Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-04-26


Mr.. DAssETT, from the select committee
appointed on that subject, reported bill con-
corning the disbursements of public money
which was twice read and committed TO u
committee of the whole on the state of the
Union.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The House then resolved itself Into n com
miitee OF the whole on the state of the Union
Mr. CoNplcT in the chair on the bill making
further appropriations for the military service
of the U. States for the year 1892.
The question REQUIRED upon striking out the
appropriation for the erection of Fort Cal
houn on the Chesapeake, and the Same was
put and ncgatived by Il large majority.
Mr., BUrLER, of n. II. moved 10 amend the
| section byadding therto clause providing that
| ~, part of the appropriation should he applied
of the contract made with Elijah Mix, on the
Goth July, 1915.
Mr. SAWYER was opposed to the proviso,
but the reasons which he offered could not be
heard by the reporter.
Mr.. SMITH, of Md. also opposed the amend
ment. He regarded it as going to declare
dissolution of a contract which Congress had
repeatedly affirmed.
| Mr.. Butter contended it was made in con-
travention Of the laws of the Uoited States.
and that there was such reason to suspect that
there was fraud in the case, as would justify
us, IN Withholding the appropriation.
Mr. Ross opposed the provisn not only
on the ground assumed by the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr.. SMtrH,)bu also IN the prin-
ciple that Congress, having recognized the
contract, it was now too late to annul il, and
he should vote against the amendment, al
though he had been opposed to the arpro-
priation.
Rir. TOP also made few observations on
| tDp subject Nhpn I'm \
the motion negatiyed by large majority,
and the blank was flied as proposed by the
Committee of Ways and Means
The appropriation for terrifying Mobile
| Point being under considerations
| MIR. COOKE moved to strike out the section.
and TO insert in lieu thereof nm appropriation
for the specific purpose of collecting materials
Tor that ratification. The principle on which
he preferred specific application was that
the money heretofore appropriated for the
| fertilization at Mobile Point had not been an
piled to that object, hut had been transferred
to Colonel Gratiot, at Norfolk, and he refer
red to documents on the subject.
Mr.. >. >. JOHNSON commended that the mo-
ncy had been applied to the great object for
winch II was appropriated, and he examined
with mnllteness the particular circumstances
of the case in question. Rlr. ]. also advcrted
| to the topics that had been drawn into discus
sion yesterday, and contended that whether
The Secretary had assumed an undue respon-
\ sihility upon himself or not it ought not TO be
| brought to bear upon the subject.
| Mr.. CocxE replied, and expressed his dis
sent TO the justification of the Secretary OF
war which had been urged by the gentlenia n
from Louisiana Mr. JOHNSON and again re-
viewed the positions he had taken on the ,u,es-
| ton.
| Mr.. SMITH Of Nd. explained the facts in
relation TO the origin and changes of the CON
| tract FOR hnllding the Notifications at bIobic
FONT, and made a general exposition of the
subject of iortfcations, with an historical
sketch of the policy that had been pursued
for series of years, in their erection and cx-
tent. He also expressed his acouiesence in
the amendment proposed by the gentleman
from Tennessee, (Mr. EocKE,) and ntimaird
an opinion that it would b., expedcnt for ti.:.
| United States 10 abandon the system of erect
ing their Notifications by contract.
Mr.. ALEXANDER SMyTu thought the gen
fleman from Tennessec, (Mr CocKE,0 was
! mistaken in the facts and that he had been
mlsed by the similarity of sums Ia suppose
| that Il transfer had been made of the appro-
priation for Mobile Point. Mr.. S. contnnled
that 1t was incorrect policy to make specific
| appropriations To Notifications by name. s
sum should be designated 10y Congress r,u the
|
he left TO the Executive Department, and on
4 that department the responsibility should rest,
4 Tor IFS correct and faithful disbursement and
| application. In reference to the alleged trans
Ter, he remarked that the Secretary OF War
was absent at the time the fiscal arrangement
was entered into-that it was done by the
| President Of the United States, the Secretary
of the Treasury and the Chief of the Engineer
Department. The Secretary of lNaf said, he
probably approved of it sub ,equently, but tie
| responsibility, whatever it was, seemed forrest
upon the President; but the money he i,c-
! lievcd was fairly expended in the public SER
vice, and in pursuance of tae act of Congress
| Mr.. Tracy was in favor of the amendment,
on the ground that it was equivalent To AN ex-
preston of the intention Of the house To dis
continue the contract for building the fortifca-
ton at Mobile Point {; from which contract hc
commended the United States was fairly alb
solved, for the work was to have been com
pleted in 1891 by the terms of il. He also
adverted to the items of the contract, which
he thought fully proved that the contract was
dIsadvantageeus to the government, and he
was unwilling to continue it further than e-
gal liability imposed an obligation.
| Mr.. SMITH Of Md. rose 10 correct what he
thought was an error of the gentleman from
va. Mr.. Smyh,l in relation tn the agency OF
the Secretary Of the Treasury in the transac-
ton alluded to, and which he said was limited
10 the transfer oGthe money from De Russo TO
Col. Gratot.
Mr.. JoHNsoN, Of Louisiana, had Ro expcc-
tatlon that the contract would be fulfilled by
tue sureties Of Col. Hawkins, and he thought
1T most expedent to apply The appropriation
20 the procurement of materials, which was
In his opinion, the only mode in which the
great object was most likely TO he accom-
Vel, II
the eXpedicncy Of the terms Of tic contract,
| because that was point which should bc left