferred their intere:,t 

therein toBarnettandFry. TheyalsoundertooktotransfertosaidBarnettandFry 

the interests of Messrs. Ely, Lockey, Gi>odwin, Erwin, Hughes, and White, with- out having any special authority for that purpose, but assnmed to make said trans- fer by reason of being the general agents of said steamer. Therefore an applioa.-

ti?n was made to Treas~y Department of the Uni~ States, on or about- day of .August, 1866, by said Aa1·on Barnett and Dan1el Fry for payment for said steamer .Jackson. The matter having been referred to the Thiro Auditor, that 

officer, on fue 15th day of N oTember, 1870, nmdered his decision ther in , in wh1oh 

he held that the accounting officers of the Treasury were prohibited from enter- taining tbe claim. lie said, however, in conclusion: 

"This decision determines no question of material right, but the claimants may appeal on this point or go to Congress, which tribunal, not being embarra ed by any jurisdictional question, can decide upon the liability of the Government under 

tbe contract and the law." An appeal wa-s taken from this decision of the Third Auditor to the Second 

Comptroller, which officer, on the 23d day of March, 1871, rendered an opinion, 

concurring in the decision of the Third .Auditor. ln the mean time the attorney for the claimants submitted a written argument 

in favor of the claim to the Secretary of the Treasury, who, on the 21st day of No- vember, 1870, referred the same to the Second Comptroller. That officer, on the 

22d day of November, 1870, returned said argument to the Secretary, with the 

iudorsementthereon that "in his opinion the settlement of the claim would be con- trary to the views of the Secretary, as expressed by him in a letter addres ed to his office February 8 1870, relating to the claim of Stanton and Palmer." 

Ou the 15th day of December, 1870, the Secretary of the Treasury concnr-red in 

the decision of the Second Comptroller. On the 25th day of April, 1871, the attor- ney of the claimants addre sed a letter to the Second Comptroller, asking a. re- examination of the case, of which the following is a copy: 

"W ABHINGTON, April 25, 1871. 

"SIR: I respectfully request a re-examination of the case of the steamer Jack- son, on the ground that the vessel, being in the United States military service 

nnder contract, it is a case in which jurisdiction is not taken from the Executive 

Department by the a()ts of 1864 and 1867. In support of this view I t·efer to the 

opinion of .Attorney-General Evarts in the 'Rolling Case,' and the recent opinion 

of Attorney-General Akerman explanatory of the acts of1864, 1867, and 1871, sustaining and extending the opinion of .Attorney-General Evarts. "I have the honor to be, your most obedient servant, 

''E. L. KINNEY, 

"SECOND COMPTROLLER United States Treasury." 

" Attorney for Olaimants. 

This letter was referred by t.he Second Comptroller to the Secretary of the Treas- ury, April26, 1871, with the following indorsement: ·• Respectfully referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, together with the following papers: ~eport of the Third Auditor of November 15, 1870, with the decision of tho Second Comptroller indorsed thereon, and the argument of E. L. Kinney 

attorney for claimant, with indorsements of the Secretary of the Treasury and 

Second Comptroller thereon. " Respectfully, 

"J. M. BROADHEAD, OomptroUer. " SECO:l."D COMPTROLLER'S 0F:FICE, April 26, 1871." 

It will be observed from this indorsement that the Secretary of the Tremmry had 

before him the adverse report of the Third Auditor of ovember 15, 1870, with 

the indor ement thereon of the opinion of the Second Comptroller concurring 

therein; the argument of the attorney of claimant, with the adverse opinion of the 

Second Comptroller and the opinion concurring therein of the Secretary of the 

Treasury. 

The Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. William A. Richardson rendered tb~ ~eci~ion of that Department upon the question thus submitted to him, which 

opllllon 1s as follows: " TREASURY DEP ARTIIENT 

" Wa.Yhington, D. 0., April 28, isn. ·• The steamer Jackson was' lost' by' unavoidable accident' while in the military service of the United States by contract, and the owner is entitled to the pay- ment of the value thereof under acts of March 3, 1849, and March 3, 1863, unless 

barred by sub equent acts. "The act of July 4,1864, entitled '.An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court 

of Claims,' uocs not apply to a ca e liko this, because it is not ' a claim g~·owing 

out of the destruction or appropriation of, or damage to property by the Army or Navy,' but by the loss by unavoidable accident while the vessel wa-s in service by co~tract. So tJ;Ie .a()t of February_l9, 1867, does not preveut the payment of this 

claun, because It 1s not 'for supplies or stores taken or furni bed for the use of or 

used by the armies of the United States, nor for the occupation of or injury to real 

estate, nor for the consumption, appropriation, or de truction of or damage to per- sonal P!Operty by the military authorities or troops of the Unit,ed States. ' "This ve sel wa-s not consumed, appropriated, or de troyed by the military 

authoritie . It was lo t by unavoidable accident while in the ervice of the United 

States by contract. " The restricting acts do not appear to be intended to interfere with contract-s made with the Government nor w1th any liabilities growing out of the same, but to ~e enaded to prevent persons in the rebel States from enforcing cer·tain claims 

agamst the Government founded on acts and doings of the military authorities and 

troops of the United States where no contract existed; act and doing! which we1·e 

rather in the na~ure of ~orts, if they had not been by military autbority, or for 

property appropnatoo Without the voluntary consent of the owner. "This view tinds support in the opinion of Attorney-General Evart , volume 

12, page 439. 

"WILLIAM .A. RICHARDSOX." 

The questions of jurisdi<ltion and liability having been thus determined the matter was refen·ed to the Third Auditor by tho Second Comptroller for report as to the value of the steamer. The Third Auditor, on the 9th day of August 1871 

made his report thereon, which concludes as follows : ' ' "I therefore now recommend that the sum of $30,200 be allowed 38 the value of 

the steamer Jackson, and that of that sum Daniel Fry, having origillally owned two fifteenths, purchased ono fii't.eenth of Farley & Davis, and received half of the 

interest of DaV1s & Wilson, to wit, one-half of i:"our fifteenths bein"' the o\vner of 

five fifteenths, should receive the um of five fifteenths of$30,'20H10.066.65--and 

that Aaron Barnett, the owner of four fifteenths. as hereinbefore shown be paid 

the sum of $8,053.32, and that the balance of said sum, to wit, $12,08l.OS, be J1eld 

for further evidence of ownership of remaining interest in aid teamer." 

The second Uomptroller, on the 15th day of -september, 1871, acknowledrred the 

receipt of th 'ftport of the Third Auditor, which. with the other papers in tife ca e, 

~v~;!f.:! ret\l..med to the Third .Auditor, with his opinion upon the t,wo qu tion 

First, as to the value of the ves el . Second, af! to whom payment should be made. 

The Second Comptroller fixed the value of the vessel at $3G,125. 

As to whom payment should bo made, that officer said : . "It appears that Pri:Or to the sale and transfer by Davis & Wilson of their own mterests aud also the mterests of other shareholders, whom they claimed to have repre ·ented 38 agents, to Barnett & Fry in the spring of 1866 the claimants 

owned in their individual ~~ht a follows, viz: Daniel7ry, tlJee fomi:eenths; 

.A.aron Barnett, two fourteemns. 

"March 20, 1866, Davis & Wil on sold and transferred to the claimants Barnett and Fry, jointly, their own intere tin aid vessel, viz : four fourte nths.' "I am satisfied that the agents, Davis & Wilson, bad no power at that time, even if they had p_owers of a~rney froJ? the shareholders they rep1e ented, 

~~:~~ey to the clannants any mtere t sa1d stockholders may have had iH said 

"First. Because the vessel had been destroyed, and there was nothing of that 

kind to convey. "Second. The only interest left was in the nature of a claim against the United 

States for the value thereof, and such conveyance is prohibited by act of 1853 

prior to the ettlement of the claim. •· It is evident, however. that the claimants have a larg equitable interest in 

these five shares in question, on account of moneys advanced by them to pay the 

debts of the vessel, for repairs, &c., and under the circumstance I think that pay- ment on these five shares may properly be made to the claimant jointly proV1ded 

they file a good and sufficient bond of indemnity in double the amount repre en ted 

by those shares to save the United States harmless again t any claim that may hereafter be made by any of these original holders, their heirs or assigns : " To recapitulate : 

Three fourteenths to Daniel Fry ...... --------.-------. ___ ------------ Two fourteenths to Aaron Barnett ........ ------------ ____ ........... . Four fourteenths to Barnett & Fry .. ---------- ....... ___ .. __ ------- .. . Five fom·teenth.s to Barnett & Fry, on bond of indemnity ......... ___ _ 

$7,741 07 

5,160 72 

10,32143 

12,90178 

"Total amount.---- ....••... ------------------.................... 36,125 00" 

tro'li~; :Third Auditor on the next day sent the following reply to the Second Comp-

"TREABURY DEPARTME...'iT, THIRD AUDITOR'S OFFICE, 

"September 16, 1871. 

"Sm: I ha.;e received and read your decision of the 15th instant in the matter of the claim of the owners for the value of the steamer Jackson. The am01mt of your allowance somewhat exceeds the sum of my recommendation ; but 38 the value 

of the boat was very difficult to determine from the evidence Rubmitted, I am not prepared to say that it is excessive, but, on the contrary, would adopt perhaps tho 

deCision and make a statement for the amount allowed, were it not that I am not satisfied that Barnett & Fry are entitled to receive payment of any other share than 

those mentioned in my report. The evidence does not convince me that they were the owners of the five fourteenths for which they were asking payment-, and to idemnify the Gi>vernment, against which they propo e to execute bond. In the 

absenceofproofofsuch ownership I cannot eethepropriety ofmaking such pay- ment. but think it much wiser and safer that the Government should retain vos- session of the smn of twelve thou and nine hundred and one s venty-eight one- hundredth dollitrs (the said four fourteenths) until claimants, or some other person or persons, shall prove themselves entitled to receive tht:. same. •· With this view I respectfully retum the papers in the claim for such further 

action a you may deem proper. "I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

"ALLAN RUTHERFORD, Auditor. 

"E. B. CURTIS, Esq., Acting Second OomptroUer." 

