The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-01-21
FRIDAY, JANUARY "a. ls4s.


------------
FRIDAY, JANUARY II, lsis.
HOUSE or REPREsENTATIvEs.
The journal having been read
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. JAMESON rose TO make personal explanation
He stated that the report of his speech made few days
since as reported by the Integencer, was IN some
pars incorrect; but he would only notice such errors as
he considered al The same ume that
he intended to charge the reporters OF that paper any
intention TO report him wrong that generally they had
been yery correct reporters and had manly reported him
correct in this The points OF error he called the at
tenon Of the House to werelst That in the first and
eighth lines Of the 9Th paragraph column, the of
Adams is used instead OF the name OF Madison. 3D. That
he was made to say in the column that
eeivsd her neanng Iesas) according to their own de
troll that matter, but subject to the action of the treaty
power" He said the error here was, that he did not
the Something to say 70 hef
ries but, admitted according to her declared
boundaries. the power passed from Congress to cura or
clip her; and that could only be done by the treaty
power. 3D. In the first paragraph, I'd column, Sd line
but Herrera would not agree to it," should be- that he
did agree to receive minister 5h and 9th lines instead
that that very ground that he overturned his
rival" it should have been that that very ground it
was that his nva Paredes overturned him and his gov
instead of Herrera" In 9th paragraph, column,
first ne insert "dead" for day" for it could not be
considered lsad Mr. J) that these jornadas of different
of day, when was ninety, others sixty miles, &c
which these men passed in their march Mr. J.
said there some other errors which he did not think
of sufficient importance to detan the House about he
intended in the report Of his speech to correct Them and
intended to enlarge on the heads of his argument that
his views might be correctly understood.
DEBATE IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. J. A. ROCKWELL submitted a ution, termi-
mating the debate upon the bill for the relief oil Mary
Brown, widow OF Jacob Brown, which was pendi ng in
Committee OF the Whole, half an hour after the House
shoald again 60 into COMMITTEES on the private calen
MIR. /. E. HOLMES desired to submit an amendment
the resolution, providing that all debate in committee
on private bills shall be limited to two hours
The SPEAKER ruled the amendment out OF order, as
it proposed in effect alteration Of one OF the rules OF
the HOUSE y Si,sSs required one days notice
that the rule which provides for terminating debate in
committee, applied to the Committee Of the Whole the
STATE Of the the un Wrp only:
structon Of the rule although it had been times ap
piled by the House to the Committee OF the Whole House
Mr.. STEPHENS insisted upon his point Of order; and
the resolution ruled out OF order
Mr. c. B. SMITH gave notice OF his intention to
an amendment to the rule providing for the termination
OF debate in committee SO as to make tappy to the Com
The Senate bill for the relief of Medge Galphn, ex-
ecutor Of the last will and testament OF George Gaphn
deceased, taken from the Speakers table, read
twice. and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
The Senate bill for the relief of Thomas Talbot and
others read twice. and referred to the Committee
The House bill for the relief of Robert Roberts, re-
ported on Friday last from the Committee OF the Whole
& vi Il BY
recommtted to the Committee of Claims, with in
strucdons ascertain from what fund the claim was
The House bill for the relief of Phineas Capen legal
administrator of John Cox, deceased, of Boston, was
ordered to be engrossed for third reading, read
:. third time, and passed.
y puvk
On motion Of Mr.. j. A. ROCKWELL, the House re
solved sef into Committee of the Whole on the private
calendar and resumed the consideration of the bill for
the relief of Mary Brown, widow of Jacob Brown.
Mr. BOWLIN said he had heretofore offered an amend
men to obviate the constant struggle which had been
sustained in this House against principle under which
soldiers of the revolution There was principle in
voved in that rule; and the abandonment of the rule
was the abandonment Of the principle The principle
was, that pension should be allowed to any widow
who did MOTIVE in the time of the revolution The year
1874 was therefore fixed as the limitation; that
marriage since that year could ente the widow TO a
pension. 1t considered that lady would be
likely to marry under IL years Of age and, therefore,
every married previous to this period must have
lived through the trying times of the revolution If this
bill pass. therefore, it should carry its face the
for extending the law to the present the Of
his mendment-namely, that she was born before the
close Of the revolution, and did live within that trying
periodthus bringing within the equity of the principle
the existing law But if you pass the bill without
such an amendment you establish precedent allowing
~
was not married till the year 1913; and if the claim be
allowed without qualification instance cannot be
refused in any.
Mr. STUART, Of Michigan. was in favor of reporting
the whole subject back to the House. without further
action committee, and proceeded speak on the merits
of the case. The amendment OF the gentleman from
Missouri Mr.. BowLIN] based not on the fact Of
her marriage, but the fact that she born and lived
during the period of the revolution.
Mr.; BOWLlN here nterposed and explained his
amendment.
Mr.. STUART resumed He understood the gentle
mans reasoning In favor of his amendment, and only
ows at ALL was done account OF the services of their
husbands Il was of no consequence when the widow
was born. The consideration the part of the govern
ment this: because your husband afforded signal
vice in the of the revolution, will aid you sus
tanning yourself That was the consideration and not
because OF her birth during the revolution or before it,
was she entitled to pension; but because her husband
soldier In this the equity of the case It
of no consequence Che said) whether she had lived
through the revolutionary struggle whether from
Cessty choice she had not married until after the year
1894. He opposed to the passage of the bll-not
because he opposed to its principle, for he in
present law there were but about five thousand pension
and woud not increase the list much il we were to
pension the widow OF every revolutionary soldier If
TO even double the number il would not cause
any very startling expenditure of money The danger was
not paying these soldiers much or doing too much
for their widows He could not in the present case ad
init the claim of this lady the of her relationship
to Major Jacob Brown for by the time of the end of the
present war, many OF this character would come
up; and he doubted not il they could be all looked
up at this time, they would amount to much as