American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1824-01-16

loie sutttS w Tue tnalr5 the COnsluefa-I
ton OF the bill for the relief Of Francis Henderson,
jr It will be recolIeced that this bill proposes to
| grant sum Of money to Francis Henderson, Jun i
III full Tor services rendered to the country by his
grandfather, Col John l,aurens. The question be
tore the Committee was upon motion by Mr..
Holmes, OF Maine, 10 rccommit the bill for the pur.
pose OF altering it, far grant the money TO
Mrs. Henderson,, the daughter OF Col. Laurens.
This motion, at the request of MIR. Harbour, was
withdrawn
/ Mr.. barbour, after some further remarks on the
nature of this claim, and in confirmation of those
which he had previously made in Committee oflhe
whole, moved that the blank in the bill should bel
filled with the sum which the Committee original
lily reported to be due for the expenses incurred byt
Col. LaureDs.
Mr. Lowrie said, that he had paid great atten-
ton to this subject, aud he felt, after full nvestiga
ton, that he could vote for the BILL in any shape.
As the subject had been discussed two days, he
would now, in order to try the of the Senate,
move its indefinite postponement.
Mr.. Elliott opposed the motion to postpone in
definitely. He said there could be no doubt that
Col. Laurens had really expended the moneys
which the bill proposed to reimburse, and that the
claim fairly came under the provision of Congress,
exislng at that time for The payment Of the expen-
SEES OF their foreign ministers. The property left
by Colonel Laurens TO his family, had been dimin-
than Just that they should be paid. The circum-
stances under which the daughter was situated were
such, that Mr.. r. thought the money ought not to
Ibe given 10 her--he did not, therefore, any i'm
|propriesy in voting it to her son.
i Mr.. Lloyd, Of Maryland, said he understood the
question, to passing the present BILL not to turn
upon the justice of the claim, but, whether the per-
|son, whose name was mentioned in the bill, was
fairly and legally authorized to receive the money
UNA not cd h,,ta atIpp
for services rendered. and expenses incurred j; and
it was imperative upon the Government to pay its
Just debts but it was also important to know, who
has the jus. claim 10 it. II Col. Laurens had any
Ielam upon the Government when he died, his
daughter undoubtedly became the heir to that claim.
'IWhen she married Mr.. Henderson, he acquired
he right to the claim IT the claim rests on the
aw, tits certainly highly important to know to whom
LIT now befDngs. 1t Congress were TO pay II, now,
wrongfully, they would be bound, by every princi-
lpe Of justice, to pay it again, hereafter, provided
1.-The proper person came forward TO claim 1t. ii
Mr. Henderson were now separated from his wife.
-Iby covenant contract it became necessary to in
qure how far that separation would affect the claim.
4 What is the nature OF that separation! Does it
secure the right in this claim to Henderson? Until
THE could see some evidence on this subject, Mr. l..
said he could not say what right the grandson had
! 10 receive this money. No one, Mr.. L remarked
could be ready than himselfto extend foster
ling hand to those, and the descendants OF those
who had rendered distinguished services to the coun
Jury, and no one was more sensible OF the lmpor-
lance of the services rendered by Col. Laurens ;
but he wished before he called upon to vote on
j this subject to know to whom the money was due
and who had legal claim to it-suppose, by con-
tract with his wife, tina: Henderson had been pro-
n hibited from receiving the amount of this claim
under such circumstances, how could he transfer a
right to his son, which he did not himself possess
Ii 1t paid to the son, in such case Congress
might be called upon, by The wife OF Henderson, to
pay it again. These reasons, Mr.. Lloyd said,
would induce him TO vote for postponement, reserv
ing il to the justice Of the country to recognise the
claim, when it came forward in less dubious shape.
? MIR. EdWards of Illinois, believed that nothing
!; less than absolute divorce could deprive Mr..
Henderson, the father, of the right to receive this
1 claim. As no divorce had taken place, he surely
retained that right and il so, he could transfer IT
ri 10 his son. 1t nothing more than separation,
. without divorce, had taken place, it did not viii
. ate the right of Mr. Henderson and, as he had
Il assented to the grant being made in favour OF his
4 son, there was no doubt in his mind, Mr. E. said,
ethat the son Of Henderson had fair claim
! MIR. Harbour intimated his WISH provided the
motion to postpone indefinitely were Withdrawn,
Ito propose an amendment to the bill, SO as to re-
y lquire the REIMBURSEMENT of all claim, by Francis
81 Henderson the father, and Frances +. Henderson
lthemother, previous to the payment of the money
It to Francis Henderson, Jun.
j. MIR. Lowrie, accordingly withdrew his motion
II for indefinite posponement, in order to admit the
Is amendment.
Mr.. Lloyd, Of Massachusetts, was in favor oil
the allowance of this caim-for, he believed that
wise lberalty in conducting the affairs OF the nation
d was the most proper economy be would not agree
IS hat one dollar Of this money should go TO the nus
band or 10 the wife, in this case but he felt per-
n Eectly willing to give it TO the son, for his own ex-
10 elusive use and benefit he therefore, proposed an
n amendment, to strengthen the expressions used
: L.: L.. .D:l u. ...r :. Gr.ard hu Mr. Rnrhnnr-