Theca.se, as tated by the Second Comptroller. was settled and drafts were drawn, on or about the 22d day of September, 1871, as follows: 

In favor of Aaron Barnett for two fourteenths------ ....•..... ------- ... $5,160 72 

In favor of Daniel Fry for three fourteenths.. .......................... 7, 741 07 

In favor of Barnett & Fry for four fourteenths .. ------- ....... --- ...... 10,321 43 

In favor of Barnett & Fry for five fourteenths .. ------ .................. 12,901 78 

Total ....................... -...•........... .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 36, 125 QO 

The latter item, to wit, $12,901.78, W38 paid upon a bond of indemnity which is as follows: 

"Know all men by these present-s, that L Aaron Barnett, of Savannah, in the 

State of Georgia., a.« principal, and Gabriel Il. Schiffer and Louis G. Schilfer, of the 

city and State of New York, as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the United 

State of America in the sum of $26,000, lawful money of the United States of 

America, to be paid to the United ta.tes of America, or their as igns, 'to which 

payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselve , our heirs, e~eiut 1' , aud 

admini b.ators, jointly and severally, by these presents. 
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1601 

''Whereas Aaron Barnett and Daniel Fry have presented a claim against the 

United States of America for the value of the steamboat Jackson, destrol._ed by fire 

while in the military service of the United States, and the said Barnett & ..lfry claim 

the whole ownershiv of said vessel; and 

''Whereas the s!lld vessel was divided into fourteen shares, of which the title to the ownership of nine fourteenths of the said vesselis admitted by the United States to be well and sufficiently vested in the said Barnett and Fry; and 

" Whereas the title of the ownership of five fourteenths of the said vessel remaining, formerly owned as follo.ws: J. R. Ely, .one fourteel}th; J. B. Luckey, one twenty-eighth: A. R. Goodwm, one twenty-e1ghth; J. Irvin, one fourteenth; J. F. 

Hughes, one fourteenth; T. and J. M. Wliite, one fourteenth, is not deemed altogether perfect and absolute; and _ " Whereas the said claim for the loss of said steamboat Jackson has been admitted to be valid, and payment is about to be made therefor in the sum of $36,125 for 

the whole vessel ; and 

"Whereas if the United States of America pay to the said Barnett and Fry the sum of $12 900.781 being the amount allowed for the said five fourteenths aoove described l.n addition to the sum of $23,223.22, for the value of nine fourteenths as aforesaid,' this bond bas been required to ~d~ the United States of Ameri~a aaain!!t any and all claims which may or 1n1ght anse on account of any of the srud orl~al shareholders or their heirs or assigns appearing and making demand for 

their share .or shares in the five fourteenths mentioned, or an1 part thereof: • • Now therefore the condition of this obligation is such that if the above-bounden 

obligors 'their he~, executors, administrators, or any of the.m, shall and do well and 

trnly payor cause to be paid unto any person or persons who shall establish a valid 

claim to any of the said five fourteenths of the steamer Jackson above-mentioned, 

the full amounts as paid by the United States to the said Barnett and Fry, or shall 

pay or cause to be paid unt.O the United States of America or their assigns thefnll amounts paid by the said United States on account of said five fourteenths of the 

said steamer Jackson hereinbefore mentioned, with the legal costs and interest on such aum without any defalcation or delay, then this obligation to be void, or else to be and remain in fnll force and virtue. 

"AARON BARNETT. tBEAL.] "LOUIS G. SCHIFFER. SEAL.) 

"GABRIEL H. SCHIFFER. SEAL.] 

"Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of-

" R. E. WILBON, 

"United. States Oommissitmer. 

" SAMUEL LEA." 

The case stood thus until the 21st day of July, 1876, a period of nearly fl.v~ years, 

when an application was _made to the Secr~tarv of the Treasury by J. R. EJx, John 

P. Lockey, A.. R. Goodwm S. and J. Erwin, J. F. Hu~hes, and J. W. ~te, sur- vivor, for their respective shires of the allowance made m paymen~ of S&ld steame;r. 

The application was based upon the ground that the alleged assignment of the1r 

respective interests to Barnett & Fry was without authority in law or in fact and 

without their knowledge or consent, and that Barnett & Fry, nor either of them, 

had ever paid the claimants for their respective interests any part of the money 

received from the United States, and that until the making of the ayplication they had not had any knowledg~ or information of the aetion of DaVJS & Wilson, or Barnett & Fry, in the premlSes. The matter was referred to the Third Auditor, who, on the 2d day of Octooer, 

1876 after stating the hist-ocy of the claim when before the Department originall~, 

as ~ell as the action of the 'l;'hird Auditor, as hereinbefore stated, said that, in his 

<>pinion his office had "no further duty to perform in the premises." The ~attar was thereafter, to wit, on the 17th day of February, 1877, referred 

by the Second Comptroller to the Secretary of the Treasilry, with the following 

letter: "TREASURY DEPARTMENT, SECOND COMP'IROLLER'S OFFICE", 

" Washington, D. 0., February 17, 1877. 

" Sm: Accompanying this letter I forward to yon papers in the case of the t~teamer Jackson, alleged to have been burned on tlie Chattahoochee River on the 

'29th day of June, 1865, while in the military service of the Unitetl States and under 

drcumstances making the Government lialile to the owners for the loss. The salient 

:points shown in the pavers have been compiled by my direction in the 'memoranda· 

mclosed herewith, which will give a. full knowledge of the case without reading the mass of ;papers which have accumulated in the former examinations of this claim. 

It is sufficient for my present purpose to say that from the evidence before my pre- decessor, an allowance was made and paid of$36,125 to two oftbeowners (Barnett 

& Fry) who represented themselves as empowered t{) collect for the owners. Re- cently, however, a. claim has been filed in this office by several of the ownera for 

$12 901.78 of the value as allowed, who allege that they were joint owners in the ve~sel · that they did not authorize Barnett & Fry to act in their behalf, and that 

they h~ve received no part of the val nation paid under the former settlemimt. This 

.clann has led to an examination of all the papers in the case, and I have arrived at the conclusion that there are so many questions of doubt involved in this whole matter that all the papers should be referred to the Attorney-General. with there-

.quest that. under the authority and the means provided in the third paragraph of 

the appropriation for the judic:tary, on pa~e 206 of volnme18, Statutes at Large, the 

whole <).Uestion of the validity of this c1arm be examined. There are two questions which, m my judgment, demand special consideration in such examination: 

"First. As to whether this vessel, when burned, was in the military service of 

the United States, under a contract of such a characler as to render the Govern- ment liable for the loss and to bring the settlement of the claim within the jurisdic· 

tion of the accounting officers of the Treasury. "Second. Were the owners a. copartnership, or were they joint owners, having 

the ri"'bts of tenants in common 7 . " If the first of these questions, upon investigation, is detel'Inined affirniatively, 

and the owners are held to bejoint owners, then good faith to the creditors of the 

Government demands that the persons not represented by Barnett & Fry (professing to have authority to act for them) should be J>aid the shares due them, a.fter 

which steps should be taken b,Y: the law officers of the Government to collect from 

Mr. Barnett the amount so paJd. . "C. C. CARPENTER, Comptroller. 

"Hon. LOT M. MORRILL, Secretary of the Treasury." 

The Secretary of the Treasnry, in accordance with the request of the Secohd 

Comptroller, referred the matter to the Attorney-GI!neral, which officer, on the 8th 

day of March, 1877, rendered the following opinion thereon: 

"DEPA.RTME~'T OF JUSTICE, "Washington, March 8, 1877. 

" Sm: Yours of the 26th ultimo (received at this Department the 3d instant,) 

relating to payment for the steamer Jackson, has been under consideration, which 

has led to the conclnsion that the original payment for that vessel was not authorized by law, for reasons which are equally cogent to prevent any further payment to the present claimants. 

"The voluminous documents accompanying your letter, and which are herewith 

returned, present numerous questions which it 1s not thought 'necessary to discuss, 

·since the correct solution of the single one, wnether or not the boat was, under the act of l\larch 3, 1849, chapter 129, section 2, as amended by that of March, 3, 1863, chapter 78, seetion 5, to be paid for by the Government, in case of accidental loss, will determine whether or not any payment on accountofber destruction was legally 

justifiable. The essential faets; succinctly stated, are that the steamer was charXIII- 101 

tered June 18, 1865--after the perils from actual hostilities were substantially over-to run on the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers, the 'owners to pay all 

the running expenses; ' this agreement leaving the old captain in charge, and 

having been effected with his agent. Under this engagement the boat was laden 

with cotton, to be transported from Eufaula and Fort Gaines, Georgia where it was put on board, to Apalachicola, Florida, and there delivered t~ the United 

States Treasury agent. At 3 p.m. onJanuary 29, 1865, when within fourboursof 

reaching her destination, she and her cargo were wholly destroyed by a fire, 

originating from some unexplained cause, the vessel being still under the exclusive management of the owners' master, and no Federal officer, civil or military, being then on board. · " The charter was a mere contract of affreightment, (Reed '118. United States, 11 

Wall., 600, 603; United States v8. Russell, 13 Wall., 623 ;) consequently the craft was not ' in the military service of the United States' within the meaning of the statutes of' March 3, 1849 and 1863. (See opinion of the Supreme Court in Guttman's ca.~e, 9 Ct. of Cls. Rep., 68, 71.) Tke case of JohnS. Shaw vs. The United 

States, argued and decided at the current term of the Supreme Court, is much 

stronger against the Government, on the facts, than the present case ; yet it was held that the defendants were not liable, and that the vessel should not have been 

paid for out of the Federal Treasury. 

"Very re pcctfully, yours, 

" Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY." 

"ALPHONSO TAFT, "Attonney-General. 

Such is a full and complete statement of the facts upon which the claimants 

base their application to Congress for relief. 

It will be observed that the aooounting officers of the Government on the 15th 

day of September, 1871, adjudged the Government to be indebted to the claimants 

in the aggre~te sum of $12,901.78. This sum was paid to Barnett & Fry, upon 

the bond ·of mdemnity. As soon as the claimants ascert-ained the fa~t that the 

money adindged to be due them had been paid to Barnett & Fry, to wit, on the 21st 

day of JUly, 1876, they made application to the Government for payment of the 

money to them. A period of nearly five years bad elapsed, and the question arises 

whether or not, upon the simple demand of the claimants for payment of the sum ascertained to be due them in the manner stated, the Second Comptroller, or the 

Secretary of the Treasury, can reverse the decision made by his predecessor, and 

refuse pay1p.eni t~ the parties to whom the money was found tD be dne. It is well 

settled thai when a Secretary has officially decided or determined any matter or ca.'!e, and goes out of office leaving bis dec!sion on record, his successor cannot law· 

fully overturn it, unless upon the production of such new evidence as would be 

sufficient in a court of chancery to sustain a bill of review, or to get a new trial in a court oflaw. This rule is so obviously necessary in ordert{) preventintolerable 

disorder and confusion in the business of the Government, that it is not thoup;ht 

necessary to set forth the many reasons by which it might be defended. (J. S. 

