The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-05

al former session The senator from Texas upon
the Committee on Claims when the report which has
made 1t states the result OF the investigation AT
the last session. it again referred to the Committee
made no addition but adopted the former report Thus
we have two standing committees OF the Senate which
have reported upon this case The only medium through
who receive testimony, and in this way only the
committee be considered useful II you 60 beyond their
reports for facts their labors useless there any
new testimony, 10 proper that the matter should be
committed: am in favor Of the passage OF the bill.
Mr.. BALDWIN asked the reading Of the report The
Mr.. BALDWIN 1t must now be very apparent to
senators. that all the facts are not found by the com
mttee which il is necessary for the Senate to know, IN
those articles became the property Of the United States
at San AntoniO-as the honorable senator from Texas
lMr Ru'.l now sSuppossas poses. loud make make no
apprehension Of their falling iuto the hands OF the
enemy. from any other whatever; but the Uni
goods who had sold them to the government, the price
stipulated to be paid for them at San Antonio, the
value OF the goods-i no particular price was stipqa-
ied-athe time they were received at San Antonio. But
If MIR. Caaghan merely accompanied the detachment Of
his accord to make sale OF those goods under the pro-
lection the army and to make deposte OF the proceeds
of the sale with the quarermasters department. with per-
mission to draw upon the government for the avas and
it. while the goods still remained the property of Mr. Cal.
they might aI ino the hands Of the enemy then. GER
tanly, very different considerations present themselves
with regard 10 the responsibility OF the government In
the fret place, the question to be considered 49, whether
the government to be responsible for this property at
a and in the second place, with regard to the amount
Tor which the government would be responsible Tor goods
report not explicit with regard 10 these particulars
ask that it may be recommitted to the Committee
Mr.. RUSK. see no necessity for recommitment OF
the bil for the purpose OF obtaining additional nforma
ton upon the facts The facts stated entirely in the
report and certificates The only difficulty here is the in
feTences which gentlemen choose to draw from given
statement of facts that the Senate do just well as
the We are getting into nice dis If.
apprehensoDs OF the committee in relation to the precise
point Of time at which the ownership Of these goods
shows that at San Antonio, upwards OF $50 miles from
the Rio Grande where the goods were destroyed at the
instance Of Col M Gaaghan places PA the goods
9uartermaste to support his troops Now, sir, whether
this expedition was authorized unauthorized, does
not amount to anything to Mr. Callaghan, nor add TO. or
de,fact from, the justice OF his claim Suppose indi
vidual had furnished money to purchase supplies with
there could be doubt in that case as to the allowance OF
the claim Well thsindivdua furnished supplies and they
answered the purpose just well as the money buy pro-
visions would have done. happen to know that Mr..
w and
from them the necessary supplies much easier than the
officer could have done i with the money. Suppose that
instead Of its being goods had been corn suppose that
he had placed at the disposal aquanty of
corn for the purpose Of supplying the troops they had
actually burnt up that it might not fall into the hands
the gentleman from Arkansas, INF; BORLAkD]-we
would have to stop here to know whether OF not the Of
was actually no danger p 81 the goods falling into the
hands OF the enemy. It seems to me that the case is
plain Col. Callaghan furnished the government with
these goods in good faith and ought to be compensated
for their loss The question is now before the Senate
viii the Congress OF the United States pay him for them
The qneson being then taken aPon the motion to re-
Mr. PHELPS called for the reading OF the bill, and it
was read q, a &c } IN
posed to be amended would be perfectly homogeneous.
1t provides for the payment for property which was de-
soyea by order OF the officer and which was used BY the
The question being then stated upon Mr.. Rvsks
Mr. BERRIEN. would suggest to the friends OF the
bill, the poprety of modifying it so to relieve it from
the nconguty suggested by the senator from Vermont
[Nr PHEIps,] to which of course it is liable The
destroyed by order OF an officer of the United States, and
which were at the same time used by the United States
There for ss 81 oa sycisS g. he the
mi,ce Claims, after careful consideration OF the facts
and believe was drawn with sufficient precision and
TO express the views of the committee apprehend
that the honorable Senator who has the bill in charge
will not, reflection, insist upon the motion to amend
i, but will let it remain as 49, is very obvious that
method would be to recommt, and hope the bill will be
left to stand as it is.
Mr. RUSk withdrew his motion to amend
Mr. BERRlEN. AS understand this matter, these
goods were taken possession OF by the army and delv-
cred to the quaermaser, and portions of them
sod and the proceeds applied to the and Tor the
tenance OF the army, Now, what was done with the
residue OF those goods remaining hand, is perfectly
unimporart The party is entitled to claim upon the
government, as understand for the amount of goods
taken into the possession of the officer of the army and
10 be used as the government thought proper. POT
lion of them were used, and the rest destroyed. My
idea would be, therefore, that all that part OF the
bill which relates to the destruction OF the goods
ought TO be stricken OUT and the ought to
pay for those goods delivered and used by its troops
For such bill could vote but cannot vote for one
which contains the ncongruty manifest in that bill one
which provides for payment for goods destroyed" and
"used" by the government
Mr. UNDERWOOD = / suppose my friend the
way [Mr RUsxl made this motion to amend to accord
with my peculiar views. would suggest 10 him to
to lay the bill upon the table, with view to have
the amendment made. | have an idea that a part OF
those goods ought be paid for and think too there
part we ought not to pay for. Being member OF the
committee, will state the facts, and then the Senate
may discuss them to advantage My recollection is that
with him and take his goods along and to supply Col
Harney's by the sale of goods, invest the pro-
ceeds in articles Of subsistence, &c and to furnish him
with goods the march, just he might want either the
subsistence other articles Mr. Caltaghan, the claimant
here sir, under that arrangement made with COL Har-
ney marched with his from San Antonio to the
Rio Grande; and while upon the march, those goods
were used Just as Col Harvey needed Them and after
they reached the Rio Grande good portion OF this prop
ery actually supplied the officers and soldiers with sub
sistence. Now SO far that DONE sir think the
of the United States have received the prop
ery OF this individual; have taken it through it. officer
and appropriated that property TO their use and, in
my opinion the individual ought to be paid for the
property thus. taken. But according to, my recol