The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-08-12

been referred to. If we take any other rule shall
disregard the rule laid down by the arber He thought
rule, than that OF the board corrected by the arber He
was not prepared 10 state correctly to what class these
claims belong If the claims reduced in the same
ratio the deduction of the arbite and give eight per
cent interest," the OF the claims would be between
100000 and million. If the claims were equal in JUS
tice to those passed on by the arbiter, there no
reason why the interest should be allowed He did not
desire to do any injustice to the claimants, and rather
than send them back to another commission, he would
be NV WlllS nI tS glys a. Lager S amount
vlso by adding and shall be placed in all other respects
on the same footing with the claims included in the 18th
article of the treaty between the United States and the
republic of Mexico of the date of I'd February, ls4s"
| Mr.. JOHNSON SAID he must vote against the amend
ment II was based on the idea that these claims were
to De placed on the same footing with those submitted
| by the board. The senator from Alabama thought the
claimants might consider themselves fortunate if they
get their claims without interest
Mr.. KING said he wished 10 be understood He had
said that the umpire Mad scaled down the claims and il
was TO be inferred that they were too high.
Mr.. BENTON said the senator from Alabama had
used the word "scale" four times Did he intend say
| that to scale was TO reducei
Mr.. BENTON replied it was not So A scale was a
lOng-trled instrument, which evelled off horizontally
The continental bills were scaled.
Mr.. JOHNSON resumed his remarks in favor of the
claims and interest He argued that if the officers of the
government had decided the amount to be due. there
could be no proprety in deciding that they not
due.
| MIR. BADGER stated that the United States had, by
treaty, discharged Mexico from all responsiby and
had assumed these claims to the of three and
quarter millions, He was opposed to the treaty. because
he felt that we ought not to discharge another govern
men from responsibility until we prepared to pay
these claims He therefore desired to strike the
limitation of three and aquarer Millions because the total
amount was unascertained. Between the claims which
had been adqdlcated and such as had not been adud
Gated, he could not the sma lest distinction Should
turn out that the claims exceed in amount the three and
quarter millions, was that to be regarded reason why
| CHI nat tho rIo IN
five Millions were as much bound to pay them as if
they fell within the three and quarter millions He did
not exactly understand the amendment OF his friend from
Maryland but if it placed all on the footing, he
'D Mr. USDEsRWo6D was not willing to pay all these
claims He read the 18th article ofthe treaty. which
specified claims already quidated and decided against the
United States Now, these were all the claims which
then due The claims under the award of the arbi-
article of the treaty The correctness of this view being
admitted, it by his friend from Maryland, he
went on to show that there was no reason why these
claims should be now allowed. If it was intended to
give away this 100000 out of the treasury it was then
manifest, open gift 1t did not, then, within the
claims chargeable on the three and quarter millions. 1t
was in addition to the three and quarter millions,
and transcribed by nearly million the sum we are
bound pay by compact and it is thus much thrown
away proposed to pay $780, 900 now, and postpone
the other claims for two years It is said there out
standing claims to the amount of six six and half
millions So that the three and quarter millions will
only pay fifty cents in the dollar; and no argument
and Small portion Of the residue at future period
| Mr.. JOHNSON of Maryland said he took different
view Hethought we were bound to pay all debts Just
y due. He was ready to vote for the payment in full OF
all these claims wheneverproof should be produced
Mr.. PHELPS said we could not pay the whole OF these
debts in full I'VE pay now portion in full, we can,
that the 100000 to be deducted from the
three and quarter millions, and the rest must be dv
dend, how can we pay the 5000 900 until you ascertain
what the pro rata dividend Isl We cannot either pay
these out OF the treasury or leave them to take their
pro rata He no mode but to adopt the amendment
Of the senator from Maryland or to strike out from the
bill the provision for payment OF these claims ,
| Mr. CALHOUN asked for the yeas and nays on the
amendment to the amendment
show that we are only bSad to pay the he claims s 10
amount exceeding 81 millions.
! Mr.. JOHNSON of Louisiana of opinion that we
bound to pay the whole of the claims, without re-
gard 10 the limitation of the treaty. even if they amounted
| to 30 millions
Mr. UNDERWOOD said, if tina, was the true view, he
cooud wish to have examination of the claims, and OF
MI WBSTCoTr reminded the Senate that he had
moved to strike out this Limitation when the treaty was
under consideration He desired to country ia
king the same stand that England had taken in the pro-
lection of her and citizens He should vote for
the payment of all qudated claims, and would never
sanction the idea that used the claims of citizens
for speculative purposes in negotiations with for
Mr. CALHOUN said the terms of the treaty were plain
II bound us to nav the claims of our citizens to the
of 8! millions The unquidated claims to be set
tied to that amount Out of what fund is this 100000
TO be taken
| Mr.. JOHNSON, of Maryland Out of the treasury :
| Mr.. CALHOUN. Mo- out of the 81 millions Then
il does not within the terms of the treaty We are
not bound pay it, until it has come before another
board.
The question then taken the amendment to the
amendment, and was decided as follows:
| YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury,
Clarke, Downs Greene Houston, Johnson Of Maryland,
Johnson of louisiana Peace Phelps, Upham, and West
NAYS-Messrs. Allen, A.chison, Bell Berren, Borland,
Bright, Calhoun, Cameron Corwin, Davis of Massachu-
SETS Dayton, Dickinson, Dix Dodge Fech, Hale, Hanne-
basan Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, and
Yulee-2S
| Mr. BADGER moved to strike out the allowance Of
interest," but withdrew it the suggestion that II was
out of order He then moved to insert the words "wth
out inerest--ayes 25. So the amendment was agreed
to-
| Mr. CALHOUN said the amendment of the Senator
from Missouri was Objectionable, because II made dis
tnction between portion Of unliqudated claim;
against another portion of similar claims. He should
vote against the amendment to the section, and then
against the section itself.
| Mr. UNDERWOOD thought the best mode would be
to vote for the amendment; and having thus put the
amendment OF the senator from Missouri he opposed
and that the part which required these claims to be
submitted to two commissioners
| Mr.. CALHOUN, that he might not enbarrass, with
drew his call for the yeas and nays; and the amendment
agreed to.
words together with interest the :; which was
decided in the affirmative-ayes "a.
| MIR. JOHNSON of Maryland said, as the section now
STOOD he should vote for striking out the section tie
had been informed from source in which he placed
great reliance that these claims had been submitted 10