Black, Attorney-General, 9 Opinions, 101.) 

The deliberate decision of a former administration of a question involving pri- vate rights and interests (no new facts beillg shown to exist which were not known 

when the decision was made) cannot with propriety be reconsidered by its succes- sor. (Rear-Admiral Goldsborough's case, 13 Opinions, 33.) 

The prj.nciple has been so frequently declared that the final decision of a matter before the head of a De11artment is binding upon his successor in the same Department, under certain well-defined exceptions, that it is now to be regarded as a set- tled rule of administrative law. (See, on this subject, United States '118. Bank or Metropolis, 15 Peters, 401 ; 2 Opinions, 9 ; Ib., 464 ; 4 Opinions, 341 ; 5 Opinions, 2; 

lb., 12; 9 Opinions, 301-'2, 387; 12 Opinions 358; 13 Opinians.) 

The real question in this case is, wnether the Government can recover the moneyin a case where an accounting officer, in the proper discharge of his duties, has, 

under the direction of the head of the Department, finally settled and paid a ruaim. 

It is true the Government paid the money to Barnett & Fry instead of the claimants, to whom it was adjudged to be dne, but this was wrongfully done, and the Governm~nt, it seems to your committee, ought not to be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong to defeat the demand of the claimants. . In Shaw's case, cited by the Attorney-General, the accounting officers of the Gov- ernment decided that the Government was liable for the loss of the steamer in question, and estimat-ed it<S value at $57,000. The insurance companies had paid him 

$25,000, leaving due him $32,000, which amount the Government paid him. Subsequently he made claim upon the Government for the still further sum of $13,859. 

The court decided that he was not entitled to recover; that the vessel should not have been paid for out of the Federal Treasury, as it was not "in the military serv- ice of the Government" in the sense of the statute; but it did not hold that the 

$32,000 adjudged previously by the accounting officers to be due him and paid to him coUld be recovered back. All that the counsel for the Government contended 

for in hls brief, as reported, was that the a~ceptance of the $32,000 was an adjust- ment of a disputed claim and barred any further recovery . In that case the question was whether or not there bad been an impressment of 

the vesseL The assistant quartermaster at Saint Louis had sent Shaw a notice 

that he would require the services of his vessel for a. trip to Memphis antl other 

points, accompanied with a statement of the per diem compensation which would 

be allowed him for its use, &c. Shaw accepted the terms and, in the language or the court, "entered upon the service with alacrity." It became, therefore, a vOluntary anangement and not an impressment. It i.~ possible that but for the assent of Shaw to the te:rm.s provosed the vessel would have been impressed, but the 

volunt.a_ry acceptance by bnn, and that with alacrity, of the terms l'roposed, upon 

the first mtimation of force, relieved the transaction of anything like an impress- ment. - In the case under consideration the vessel was taken into a particular service 

under a voluntary arrangement. Bnt were it to be admitted that this arrange- ment was nothing more than a contract of affreightment, still, the Government 

having afterward, by force, against the protest of the master, put the vessel into a different service, in which it was destroyed by fire, if this were an impressment the Government would be liable. But it is not necessary for the claimants now t{) 

establish the liability of the Government for the loss of the vessel. The question of liability has already been adjudicated. The Actin~ Secretary of the Treasury, on tlle 28£b. day of April, 1871, passed upon this ~estion, and his decision, as the case now stanas, is nnal and conclusive. He s!lld: . "Ths steamer Jackson was 'lost' by 'unavoidable accident' while in the military service of the Uni1ed States by contract, and the owner is entitled to payment of the value thereof, under the acts of March 3, 1849. and March 3, 1863." 

In the case of Adams V8. The United States, (7 Wall., 463,) where it is held that an action for the expressed consideration of a valid contract is barred by the voluntary submission of a claim to an ex parte commission, a:P,pointed by the head of an Executive Department, to examine and report upon similar claims; tlle hearing and final decision thereon; the receipt of the vouchers containing the amount found due; and the acceptance of the payment of the amount under an act of Congress providing therefor; and it is thns barred, notwithstanding the party was coerced into the receipt of the vouchers by the commission withholdi.Bg from him 

his papers and original evidences of ihdebted.ness; that be protested at the time 

agamstthe action of the commission, ali which time he had no means of legal re- dress, the court say: ' ' Indeed, unless the claimant is barred under the circumstances stated, it would be difficult for the GovernD:Jent to determine when there would 'be an end to claim's put forth against it, as there is no statute of limitations of which we are aware applicable t-o them before this court." 
1602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARcH 3~ 

If a final decision of the executive department is binding upon the claimant so as to bar him from makin" further demands upon the Government1 it must also be 

held to be binding upon t'he Government to prevent it from shirking the liability 

established by such decision. 

Judge Nott:. in delivering the OJlinion of the Court of Claims in the case of 

'McKee vs. Umted States, (1.2 C. of Cis. R., J>· 533,) says: " That settlements made by the accountin~ officers of the Government with its 

creditors, untainted by fraud and free from IDlStake of fact, possess the element of 

finality, I think is clear for many reasons. 

* '' Second. If the Comptrollers' settlements have not the ordinary element of 

finality; if those officers are not the agents of the Government to make final set- tlements with its creditors, the Government has had the power and the means to take advantage of their errors of law for the last eighty years by going into any court as plaintiff and suing the party to whom money was paid in misto.ke of law. Yet from the first day that the Treasury did business until this counter claim was set up it is safe to say that no such snit was ever brought, and that no man ever supposed that such an action would lie. A practical construction, going back to the very beginning of the Government, is overwhelming, and cannot be overturned at this late day with safety by anything short of statutory amendment. 

'' Third. As no statute of limitations closes inquiry into the past transadions of 

the Government, all of the settlements which present and past Comptrollers have ever made will be liable to be reopened. It is well known that the Comptrollers have 

sometimes construed statutes in one way and the courts subsequently in another. 

Such diversity of judgment is inevitable in the administration of human affairs, 

and the wonder is that there ha been so little of it on the part of these officers. 

The act 3d March, 1849, (9 Statutes at Largel415, section 2,) will furnish one of 

many illustrations. The Treasury always lie d that this act extended to vessels 

in the military service, though navigated by their owners. (Reed's case, 4 Court 

of Claims Reports, 132.) TheSupremeCourthasrecently held the contrary. (Shaw's case, ante, page 1.) Can it be possible that all such past transactions are now liable to be reopened; that nothing has ever been settled ; that no payment ever made is to be considered final W Such a ruling cannot J?romote the public welfare, and, in my 

judgment, would be prolific in public mischief." 

The applicability of this opinion to the case in hand is conspicuously noticeable 

from the fad that the illustration given by the learned judge embraces the vecy law under consideration, as well as the very case cited by the Attorney-General 

(Shaw's case) as an authority upon which that officer rested his opinion given to the Secretary of t.he Treasury herein. 

The claimants, in the opinion of your committee, are entitled to interest from the 

date of the adjustment of their claim. The Government, reco!mizing this fact, 

provided for the payment of interest in the bond of indemnity in the event Barnett & Fry should ever be called upon to refund the money paid them belonging to the 

clainiants. 

The latest decision upon the liability of Government to pay interest. rendered by 

the Supreme Court of the United States, will be found reported in 1 Otto, page 

442, in the case of the United States vs. McKee et al. The court in that ca~esays: 

·• It has been the general rule of the officers of governments, in adjusting un- liquidated and dis:{>uted claims against the United States, to refuse interest. That 

this rule is sometimes at variance with that which governs the act of J!rivate 

citizens in a court of justice would not authorize us to depart from it in this case. The rule, however, is not uniform ; and it is not so in regard to claims allowed by 

special acts of Congress, or referred by such acts to some department or officer 

for settlement. * * * There bas never been any dispute about the amount due 

if the claim was legal. * * * It is found that the claim is due which the 

Government ha~. by law, ag:reed to payJ and we see no reason why it should not be paid in full, with all Its legal inmaents. 

In the case of Todd vs. United State (Dec. C. C., 183) the Court 

of Claims say : 

" Our object has been simply to show that authorities are conflicting, and that an approximation to a rule is to be found in those decisions which hold that, in the 

absence of a contract to pay interest, it may, in some cases, be allowed by a jury, 

upon a review of all the circumstances in the case." 

The reason why the rule that governments are not chargeable with interest has 

become established is, that governments are presumed alway-s to be ready to pay whatever sum they are liable for upon presentation of the claim, and, therefore, 

when there is delay in the payment it is attributed to the negligence of the claim- ant. Where, however, there is an adjusted claim against a. government and there 

is delay in its payment without fault or negligence on the part of the claimant, the 

government, like any other delinquent debtor, is liable for intere t for the time 

payment is delayed by it. In this case the claim was adjusted; the amount due was ascertained; the par- ties to whom it was due were ascertained. But themoa&ywas paid to other parties, 

upon the condition that they would pay it to the parties to whom it was ascer- tained to be due, and, if not1 that they would return it, with interest, to the Government, so as to reimburse It for payment made in the mean time to the rightful 

parties upon their demand of the amount due them, with interest. It apJ?ears that the reason why the claimants have appealed to Congress, with- out asking a rehearing before the Attorney-General, is that the le~lative branch 

of the Government, as they are advised, alone has the power to give full relief in 

the premises. In the event of success before the Treasury Department in having their claim allowed, it was suggested to the claimants that an application for an approp1iation out of which to pay it would still have to be made to Congress; they 

therefore have submitted their claim to Congress for relief, without pressing it :fur- ther b.efore the Treasury Department. Your committee, believing that the wholesome doctrine of res adjudicata should 

be applied to this claim, report the bill back with the recommendation that it do 

pass. 

Mr. HOL~lli'{. Mr. Chairman, the case presented here is one of 

unusual interest in view of the sta!e of facts shown by this report. 

I wish to state, in brief, what seems to be the prominent feature set 

out in the report. 

This vessel, according to the decision of the Attorney-General, was simply engaged in the service of the United States on a contract of 

affreightment, and nothing more, and was not in a general sense ever 

impressed into the service of the United States or engaged by contract, 

but simply under a contract of affreightment. It was in no sense in 

the military service of the United States. The vessel was lost, and 

the Government finally agreed to pay the owners $36,125 for this 

vessel, which was owned by a number of persons. Of this sum $12,901.78 was paid to Barnett and Fry, who I believe were citizens of 

New York, and t.hey gave a bond of indemnity in the sum of 26,000. 

