Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-04-14

with Great Britain, ought TO lie settled 10y the
proper accounting officer of the Treasury, and paid
rejected, according TO the rules ard principles
which have governed the settlement OF claims for /
the services OF the militia Of other States during
that war and iha, further legal provision is
now necessary to effect such settlement.
MIR. Dwight, of Massa ehusc,ts suggested that |
this would be uncourteouS TO the gentleman from |
New Hampshire, (AIr. Whipple,l who had the
floor in the committee and had commenced speech
which he had not yet concluded
Mr.. Whpple, believing that the ends OF public |
business would be expedited by substituting con-
sidera,iomo of the resolution for that of the bl'in
committee, consen,edto foiego the completing of
the observations he had commenced.
A farther conversation arose this arrange
ment, bet" cen Messr-. Wright, Webster, and Bu-
| chanan. which resulted in the Withdrawing OF MIR.
Wright's motion and the House ent into COM
mlttce of the whole, Mir. Buchanan, of Pa III the
chair, on the bill +" allowing compensation to the
Stale OF Massachusetts for militia services render
ed during the late war"
Mr. Wright now moved 10 lay aside the bill,
and take up IN committee the resolution he had
previously read, by way OF amendment, to the res
olu,ion offered yesterday by Mr.. Bradley, of Yer
| mont, which referred TO the same Committee
OF the whole, and is in the words following
! ReSoired, That it is not expe,ient for this
House 10 take any further measures respecting The
claim OF the State Of Massachusetts, for services
rendered 20 the L. States during the late war, but
that the same be lei, to The responsibility of the
Executive branch of the Government, TO be pro-
ceeded with as has been done i'll cases of claims
made by other states for similar ices.
On this motion n very animated debate common
| ced which continued till near O'Clock.
MIR. Mccoy opposed the motion general prin-
ciples, which extended also to the bill, & covered
The whole claim
AIr. WicslifFe preferrcs, the resolution offered
! by Mr.. Bradley.
| Mr.. Wright then illustrated and defended his re-
solution at considerable length '
! Mr.. Wurts thought no legislation necessary,
unless topass declaratory act
! Mr.. Dray ton, OF South Carolina, was opposed
| to Mr.. W,isht's amendment as imperative and
unnecessary, and also TO the resolution of Mr.
Bradley. lie spoke at length in defence OF The bill
! as reported by the committee Military A fairs
| (of which ne is a member.)
| Mr. Mangum, OF North Carolina, opposed the
resolution and amendment, and contended that the
claim oush, to be settled by existing laws.
| Mr. Stevenson, OF Pennsylvania, preferred the
| bill. but opposed to the claim generally
| Mr.. Whipple thought the bill made 4 proper
discrimination between the cases 10 lie allowed s
( rejected, and opposed to the amendment
MI. Thomson, OF Pennsylvania, suggested some
verbal alterations in Mr.. WriSht's amendment one
! of which was accepted by Mr.. w. as a Inodfica-
ton, by which the words - similar services of
the militia oil other States, were substituted for
" Tie services of the militia OF other states.
Mr.. Wight then made a general reply to the
objections which had been brought forward against
his amendment and the debate was further con-
,inued by Messrs. Wright and Stevenson of Pa
who fell into accidental discussion OF the com
paraiive Patriotism and services OF Ohio and Penn
sylvania in the late
MIR. Mitchell, of Tennessee, now expressed sus-
picions of the mode OF proceeding pursued, and
nnDoesed both the bill and amendments
Mr.. Mangum explained, and enforced lis former |
views.
Mr.. Webster dscaimed all indirecion in the
course pursued, disav the amendments, and
prefer ed the bill. He stated tue previous fate Of
| the claim and demonstrated
Mr.. Weems, of Maryland, insinuated that the
object TO direct the President to pay The whole
| Claim, which he opposed. Gin the course OF his
remarks, lie was called to order by NJ. Cook)
| Mr.. Mitchell, OF Tennessee, replied TO Nj,
Webster, and thought there was a cat under the
meal.
! Air. Wurts explained, and insisted on the ground
| he had before taken.
| After some further conversation between Messrs
! Wurls, Wright, Webster, and Dwight, Mr.. Man
gum moved to strike out all after the word Re
/ solred," and insert the following
- That it is not expedient for this House 10 take
/ further measures respecting the claim of tie State
OF Massachusetts for services rendered by her
militia to the u. States during the late war mas
much as the existing laws arc comprehensive G.
! nough to embrace every entitled 10 compea-
sation from this Government; and, further mas
much az it is the opinion OF this House that every
case, coming within the scope of tie existing law
ought to be settled
This proposition was opposed by Mr.. Cook of
! Illinois.
! a personal explanation then took place between
Messrs Drayton and Mitchell, OF Tennessee
Mr. Little, of Mary land, then recapitulaed the
circumstances in which The claim had originated
and moved that the Committee rise, with view
that it be refused leave sit again, and that the
bill should be recommitted to the Committee ON
Military Affairs.
lie withdrew lis motion a; the request of Mr..
WickfFe, of kentucky, who offered tie following.
hoping that MIR. Mangum would accept it as
modification, TO be added TO his resolution:
" And that 1t is the opinion Of this committee
that 1t Is ineXpedIent TO pay any portion Of the
claim ofthe State OF Massachusetts for militia
services during the late war, whenever their SER
vices were rendered without the authority or sinh
sequent sanction of the Government of the rJni
ted States, or when the militia was called oui Inv
the Government OF Massachusetts, under the A.
vowed determination, previously made known "a
the Executive OF the United States of The f1oc
tionares oithat State that the troops so to be cali
ed out, were not to be placed under the command
OF the officers Of the ". States other than the pre-
sideni of the United States
Mr.. Little renewed his motion for risinr bu, n
gain Withdrew it at the request of
Mr.. Barney, OF Md, who made some explana-
tons as TO the resolution read yesterday by MIR.
Baylies, ms having passed the House of DELEGATE.
ot Maryland, and read a resolution passed in tho
Senate, OF an opposite tenor.
Mr.. Little repeated his motion, but once more