The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-02-02


the farmers OF both these States and justly so but we
are not engaged IN institutng qudnfam mert1f
upon the general character and conduct OF Myere We
engaged in inquiry 10 whether this sum OF
money ought to be paid to him on account oil the ansac
tons under which he presents his cam and seems to
me- il il is Justly due to him fair investigation OF the
foundation of that claim. that occupy singular posi-
ton n refusing 10 allow the money, because his general
course OF conduct may have gwen offence to the people
in Kentucky and Missoar That fact does not discharge
US from any moral equitable obligation, and has,
think, nothing to do with the question under consdera
ton This bill has received the appreciation Of the Com
the House OF Representatives, and has received the de-
cided approval Of the officer at the head OF the Navy
Department who has. At several times given the highest
and strongest testimony with regard to the value OF the
services rendered 70 the government by Mr.; Myere.
Mr.. ATCHlSON GnterPosing.) | would ask of the
senator 10 state whether the Secretary OF the Navy, at
the time the contract made, had any right whatever
Mr.. BADGER | have stated already. think, dis
tncty that the why this application is made to
Congress is thai the Secretary clothed with legal
authority to enter into the contract 1t was engage
ment he made upon his own responsibility as high
to the public interest," he pledged himself the repre-
sentative OF the government that he would indemnify
Myerle against law admit there is no legal obligation
admit that il is not legally binding upon u.s. and that il
is claim that could not be enforced against If the
United States suable; but the claim has higher
OF justice and equiyand surely ought not to
Mi. ATCHlsoN. Then the contact was made with
IL. IL.
Mr., ATCHlSON. Well. sir. the question then pre-
sents itself, Did Myere undertake this contract or this
expedition for the purpose Of teaching the people OF the
West how to wa,errot hemp. matter Of patriotism,
or did he expect to be compensated for il thereafter
Now sir, have read his memorial and he rather places
this claim upon the former ground 1t was his anxious
United States should be enabled to furnish only the
navy OF the United States, but the mercantile marine,
with this article Of hemp, Mr.. Myere. say, rather
the Navy granted him contract-a liberal contract
made in violation of law: such contract. will venture
TO say if it had been granted 10 any Kentucky farmer,
would have been executed. and would not have failed to
yield them profit Of 1874 per cent
The Secretary of the Navy. in the first place, lets
Myere fix his own price for the hemp-so he states in
his memorial Aud here permit to remark. that there
have been several memorials presented at different
times - sometimes TO the Senate, and sometimes to
the House And if may Judge from an adverse re-
port made by member of this holy, some years since,
these memorials were amended, and underwent IN my
changes And Myere also changed his position,
from time to time. in relation TO this matter. But
the Secretary OF the Navy as a compensation for his
exertons, although it in violation Of law, gave him
contract Tor 800 tons OF water. rotel hemp al $500 per
hundred dollars more, venture to say, than ii
could have been supplied for by any set of farmers in
Kentucky; and that too with clear profit OF 3si per
any part Of tafer the hemp had been sent TO Charles
town. and condemned entirely unfit for the of the
navy the Secretary OF the Navy then gives him another
contract In the circular published in April, 1872
Myerles crcular-he states that the Secretary gave
him the privilege of placing the price at his own discre-
ns Sy n. xed
own price at $500, when $50, he says, would have
been allowed by the Navy D .Iartnent
will read another clause fro the report made by MIR.
| Henderson
/ "Whout stopping condemn the questionable policy
and liberal Of in Navy Department the evil
nemoraIist a, m de and intended TO be n, as in god
aith and wh,tever the Department disposed pay
subscribing the pcy was in the greater price OF the article
TO be furnished"
1t the intention of the Secretary OF the Navy to
give him sufficient price and thereby to compensate him
for the service rendered Then sir II he failed in fulfill.
ing his contract il the fanlt of the government! No.
sir The senator from North Carolina will not say there
was any delinquency on the part of the Navy Depart
! ment 1t was his own mismanagement-his own igno-
rance OF the business which he undertook IL this
SIR. that they gave him most liberal contract, what
claim has he now upon the government Sir, without
hesitaon will say that more preposteTous claim has
never. in my opinion. come before Congress,
Mr. NILES regarded the question involved in this
quite simple ever came before the Senate
The whole matter turned upon simple fact and what
that Why, the Secretary Of the Navy made
tract with this man to supply given quantity OF water
tina, hemp, in pursuance Of that contract and sent il to
Boston. The article was objected to and rejected and
great loss The whole case before the Senate then,
turned upon the fact whether the hemp was improperly
rejected II this did notfalnI the contract
his parf this hemp was so bad and unsuitable for the
OF the navy, that righuly rejected. then
tainly hi. coming here and asking remuneration was
wrong. He (Mr NJ believed that the best, and per.
himself And what did the Secretary say' He said,
that in his judgment this hemp improperly re-
eced Soon after that, the then Secretary lett the De-
partment He sail however, that had he remained in
the Department this contract should have been carried
out Well, il there any controversy about this sub
ec it altogether matter of fact. The hemp
not, perhaps clean it might have BEEN but il was
substantially good and adapted to the purposes for which
it intended, and ought have been received. If
this hemp. then, was improperly rejected
Mr.. TURNEY, (nterposins) Did the Secretary ever
Mr.. NILES. We cannot I suppose. inquire into the
knowledge OF the Secretary OF the Navy. think il is
fair to presume, however that he would not speak with
out knowledge-that he would not undertake to give
without reason for that opinion. have evidence
but this; and believe the fact is that hemp prepared in
this way has since been produced and the experiment
ha, proved successful.
1t appears, aso that the persons who rejected this
hemp not proper and competent persons; and be-
lieve it the result in part, OF contingencies Hav
ing been rejected in that hasty manner this
eectually broken up and all the advantages which
might have Injured from il lost to the contractor
Here contract immensely beneficial to this
T Then, so much the greater the claim for damages
We have deprived him of very valuable contract and
done it improperly and hastily Then he has claims here
for damages for violation OF contract; and all that is
said here in regard to his merit for introducing this prac
tce of roitng hemp be considered endorse
ment His claim is for damages going beyond that
arising from the condemnation OF lot OF hemp, which
was in fact, condemned OF course goes the whole
con,ractto all that he would have made under the
tract. The damage then, in this case upon this
point If this hemp improperly rejected, and the
contract broken up this has Just claim | think
the testimony that this action upon the part of the
navy officer hasiy and premature, and subsequent
hoy hat hts cpptra