The money was paid over to them. The bond of these parties to the 

Government is set forth in the report. The owners of this $12,901.78 

named claimed this money, which has been paid over to Barnett and 

Fry, and when the subject came to be officially examined the Attorney-General, in view of the facts submitted, and although the money 

had already been paid over, thought the Government was not liable 

at all in the first instance, and was not therefore liable to pay thiA 

12,901.78 to these parties. • The question is this: If the Government paid the money to thewrong parties, and the rightful parties now come forward and claim 

the money, and the law officer of the Government decides upon a stat&. of facts that appears to render his decision absolutely correct and 

certain that the Government was never liable for any of the money,. 

ought it to be paid f The main argument for paying the second time 

is simply because the Government has once recognized the principle 

that it was liable for the loss of the vessel. So the question presented 

to this committee now is shall the money be paid a second time, and 

paid also in the face of the opinion of the Attorney-General, who. 

says that the Government was not liable to make the original payment upon the indemnifying bond, or to make the payment which is now claimed. How far the House may deem it proper to be guided 

by the opinion of the Attorney-General is of course a que tion forth& 

Honse. 

Mr. OATES. :Mr: Chairman, it is true that when the application was made to the Department by the present claimants for the payment to them of between twelve and thirteen thousand dollars, which wa-s the aggregate amount of their interest in this vessel, AttorneyGeneral Taft, to whom the question was referred, decided that un- der the acts of Congress the Department should not have paid for 

the vessel in the first instance. But in response to that objection I 

call the attention of gentlemen to the authorities cited in the report, 

which are conclusive, that inasmuch as there had been an adjudication of this claim by an officer of the Government, competent to 

adjudicate it, the Government was thereby estopped from going back 

of that decision. 

It will be seen on page 3 of this report that when Barnett and Fry 

had made their application and were urging an anjustment and payment for this vessel, William A. Richardson, the Acting Secretary 

of the Treasury, with all the facts before him, rendered a decision 

in favor of the regularity of the claim; and upon that decision it was adjusted. The report shows further that it was known and 

well understoo<l by the Government at that time that Barnett and 

Fry had no title to the interests of these claimants. 

There had been an attempted transfer by Davis and Wilson, two 

of the owners. That was made for the purpose of enabling Barnett 

and Fry to obtain a settlement with the Goveriunent, and when they 

obtained that settlement they were required to give this bond of 

indemnity as to the interests of these claimants. They received the 

money. It seems that this information, however, was withheld 

from these claimants by Barnett and Fry. When they learned of the 

payment of the money they made their claim on the Government. 

Then it was that Attorney-General Taft decided that in the first 

instance the Government should not have recognized the claim, but 

I insist it was too late, because the head of the Department, the acting 

head of the Treasury Department, was competent to decide the question, and did decide it. The Government acted upon it ahd placed 

this money in the hands of Barnett and Fry, and took from them a good bond. 

Now, suppose Congress refuses to give the relief these parties ask. 

Suppo e Congress acts upon the idea urged by the gentleman from 

Indiana, that it was an illegal claim asdecided by Attorney-General 

Taft. The consequence is that Barnett and Fry have received this 

amount of twelve or thirteen thousand dollars which they were not entitled to, and are permitted to retain it. Now the Government loses nothing. It has already paid the money. What thea& 

claimants ask is that it shall pay it to them, the rightful owners, 

and have recourse to the bond to obtain the repayment of it. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. Is it a good bond Y 

Mr. OATES. Yes; the bond is good to my certain knowledge. I 

know that of my own knowledge. 

Mr.DAWES. Mayi askthegentlemanfromAlabama a question t 

Mr. OATES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAWES. Could not the Government assign that bond to theclaimants f 

Mr. OATES. Possibly it could; but I submit it would not be just 

to the claimants to do it. It was the Government and not these 

claimants that put the money into the hands of the wrong parties, 

and the Government ought to repair that injury. It has been decided that this money belongs to these claimants, and the Government put it into the hands of parties into whose hands it ought not 

to have gone. Therefore it ought to pay these claimants and re- cover from those to whom the money wa-s wrongfully paid. 

The facts, a-s I stated, were before the Department. The Government knew that Barnett and Fry did not ha>e a good title to this 

money, and hence took this bond. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on laying the bill aside to bereported with a favorable recommendation. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I think there should be a vote on this. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

The committee rose informally, and the Speaker resumed the, chair. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. 

Several messages in writing from the President of the United; 
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1603 

States were communicated to the House by Mr. PRUDEN, his Secretary. The Committee of the Whole resumed its session and proceeded 

with the consideration of the Private Calendar. 

CHARLES P. CHOUTEAU. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

911) for the relief of Charles P. Chouteau. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Be it enacted &c. That the Court of Claims be authorized to grant a. rehearing in 

the case of Cha,;_.les P. Chouteau, surviving partner of Chouteau, Harrison & V a.lle, 

and William. A. Steele, a~ainstthe United States,withJurisdiction to ~ear andd~ter­ mine the amount if any, mcurred under the contract for the construction of the Ironclad vessel Etlah by reason of the delays occasioned in such construction by the act~ of the Government beyond the penod specified in the contraet, and for extras beyond what was provided therein. If upon such rehearing a. receipt dated April24ii 

1866, shall be give~ in evidence, th~ court ~a.y givejudgD?-entfor such sum as sha 

be justly and eqmta.bly due, notwithstanding such receipt. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I call for the reading of the report. 

The CHA.IRMAN. There are some amendments which have not 

been read. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Claims, with the following amendments : In line 7 strike out the word "incurred" and insert in lieu thereof the word 

"due." 

In lines 14 and 15 strike out the words "notwithstanding such receipt" and insert 

in lieu thereof "upon the whole evidence, including said receipt and any explanation thereof." 

The amendments were agreed to. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I have called for the reading of the report, but I 

presume that most gentlemen in the committee are acquainted with 

this case, and I therefore shall not insist on the reading of the report. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Ge01:gia. I do not think this bill ought to be 

passed1 and propose to give afewreasons why it should not. 

It will be seen from the report that it is a copy, verbatim et literatirn, 

of another report, made by Senator HoAR; and the fact is that his re- port is a copy, verbatim et literat·im, of a report made by Mr. Barber 

from the Committee on Claims during the Forty-sixth Congress. I 

mention this fact simply to take from this report the usual weight 

that would attach to the report of a committee deliberately made and 

seemingly unanimous. As this case does not stand alone, but is the 

forerunner of quite a large number ofvery large claims, it will not 

be time wasted, but timeprofi.tablyemployed, to look minutely into 

it before we act upon this bill. 

During the war the United States by a bill appropriated$10,000,000 

to build certain war vessels. They were built under contracts in different States-Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, and elsewhere. The original 

price paid for those vessels was about fourteen million dollars, 50 per 

cent. more than the law contemplated when the bill wa..s passed. Immediately after the war these different contractors came to Cmagress 

claiming that they ought to be paid extra compensation; and the Senate, without asking concurrence of the House, passed a resolution of inquiry into the amount which ought to be so paid. Under that reso- lution what was known as the Selfridge board made a report. That 

report stated as the proper extra pay of all other of these parties, 

forty-two in all, a large sum of money. Thereupon an omnibus bill 

for the relief of all those contractors was introduced in the Senate 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce. It was reported on favorably by Mr. Nye on the 22d of March, 1866. Mr. Grimes made a minority report. In his remarks he said this bill covered two and a half millions of dollars on contracts made in 1862 and 1863, when on his desk there were abstracts of claims amounting to 60,000,000 on which there was a loss of 12,000,000, on the basis of calculation used 

by that board, on contracts not made in 1002 and 1863. 

Mr. CLARK. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to interrupt him f 

Mr. H.A.MMOND, ofGeorgia. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLARK. Does the gentleman mean to say this claim was ever submitted to that board Y 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. The gentleman will know what I mean to say about this claim before I get through; I will ceme to 

that very soon. Mr. CLARK. I supposed the gentleman intended to make the impression on the House that this claim had Leen submitted to that 

board and they had passed on it. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. I will make no improper impres- sion, nor will I utter a word for which I cannot present the printed 

proof. 

Mr. CLARK. I simply want the House to understand it. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. I do, tOo. Senator Grimes said the 

findings were upon a false basis and upon the ro; parte statement of 

the contractors. In confirmation of this last remark Senator SHER- MAN called attention to the fact that the claims were only for 

$'2,383,520.20, and the findings were for 2,267,627, a difference of 

only 3 or 4 per cent. He also said he understood all extras had been 

paid for; and with others he fought the bill. It passed the Senate. 

In the House it was practically defeated; the result being that by 

amendment Congress passed a resolution of inquiry. (Resolution of 

2dof March, 1867, 14 Statutes at Large, page 424.) That resolution 

embraced all contracts made for vessels between the 1st of May, 1861, an,d the 1st of January, 1864, and sought to learn the additional cost 

which was necessarily incurred by such contractors. Under it a 

new board was appointed called the Marchand board. That board 

found for all the forty-two contractors but $187,475.56, and that 

nothing was due to Charles Chouteau, this claimant. That is seen in 93 Globe, page 1273. 

Then all the claimants obtained the passage of a joint resolution 

remitting them to the Court of Claims and repealing the joint reso- lution o:f the 2d of March, 1867, which was in their way. That did 

not become a lawfor want of Executive approval. In his veto mes- sage, dated February 7, 1871, President Grant said: 

It seems to me that the provision thus repealed is a very reasonable one. It 

prevents a contractor from receiving any allowance for an advance in the price of 

labor and material where he could avoid that advance by the exercise of ordinary prudence and diligence, and the effect of the repeal will be to relieve contractors from the consequences of their own imprudence and negligence, 

Foiled thus as a body, they sought Congressional aid singly. At a night session of the House a bill was passed for the relief of Miles 

Greenwood, and it became a law, (17 Statutes at Large, page 764,) 

and is cited in this report as one of the precedents for the action 

here asked. The same night, Mr. Foster, of Ohio, reported a bill for 

the relief of Alexander SWift & Co., of Ohio, but it did not pass. 

The matter came again into Congress for additional action. In 

the first session of the Forty-third Congress there was a rep0rt on a bill for the relief of certain naval contractors, which included this 

one, made by Mr. Hazelton, from the Committee on War Claims. 

I ask the Clerk to read from that report the sentences which I have 

marked. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

It is claimed that the allowance made by the Department for additional iron and 

labor was limited to the' scale of prices first mentioned, and that no allowance was made for increase in cost of materials and labor, or for the use of yards, shops, machinery, &.c., while idle and unemployed. 

If soJ then it would seem clear that the parties have a just and meritorious claim 

upon tne Government for r.elief, but it is not necessary to decide that. 

'£he bill under consideration does not decide that. It only pr0vides that these 

Jlarties may go into the Court of Clainls, a. court eminently qualified t{) make the 

mvestigatlon, and to see that no wrong is practiced upon the Government, and have 

these matters judicially and fairly investip;ated and determined. subjeot to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United St.ates. There the evidence, pro and con, can be submitted, and the several claims left to abide the result. It seems to us the Government can do no less. If the parties have an honest and 

meritorious demand, they should have the right tQ show it; if not, let it be so adjudged, and the controversy ended. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. It will be observed from this report 

that all that was contended for at that time was that the parties 

should have the right to sue. And I repeat for emphasis the last 

of the sentences which I caused to be read by the Clerk: 

If the parties have an honest, meritorious demand, they should have the right to show it; if not, let it be so adjudged, and the controversy ended. 

Mr. CLARDY. What report is that~ I dicl not understand -the 

gentleman. · 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. It is a report made from the Committee on War Claims, No. ~69, of the first session of the Forty-third 

Congress, by Mr. G. \V. Hazelton. 

Mr. CLARDY. Does it refer to this claim of CharlesP. Chouteau f 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. It covers the claims of every one of 

these naval contractors. It was a report upon a joint bill, covering 

Mr. Chouteau as well as the others. The object of the bill was to 

allow all of them to go to the Court of Claims. 

That report was met with a minority report of great strength made 

by Messrs. Lawrence, HOLMA...~, James Wilson, and A. HERR SMITH. 

The minority report is very long. Among other things it contains 

the finding of the board under the act of 1007, in which this claim of 

C. W. McCord (for he was the contractor under whom Chouteau 

claims) is stated as follows: 

For the light-draft monitor Etlah: Contract price $386,000; whole increased cost of the work; over the contract price, as claimed by the contractors, $364,073.55; amount of such mcreased cost caused by the delay and action of the Government, as determined by the board to be due, none ; amount already paid the contractors over and above the contract price, (obtained from the bureaus,) $207,311. 

The minority report covered the whole matter and gave all the 

facts in strong detail and concluded that there ought to be no appeal even to a court in behalf of any one of these parties. But the bill passed and these parties went to the Court of Claims. 

In the court the suit was brought in favor of McCord, who was the 

contractor, because he was the contractor. But he had transferred 

his claim to Chouteau, Harrison & Valle, to securethem for$40,000 

he owed them for gun-boat material, and had himself become insolvent. Afterwards McCord was adjudged a voluntary bankrupt in 

18681 and Chouteau had bought this claim against the United States 

at his bankrupt sale. When the case came on for trial in the Court 

of Claims all these facts appeared. 

Now, I call attention to a statement by the committee as to that 

matter. Coming to the finding of the Court of Claims that these 

parties could not recover because of the final receipts given by them, 

the committee make this statement : 

But the petitioners encountered an unexpected difficulty in the Court of Claims. 

On the he~ing the Gove~ent produced a receipt from McCord, signed by his 

attorneys m f:l<lt, Messrs. Gilman, Sons & Co., bankers, of New York, purporting to be in full of all extras for this vesseL It is alleged by the petitioners that this receipt was unknown to them before the day of the trial1 and that they had no opportunity to rebut or explain it, and Messrs. Gilman, m their evidence, state that if such a receipt was s1gned by them it was done without knowing the purport thereof; that they were only authorized as bankers to receive whatever 

moneys might be Jlaid on account of such vessel, the contract ref}uiring the pay- ments t{) be made m New York; that they had no knowledge whatever of the state 
1604 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARon 3, 

of accounts between the Government and their principals; that they had no authortty to bind their principals further than the receipt of such moneys as were paid to them, n.nd had no intention of binding the principals to any settlement. 

The receipt was executed prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. The Court of Claims held this receipt to be a bar to all claims for ex:tras in the 

construction of the battery. The decision of the Court of Claims was affirmed on appea] by the Supreme Court. 

The report proceeds : It is thus seen that it is possible that McCord never saw this voucher prior to its payment. In fact, from the circumstances of the case and the situation of the 

parties, your committee is of the opinion that it is altogether probable that such was the fact. 

The Supreme Court of the United States differed with the com- mittee as to what was "probable" from the evidence. I read from 

Chouteau t·s. the United States, 95 United States Reports, 67: 

It is certain1y fair to suppose that McCord presented his own statement of the account to the Navy officers; and the final approval of the Chief of the Bureau of 

Construction at Washington is dated April26t.!866. The payment, as indorsed on that sa.me voucher by the paymaster at New York to Giliruln, Son & Co., is dated 

May ll, 1866-

The voucher was made !lt~ 26, 1866, so that about half a month 

transpired between the m · g of the voucher to the signing of the 

receiptwhich is ju.~t about a reasonable time for the voucher to have been received from 

Washington by McCord at Saint Louis, and by him forwarded to Gilman, Son & 

Co. at New York, for collection. If this be the true history of the voucher, 

Mcbord is bound by his own actions; for the voucher, while in his hands, had on its face the clearest statement that the sum herein allowed was "the full and final 

paYlllent on all extras and in full for all claims and demands for that work;" and 

if he forwarded it in this shape to his bankers to get the money on it, without protest, he must be bound by that statement in the voucher. 

But I wish to call attention to another matter, This report evidently intends to impress upon the Honse as a fact that these parties were surprised by the production of this receipt ; that they had not 

and could not have had any knowledge of it until the time of the 

trial. In the first place, it would be a. very unsafe propoeition to 

say that a man who is suing the Government must not take notice of 

the receipts which he hasgJ.Ven. But apart from 1.ll that, the fact is 

these parties had every opportunity given to them to explain the 

receipt, and they could not explain. I have before me the report 

made by Mr. Hanna, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, in the 

first 'session of the Forty-fifth Congress, on the case of William A. 

Steel and Charles P. Chouteau. This report was adverse to the 

claim-a. unanimously adverse report against this identical claim. 

There is here along recitation of the facts, and then comes an affidavit from Gilman & Gilman, which I suppose is what the committee here calls the evidence of those gentlemen; for their evidence never was taken before, so far as I can discover. I wish to call 

attention to the fact that in this affidavit they do not pretend that 

they were the only members of the firm of Gilman, Sons & Co.; they 

simply say that they were members of the firm, and that in accepting this money this firm had nothing to do with the settlement. 

They do not contradict the fact that McCord may have made the 

settlement and forwarded it to them. Although the opinion of the 

Supreme Court was pronounced at the October term, 1877, and this 

affidavit not made until December 1877, and with the express view 

to get rid of that decision of the Supreme Court, they pretermitted 

any expression of opinion or any allusion to the question whether 

they received the voucher from the Department or whether it was transmitted to them from McCord. Their silence is condemnatory 

of this case. But this report contains the case, every word of it, as it was presented in the Court of Claims· and I will show now by quotations 

from it how utterly wanting these parties were in any care about 

this matter,if any thing could have been proved. But I do not read 

it with a. view to show carelessness; I read it to show that they could 

not prove any thing, upoll the legal presumption we all act upon, 

that every man will prove what is for his benefit if he has an oppor- tundty. . This record of the Court of Claims shows that this case remained 

in that court four years before it was called for trial. During those 

four years testimony was being prepared. In the language of the 

counsel for tqe United States, these receipts1 which were made out 

in duplicate and filed in the Departments ot the Government, were as accessible to these claimants as to him. There could have been no concealment. Besides, they were filed on the day before the trial, 

and notice served upon Mr. Merriman and Mr. Doolittle, the counsel 

for the claimants, that this receipt would be insisted upon. When 

the case eame before the Court of Claims the following proceedings took place: · 

Mr•Merriman said: We are ready for the trial, may it please your honor, and 

I woUld ask if Judge Nott would be present. 

Drake, C . .r. No, sir; he will not. Mr. Merriman.. I believe the rules of court require that there should be three 

judges presellt who assent to the judgment. Drake, C.J. No, sir; notatall. Thereisnoruleuponthatsubject. Aquorum is present, and if you choose to submit your case you can do so; and if not, it will h.ave to ua eontinued. 

Thus the choice was given to them. It wa-s said to them, in effect, 

"Yen now have notice of this receipt ; you know it is to be insisted 

upon ; grant that you were not bound to hunt it up before; you now know it. If you desire to have a full bench you can continue this case ~til the next term. Will you go on f" 

Mr. Merriman. We will proceed with the·ca.ae. 

·And they-proceeded. 

The first point in the case was that Chouteau was not a party, and 

that there could be no recovery in the name of anybody else, because 

the record showed that McCord, the contractor, was dead, his administrator was a. party, and that before he died Chouteau had bought 

this at McCord's bankrupt sale, and therefore the right was in Chouteau. J,Ir. Merriman asked if the Government proposed on a technicality to dismiss the cause out of court. The reply was substantially: "No; we consent that you may make Mr. Chouteau a party." 

Upon a suggestion that it would take time to make the proper pleadings to show the transfer in the court of bankruptcy and all that, it was agreed to go on and let plaintiff's counsel file amended pleadings 

thereafter. They went on, assuming that the proper pleadings were, or would be, filed. Here was a second chance for a postponement tendered and refused. 

After that was adjusted they presented their case. Treating of the 

receipt, this language occurs : 

Mr. Merriman. This receipt~ perhaps he (may be) used as a defense to this action, 

provided that Charles W. McCord ever made a settlement or had ever si~ed this 

receipt. Butthereisnothiug here to showthat Mr. McCord ever made this settlement, or ever authorized GUinan, Son & Co. to sign for him. These papers have 

been' put in just before the trial commenced. 

Dralle, C. J. Do you suppose that the Government or its officers would have 

paid $26,653.17 to Gilman, Son & Co., as attorneys of McCord, unless they had evidence conclusive that these men were McCord's attorneys. 

Mr. Johnson pointed to the power of attorney, which was then 

read. 

Drake, C. J. Gilman, Son & Co. are still in existence, are they not¥ 

Mr. Merriman. I suppose so. 

Then comes a colloquy, which I will ask the Clerk to read, between 

the judge and Mr. Merriman, as to explaining that receipt. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Drake1 C. J. If they had si~ed without his knowledge at all, and without his ever haV1Ilg anything to do With the settlement of this account, I think it would 

have taken you about one week to bave taken the testimony of e1ther of those gen- tlemen to prove it. 

Mr. Merriman. This evid.ence was only put in yesterday. We have not had 

time to take their testimony. Drake, C . .r. But you coUld han had the case ]aid over if you wished. Your 

position is this: that McCord knows nothing about this settlement. 

Mr. Merriman. I take this position: that this is not the act of Mr. McCord in 

settling or compromising a claim which he had against the United Statesl and that 

the yarty setting up such settlement. such a release of the claims or McCord 

agamst the United States, must show full authOrity in so doing. An attorney at law has no ri~bt to settle and compromise a claim ol' his client without the client's consent and if he does it, it is not binding upon his client. Here was a Claim of 

McCord against the United States, at this time, of nearly $100,000. Messrs. Gilman1 Son & Co. received from the United States the sum of $26,653.17, which ill 

credited by McCord to the United States. At the same time that Gilman, Son & Co. received this sum they signed a receipt apparently binding McCord to a set- tlement of the en~ claim. -The court may, under the circumstances, desire 

further evidence in relation to this, but the position I take is that the defendant 

has not shown yet that this claim wr..s settred by that. receipt; that he has not shown the authority from Mr. McCord to COmiJrOmise and disc~~e this debt. 

MilliJran, J. After the receipt is given, would not the presumptaon be that Mr. 

McCorO: had notice of it" ~nd his lying quiet throw the burden upon you to show 

that he was not aware ot 1t ¥ 

Mr. Merriman. This is the first time that this receipt has ever come to our knowledge. We have been suing the Government for a great-many years, trying to collect this money. Milligan, J. I merely suggest that for your consideration. 

Mr. Merriman. We are met at this time with this x·eceipt. It is a paper which 

has been kept by the defendant from us and from the court until the moment of 

trial, this case lia ving been pending here for several years, and I cannot think that 

the presumption is against u.s. Drake, C. J. It is exactly four years and one day since this case was brought. 

The petition was filed October ao, 1869, and you say that this paJ\6r about wliich 

the conversation is now has only just come to your knowledge. 

Mr. Merriman. It was filed yesterday. Mr. Johnson. It has been as open to you as it has to us. It has been in the 

Department all the time. 

Loring, J. I think, as the ~ase stands now, the burden of proof of the receipt is an the Government. . Mr. Doolittle. All the .authority which Gilman, Son &. Co. had is expressed in 

that written power of attorney. Drake, C. J. It is expressed there that they have power to collect all these 

moneys, "t.o ask, demand, sue for, recover, and receive." 

Mr. Doolittle. But there is no power to compromise or release. 

Drake, C. J. "And upon the receipt of any snch debts, dues, &c.1 ac9,nittances or other sufficient discharges forme and in my natne to make and giVe.' Mr. Doolittle. We do not deny but we are bound by the payment made to us. We admit that so far as th~ payment is made we are bOund. 

Drake, C . .r. You admit that they were the legall;y constituted authorities of 

McCord, and had a right to receive his money. Thatls all their receipt specifies. 

The legal effect of that is another thing-a question of law altogether. The fact 

there is no difference about here, as I understand. 

Mr. Doolittle. We admit that the payment is binding, but we say they had no power to make that pretended release of our claims. 

Drake, C. J. There is no release here at all. It is their receipt at the bottoiDtof 

this document. What the effect ia is a question of law. 

Mr. Doolittle. We do not admit that they had the power to put into tha.t "in full 

of all demands" for extra. work. That we deny. 

Drake, C . .r. They clo not put that in their receipt. That is in the body of the 

biJ.l. The receipt of Gilman, Son & Co. is : · •• Received of J. C. Eldredge, paymaster, twenty-six thousand six hundred and 

fifty-three and seventeenone-bundredths dollars, in full ofthewithin bill,andhave 

signed duplicate receipts." ~ow, I understand you, 10n the part of the claimants here, not to question at all the right of Gilman, Son & Co. to receive that money under that power of attor- ney, and that this is their receipt. .. Mr. Doolittle. That is true. 

~~~oo~tfie: .U :~ ~~~C:P.inte &r!i ihe within bill" are to be carried back to cover the words "in full for all claims and demands" for that work-if there is any effect to be given to them to release or discharge any further claim&, we deny that they had any ·auch power. Drake, C . .r. That is simply a question of law, which will be considered whe• 
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1605 

the case is submitted to us Qil the ~rgument; but I understand there is no dispute 

about the fact at all. 

Mr. Merriman. There is a question whether this ~ower of attorney extends any 

further than to receive the installments UJIOn the onginal contra.ct for $386,000. 

Drake, C. J. That, too, is a question of law. . Mr. Merriman. There is a question, I say, as to the extent of this power of attor- ney. 

Drake, C. J. We will consider all that. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. It will be seen Mr. Chairman, that 

here again the judge asked them the question, dAre not Gilman, Son 

& Co. still in existence f" They said, "Oh yes." The idea was, cannot 

you explain this receipt Y _ 

Here is a plain power of attorney which the Court of Claims, and 

the Supreme Court afterward, decided was ample authority for the 

purpose of allowing them to make settlement. Here was their absolute final receipt in so many words, and the court said, ''"Where 

is the man who signed thisreceipt; cannotyougethim T" "Ohyes, 

we suppose we could, but we desire to stake the case on the law point 

that the power of attorney is not broad enough, and that the receipt 

ought not to bind." Beyond all question that was an admission that 

they could not explain away that receipt. 

Mr. Johnson took issue as to the law, and contended that the 

receipt did cover the case. I will read a word or two of what he said. 

He waf:l for the United States. 

Mr. Johnson. I will say here in regard to this settlement for extras, that there was no complaint made at anytime. The accounts should be certified by the local 

inspector at Saint Louis, but his certificate does not appear. He swears, however, 

that it could not be paid without his certi1icate, I believe. They were evidently agreed upon in Saint Louis. Then the vouchers were made out in New York at the office of Admiral Gregory. Then they came to the Department here, and were approved by the Chief of the Bureau of Construction ; then sent to New York 

again and paid. But they were undoubtedly agreed upon before leaving New 

York, or probably before reaching New York. 

I do not pretend th~t these b~ers, Gilman~ Son & Co., knew ~nything ab<?ut 

compromising or settling ~ny cla.rm. They ha~ full power t? receive !ill~ receipt for and give proper acqmtta.nces for everything they received. This 18 all the 

claimants claim and ask for this money. They did not ask for anything more. They were. to give proper a{:quittances, for whioh purpose they were givell that 

power. They had full authority to do that, and they gave it. There was no dis- v.ute about that. All this claim for extras is an after-thought. I do not know when 

1t came into the minds of these claimants to set up such a. claim, but certainly it was long after the vessel was received, taken from them, and everything they asked for was paid, con~t price and all. · 

That is the unchallenged language of the counsel of the United 

States. He was followed by Mr. Doolittle, who again contended that the 

receipt was not final and the power of attorney was not broad enough 

to bind conclusively, and that the receipt wa-s open to explanation. 

The Court of Claims afterward decided that the receipt did bind, 

that the power of attorney was ample, and the Supreme Court, as I 

have shown, affirmed that judgment upon both points. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman give way for a motion that 

the committee now rise f 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Geor~ia. I am asked by" the gentleman from 

Ohio to give way for a motion thatthecommitteerise. Still retaining the floor, I yield for that motion_. Mr. TAYLOR. I move that the committee do now rise. 

Mr. CLARK. How much time has the gentleman from Georgia 

remaining¥ 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has fifteen minutes of his time 

remaining. 

Mr. CONVERSE. Before the committee rises, I ask unanimous 

consent, and I hope my colleague will withhold his motion for that 

purpose, to take up from the Private Calendar the bill (H. R. No. 

339ts) granting a pension to Anna A. Probert. I will say that the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions have allowed the small sum of $20 

as pension to this widow. She has two small children and the rea- son the claim comes here is this : her husband lost his health in the 

Army and wa-s allowed a pension, which he drew up to the time of 

his death; but the reason his widow cannot now draw the pension 

is this, that when the fever broke out in Memphis, with that generosity and courage for which he was characterized, he volunteered as a nurse and went down there into that stricken district and lost 

his life by the fever. The Department.] therefore, rules that inasmuch as his death did not arise from wounas or disease contracted in the 

Army, tl}.at his widow cannot continue to draw the pension. This 

gives her a small pension of 20 a month. 

Mr. PRESCOTT. Does the gentleman ask to take this up out of 

the regular order of bills on the Private Calendar f 

Mr. CONVERSE. Yes. It can be done by unanimous consent, 

which, under the circumstances, I hope will be granted. 

Mr. PRESCOTT. I shall certainly object to it. 

Mr. CONVERSE. I hope my friend will not object in this case. This is the case of a poor widow who needtJ it now badly. 

Mr. PRESCOTT. There are two hundred similar cases, I am sure, on the Calendar; and I do not think it is proper to make an exception. They should all be acted upon in their proper order. 

Mr. CONVERSE. But only a few minutes will be required for this case. 

Mr. PRESCOTT. If it does take but a minute, the same rule 

should apply to the other cases, and I will feel obliged to object. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman fro:m.New York objectf 

Mr. PRESCOTT. I do. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I now move that the committee rise. 

The motion wa.a agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and the ~~aker havingresmned 

the chair, Mr. BELFORD reported that the Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private Calendar, having had under consideration 

various bills, had instructed him to report them to the House with 

sundry recommendations. -

BILLS PASSED. 

The following bills reported from the Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private Calendar with favorable recommendation 

were severally ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

being engrossed, were read the third time, and passed : 

A bill (H. R. No. 2141) granting a pension to Martha A. Lewis; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1054) fo:J: the relief of John. B. Trainer; and 

A bill (R R. No. 1136) for the relief of John H. Morris. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SR..~ATE. 

A message from the SenatE}, by Mr. SYMPSO~, one of their 'Clerks, 

announced that the Senate had passed without amendment the joint 

resolution (H. R. No. 104) authorizing the printing of 2,500 extra 

copies of the report of the health officer of the District of Columbia, 

and the bill (H. R. No. 2192) to establish a port of delivery at Denver, in the State of Colorado. 

The messa~e further announced that the Senate had passed bills 

of the followmg titles; in which concurrence of the House was requested: 

A bill (S. No. 53) for the relief of Alonzo Gesner; 

'A bill (S. No. 383) to amend section 4458 of the Revised Statutes of 

the United States, relating to license fees of officers of steam-vessels; 

A bill (S. No. 412) for-the relief of Joab Spencer and James R. 

Mead; 

A. bill (S. No. 578) to authorize the erection of a statue of ChiefJustice :Marshall; · A bill (S. No. 619) for the relief of Marcos Radich; 

A bill (S. No. 643) for the relief of Ellen Moore, widow of Allen 

Moore, deceased ; and 

A bill (S. No. 885) to authorize the compilation and printing of tho 

naval documentary history of the war. 

STEPHEN H. LONG. 

The next bill reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar with favorable recommendation was the bill 

(H. R. No. 2756) to settle the claim of the heirs of the late Colonel 

Stephen H. Long, of the United States Topographical Engineers ; 

which was engrossed, and ordered to be read a third time. 

Mr. BRAGG. On the. passage of the bill I ask the yeas and nays, so as to test the sense of the House upon the action of the committee. 

This is the .bill which in the committee I had the honor to oppose, 

upon the ground that it provides for the payment for an invention 

said to have been made by an officer of the United States Army while 

in the dischar~e of his duty as such officer, and an invention which 

pertained to his duty in the department to which he was assigned. 

I desire therefore to obtain the sense of the House on the passage of 

the bill, and for that reason I ask the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question wa-s taken; and there were-yeas 98, nays 50, not 

voting 144; a-s follows : 

.Aldrich, 

Atherton, 

Atkins 

Beach,' 

Blanchard, 

Bliss, 

Brewer, 

Briggs, 

Browne, 

Buchanan, 

:Buckner, 

Burrows, Julius C. 

Butterworth, 

Cabell, 

Candler, 

Chace, 

Clardy, 

Clark, 

Cook, 

Culberson, 

Davis, George R. Davis, Lowndes H. 

Deering, 

Dibren:; 

Dingley, 

Armfield, 

Black, 

Bragg, 

Buriows, J os. H. 

Caldwell, 

Clements, 

Cobb, 

Converse, 

Cox1 William R. 

Covmgton, 

Cravens, 

Cullen, 

Cutts, 

YEA~98. 

Dunnell, 

EITett, 

Evins, 

Finley, 

Flower, 

Forney, 

George, 

Grout, 

Guenther, 

Gunter, 

Hammond, N. J. 

Hardenbergh, 

Hardy, 

Haseltine, 

Haskell, 

Hatch, 

Hawk, 

Hewitt, G. W. 

Hill, 

Horr, 

House, 

Hubbs, 

Humphrey, 

Hutchins, 

Jacobs, 

Jones, James K. Robinson, Goo. D. 

Jones, Phineas Rosecrans, 

Joyce, Scales, Kasson, Sin11;leton, Jas. W. 

Kelley, Snuth, Dietrich C. 

Ketcham, Spaulding, 

Lacey, Spooner, Mason, Springer, 

McKenzie, Steele, 

Morrison, Taylor, Muldrow, Tillman, 

Norcross, Townsend, Amos 

Oates, Tucker, 

Peelle, Upson, 

Pierce, Urner, 

Pettibone, Valentine, 

Prescott, Wait, 

Ray, Wheeler, 

Reagan, Whitthorne, 

Reed Williams, Thomas 

Rice,'William W. Willis, 

Rich, Willits, 

Richardson, D.P. Wilsou. 

Richardson, Jno. S. 

Ritchie, 

NAYS-50. 

Dawes, 

Deuster, 

Dowd, 

Dn~o, 

DWight, 

Farwell, Sewell S. 

Geddes, 

Hazelton, 

Hepburn, 

Herbert, 

Hoblitzell, 

Holman, 

Klotz. 

La.dd, 

Lewis, 

Marsh, 

~:~~I:i, McMillin, 

Jdiller, 

Neal, 

Parker, 

Payson, 

Rice, Theron M. 

Shallenberger, 

Skinner, 

Smith, A. Herr, 

Smith, J. Hyatt, Stone, 

Turner, Henry G. 

Turner, Oscar 

Updegraff, J. T. 

VanAemam, 

Warner, 

Washburn, 

Webber, 

Wise, George D. 
1606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARon 3, 

NOT VOTING-144. 

.Aiken, Dezendorf, 

.Allen, Dibble, 

Anderson, Dunn, 

Barbour, Ellis 

Barr, Erm~ntrout, Bayne, Farwell, Chas. B. 

Belford, Fisher, 

Belmont, Ford, 

Beltzhoover, Frost, 

Berry, Fulkerson, 

:Bingham, Garrison, 

:Bla.cK:burn, Gibson, 

:Bland, Godshalk, 

:Blount, Hall, 

:Bowman, Hammond, John 

Brumm, Harmer, 

:Buck, Harris, Benj. W. 

Calkins, Harris, HenryS. 

Camp, Heilman, 

Campbell, Henderson, 

Cannon, Herndon, 

Carlisle, Hewitt, Abram S. 

Carpenter, Hiscock, 

Cassidy, Hoge, Caswell, Hooker, 

Chalmers, Honk, 

Chapman, Hubbell, Colerick, Jadwin, 

Cornell, Jones, George W. 

Cox, Samuel;>. Jorgensen, 

Crapo, ~nna, 

C

Curtinro":ley, g, , Knott, 

Darrell, Latham, 

Davidson, Leedom, 

De Motte, Le Fevre, 

So the bill was pa.sse-d. 

t~~ey, ~e, Manning, Scranton, 

Martin Shackelford, McCI~, Sheller, 

McCook, Sherwm, 

McKinley, Shultz, 

McLane, Simonton, 

Miles, Singleton, Otho R. 

Mills, Sparks, 

Money, Speer, 

Moore, Stephens, 

Morey, Stockslager, 

Morse, Strait, 

Mosgrove, Talbott, 

Moulton, Thomas, 

Murch Thompson, P. B. 

Mutchler, Thompson, Wm. G. 

Nolan, Townshend, R. W. 

O'Neill Tvler, 

Orth, ' Updegraff, Thomas 

Pacheco, Vance, 

Page, Van Horn 

PaUl, Van V oorhls, 

Phelps, Wadsworth, 

Phister, Walker, 

Pound. Ward, 

Randall, Watson, 

Ranney, Wellborn, 

Rice, .T ohn B. West, 

Robertson, White, 

Robeson, Williams, Chas. G. 

Robinson, .Tames S. Wise1 Morgan R. 

Robinson, Wm. E. Wooo., BeDJamin 

Ross, Wood, Walter A. 

Russell. Young. 

The foUowing pairs were announced: 

Mr. DARRELL with Mr. ROBERTSON. 

Mr. ATHERTON with Mr. MOREY. 

Mr. HOOKER with Mr. RICE of Massachusetts. 

Mr. BOWMAN with Mr. ALLEN. 

Mr. GODSHALK with Mr. DUNN. 

Mr. LEEDOM with Mr. SHULTZ. 

Mr. HEILMAN with Mr. ERMENTROUT. 

Mr. PAYSON with Mr. TOWNSHEND oflllinois. 

Mr. MARTIN with Mr. JADWIN. 

Mr. WmTTHORNE with Mr. HouK. 

Mr. CRAPO with Mr. ROBINSON of New York. 

Mr. SCRANTON with Mr. FROST. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Iowa, with Mr. MILLS. 

Mr. SHELLEY with Mr. FARWELL oflllinois. 

Mr. TALBOTT with Mr. HARMER. 

Mr. COLERICK with Mr. BAYNE. 

Mr. BARR with Mr. CASSIDY. 

Mr. HARRIS, of Massachusetts, with Mr. HARRIS, of New Jersey. 

Mr. 'V ATSON w itlt Mr. MUTCHLER. 

Mr. DEZENDORF with Mr. GARRISON. 

Mr. McLANE with Mr. PAGE. 

Mr. CARLISLE with Mr. MCKINLEY. 

Mr. RANDALL with Mr. O'NEILL. 

Mr. HUBBELL with Mr. BLACKBURN. 

Mr. RYAN with Mr. MANNING. 

Mr. LE FEVRE with Mr. RICE of Ohio. 

Mr. HILL, of New Jersey, with Mr. Ross. 

Mr . .A.IKEN with Mr. WARD. . Mr. NoLAN with Mr. HAMMOli'D ofNew York. 

Mr. KING with Mr. BUCK. 

Mr. HENDERSON with Mr. SPARKS. 

Mr. BLOUNT with Mr. HISCOCK. 

Mr. CARPENTER with Mr. THOMPSON of Kentucky. 

Mr. FORD with Mr. VANCE. 

Mr. PmSTER with Mr. POUND. 

The retmlt of the vote wa-s announced as above stated. 

}fr. MORRISON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter m·otion was agreed to. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I rise to make a report from a committee of con- ference. . The SPEAKER. The Chair suggests that the ooentleman withhold 

the conference report till the House disposes of the further reports 

from the Committee of the Whole House. The Clerk will report the 

next bill. 

JOSEPH L. STEVENS. 

The next bill reported from the Committee of the Whole House 

with a recommendation that it do pass waa the bill (H. R. No. 1014) 

for the relief of Joseph L. Stevens. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

it was accordingly read the third time. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of this 

bill. 

The questign being taken on ordering the yeas and nays, there 

were--ayesl5, noes95, the affirmativenotbeingone-fifthofthewhole v~te. 

t 

Mr. HOLMAN. I call for tellers on the yeas and nays. In Committee of the Whole it was agreed we should have a vote by yeas 

and nays . Mr. HUMPHREY. That was the understanding in Committee of 

the Whole. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that no agreement made in 

Committee of the Whole binds the House unless gentlemen choose to 

carry out such an agreement. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Mas!achusetts. We will all vote to carry it 

out. That was the understanding. 

The SPEAKER. H there be no objection the Chair will again submit the question to the Honse by a rising vote. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN,] 

in Committee of the Whole, said he would not raise the question of 

a quorum, upon the understanding that the yeas and nays should be 

called in the House. That being the case I think they ought to be 

called. 

Mr. HISCOCK. In view of the shape this question is in I hope I 

may be permitted to present a conference report on an appropriation 

bill. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I have no objection to that. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will again submit the question on ordering the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. BRAGG. I move that the Honse now adjourn. 

Tlte motion was not agreed to, upon a division: ayes 44, noes 56. 

Mr. KLOTZ. I move that when the House adjourns to-day, it be 

to meet on Monday next. 

Mr. WILSON. That is right. 

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. KLoTz, and upon a division there were--ayes 517 noes 57. 

Before the result of this vote was announced, 

Mr. BRAGG called for tellers. 

Tellers were not ordered; there being but 28 in the affirmative, not 

one-fifth of a quorum. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I move that the House now adjourn. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will announce the result of the vote on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KLoTz]-

ayes 51, noes 57. The motion is not agreed to. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I believe I have the right to make a report at this time from a committee of conference. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I withdraw the motion to adjourn. 

Mr. BRAGG. I rise to a point of order. • The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state H. 

Mr. BRAGG. No quornm voted on the last motion. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not understand the gentleman to 

make the point that no quornm voted. The Chair announced the 

result of the vote, and business has intervened. 

Mr. BRAGG. What business f 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from lllinois [Mr. ALDRICH] 

made the motion that the House adjourn, and afterward withdrew 

the motion. 

Mr. BRAGG. Then I renew the motion that when the House adjourns to-day it be to meet on Monday next. 

The SPEAKER. That moti<m has just been voted down. 

Mr. HOOKER. But new business haa intervened. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will submit the motion to the House. 

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. BRA.GG; and upon a division there were--ayes 47, noes 52. 

Before the result of the vote was announced, 

?tfr. BRAGG called for tellers. 

Tellers were not ordered; there beingbut16 in the affirmative not 

one-fif;th of a quornm. 

Mr. BRAGG. I now move that the House adjourn. 

The question wa-s taken upon the motion to adjourn, and upon a division there were--ayes 59, noes 30. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Pending the announcement of the vote ou the motion to adjourn, by unanimous consent leave of absence was granted as follows: 

To Mr. GoDSHALK, until the 20th instant, on account of sickness. 

To Mr. BEACH, for Monday, Tuesd.ay, and Wednesday next, on account of important business. 

COLUMBIA HOSPITAL Al\'D LYING-IN ASYLUM. 

The SPEAKER announced the appointment ofl\fr. VAN AERNAI\I, of 

New York, and Mr. LADD, of Maine, as directors of the Columbia Hospital for Women and Lying-in Asylum, to hold their offices for 

the term of this Congress as provided for by law. 

The result of the vote on the motion of Mr. BRAGG was then an- nounced; and accordingly (at four o'clock and thirty minutes p.m.) 

the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and other papers were laid on the Clerk's 

desk, under the rule, and referred as follows : By Mr. BROWNE : Papers relating to the pension claim of Mary 

Wade--to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. J. H. BURROWS: The petitions of Henry Restine and 
1882. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1607 

others, citizens of C ainesville, and of Evennont Booth and others, citizens of Harrison County, in the State of Missouri, praying for the 

restorati<'n of fractional currency-severally to the Committee on 

Banking and Currency. By Mr. CARPENTER: The petition of citizens of Boone County, 

Iowa, asl! ing that the same privileges and encouragement be given 

to buildiD g railroad bridges across the Missouri River above Omaha as have h·~retofore been given below that city-to the Committee on 

Commerce. 

By Mr. DWIGHT: The petition of J. M. Stone and 38 others, 

<:itizens of Binghamton, New York, relative to the duty on manu- factured glass-to the Committee on Ways and.Means. 

By Mr. HEPBURN : The petifion of Samuel Johnson and 50 others, 

citizens of Iowa, praying for aid in the construction of bridges across the Missouri River in Iowa and Nebraska north of Omaha-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. HOGE : Papers relating to the claim of William M. Morrison-to the Committee on India.n Affairs. 

Also, the petition of Robert F. Tapp, for compensation for damages 

done his mills and lands by the erection of dam No.7 on the Monongahela River-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. JOYCE:. The petition of C. Benjamin and others, citizens 

of Pittsfield, Rutland County, Vermont, praying for the passage of 

the Edmunds bill for the suppression of polygamy-to the Committee 

on the Judiciary. . . Also, the petition ofP. T. Griffith, praying that he be granted an honorable discharge from the military service-to the Committee on Military .Affairs. 

By Mr. NEAL: The petition of Dr. Jonathan Morris and 10 others, 

physicians of the city of Ironton, in the State of Ohio, in favor of the 

establishment of a marine hospital at that place-to the Committee on Commerco. 

By Mr. O'NEILL: The resolution of the Tobacco Board of Trade 

of Philadelphia, requesting Congress either to abolish promptly the 

tax on tobacco and cigars or to pass resolutions to the effect that it 

is unwise and impolitic to tamper during the present Congress with 

the said tax--to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. J. S. ROBINSON: The petition of John Bonner and others, 

for the establishment of a daily mail route from Magnetic Springs to 

Delaware, in the State of Ohio-to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads. 

Also, papers relating to the pension claims of Charles B. and Eliza~ 

beth Smith and of Sarah I. Cameron-severally to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. STEELE: The petition of R: Strops and 60 others, praying 

for the establishment of a post-route from North Manchester to Seagro, in the State of Indiana-to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. VANCE: The letter ofW. 0. Harrelson, of North Carolina, 

relative to legislation on the subject of temperance-to the Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

SATURDAY, March 4, 1882. 

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

F. D. POWER. 

The Journal of yesterday wa.g read and approved. 

the parties thereto or order of the court, except as otherwise hereinafter provided. The clerk, marshal, and district attorney for said district of Kansas shall perform the duties pertaining to their offices respectively for said court, and the clerk and 

marshal shall appoirit a- deputy to reside and keep their offices at Wichita, who, in 

the absence of the principals, shall do and perform all the duties appertaining to 

their sa-id offices resP.ectively. But the city or county authorities shall provide a suitable building, Without expense to the United States, in which to hold said court, otherwise no court shall be held at said place. SEC. 2. That all that part of the Indian Territory lying north of the Canadian 

River and east of Texas and the one hundredth meridian not set apart and occu- pied by the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Indian tribes, shall, from and after the passa~e of this act, be annexed to and constitute a :part of the United States judi- cial diStrict of Kansas ; and the United States district courts at Wichita and Fort 

Scott, in the district of Kansas, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all 

offenses committed within the limits of the territory hereby annexed to said district 

of Kansas aga-inst any of the laws of the United States now or that may hereafter 

be operative therein. . SEC. 3. That all that portion of the Indian Territ<lry not annexed to the district 

ofxansas by this act~ and not set apart and occupied by the Cherokee. Creek. 

Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Indian tribes, shallJ from and after the pas- ~e of this act, be annexed to and constitute a part of tne United States judicial diStrict known as the northern district of Texas ; and the United States district 

court at Graham, in said northern di trict of Texas, shall have exclusive ori¢nal jurisdiction ofall offenses committe<! within the limits of the territory hereby an- nexed to said northern district of Texas against any of the laws of the United 

States now or that may hereafter be operative therein. SEc. 4.. That nothing contained in this act shall be construed to affect in any manner any action or proceeding now pending in the circuit or district court for 

the western district of Arkansas, nor the execution of any process relating thereto; nor shall anything in this act be construed to give to said district courts of Kan- sas or Texas, respectively, any greater jurisdiction in that part of said Indian 

TeiTitory so as aforesaid annexed, respectively, to said district of Kansas and said 

northern district of Texas than might heretofore have been lawfully exercised 

therein by the western district of .Arkansas; nor shall anything in this act con- tained be construed to viol"te or impa-ir in any respect any treaty provision what- ever. 

Mr. RYAN. The Committee on the Judiciary recommend an amendment to the first ection of the bill, to strike out the words at 

the end of the section, '' otherwise no court shall be held at said 

place." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

1\!r. ATKINS. Does this bill provide for a new judge Y 

¥r. RYAN. It provides for no new officer whatever. 

The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed a.nd read a third 

time ; and it was accordingly read the third time and passed. 

Mr. RYAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill waa passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid ou the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MARY C. 1\IURRA.. Y. 

Mr. FLOWER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the indulgence of tho House 

for a moment. In the hour of our country's peril, when the old flag was trrunpled in tho dust and the Union was, we feared, about to bo 

dissevered, this Government called for men, and thousands of them, 

including Edward Murray, went to the field of battle. He fought" ~ravely through the war, was twice wounded at Snicker's Gap, once in the wrist-when, from loss of blood, he wa.g taken from the fieldand then shot through the belt, the ball penetrating the kidneys. 

He can no longer remind the country of its promise to make his wife 

and children the wards of the Government. His voice is hushed in 

d.eath. His widow bids m? ~sk you not for back pay but for a pensiOn to support her. She 1s m want, and I ask unanimous consent 

that the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar be disc~ged fro~ the further consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 3549) 

granting a pensiOn to Mary C. Murray, and that the bill be now con- sidered and passed. 

Mr. SPARKS. Why does not this applicant go to the Pension Office, 

like anybody else t 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN KANSAS. Mr. FLOWER. The claim has been presented there. I have read 

Mr. RYAN. I desire this morning to renew the request I made day the evidence thoroughly. The bill ha.g twice been reported favorabefore yesterday, that House bill No. 429, to provide for holding a bly in this House. 

term of the district court of the United States at Wichita, Kansas, Mr. SPARKS. It may be that the bill is right, but I do not know 

And for other purposes, be taken from the House Calendar and con- that the patriotic speech of the gentleman calls upon us for precipiaidered at this time. The objection which was then made has since tate action. There is a Pension Bureau where all these claims ought been withdrawn. to go under the liberal provisions of our pension laws. Why not go 

Mr. HOLMAN. Let the bill be read. there with this case, where the soldiers of my district equally meriMr. RYAN. I willstn.te to my friend that this bill wa.s read fully torious go with theirs' 

last Thursday morning; but if he desires it read again, I have no The SPEAKER. Doe the gentleman from Illinois object t If 

objection. there be no objection, the bill will be read. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I was not aware that this bill had been read. The bill was read, as follows: 

Mr. RY:tN. Yes; you called for the reading of it yourself, and it Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby au- was read 1n response to your own request. thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll from the date of Novembe~ 13 

Mr. HOLMAN. This is a bill which involves the jurisdiction of 1876,subjecttotheprovisionsandlimitationsofthepensionlaws, thenameofMarY 

certain portions of the Indian Territory 7 0. Murray, widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Murray, late of the Fifth New 

Mr. RYAN. It is that bill. York Heavy Artillery. 

1\!r. HOLMAN. Inasmuch as the subject has been somewhat con- There being no objection, the Hou e procl)eded to consider the bill. 

sidered by members since the bill was read, I have no objection to The amendment reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions to 

its being considered at this time. strike out the words "from the date of November 13, 1876," was 

There being no objection, the bill was taken from the House Cal- agr~ed • • 

endar for consideration. . The bill as am~nded was order~d to.be engrossed for a third r.eadThe bill was read as follows : mg; was accordingly read the third time, and pa.gsed. 

Be it eruu:ted. cl:c. Th~t there shall be one tennofthe United States distri t urt Mr. FLOWER moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was for the district' of Kansas held at Wichita in each year, on the first Mondayco:OSep- passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

tember, from and after thepassageofthisaet; but no cause action orproceedirig I table. 

shall be tried or considered in the court herein provided forucless by consent of a.ll The latter motion wa agreed to.