The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-03-21
CONGRESSIONAL.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
In SENArE-Eid ay. Marsh 2, ls4e.

In SESArx-Fiday. Marsh 2, lsae
EVENING SESSION.
WILLIAM GorT.
On motion by Mr.. HAMLlN, the Senate, as in COM
mttee oil the whole proceeded 10 the consideration of
the bill for the relief of William Cots and amend
men being offered, il reported to the Senate ordered
TO a third reading was read third time, and passed
JOHN P. SKINNER.
On motion by Mr.. UPHAM, the Senate, as in commit
tee of the whole proceeded to the consideration of the
House bill for the relief of John P Skinner and the le
gal representatives OF Isaac Green and amendment
being offered the bill reported the Senate and or
dered TO a third reading.
Mr.. BUTLER | am in minority, in this matter,
upon the Judiciary Committee, Sir. and have few
marks to make. cannot concur in the report Those
gentlemen who securities for this person were re-
which about 50 900. There was a qualification /
think, recognising their Obligation but making compro
at any rate, MIR. President. They sureties, and
they now forward not only to avail themselves of
the decision OF the Senate far released them from
the liability OF paying what had not been pail but to pay
back TO them what they had already; proceeding upon
the principle that the government OF the United States
not having complied with their request, they
Grated, because IT they had they might not have been
fishing any such thing They were surees upon pen
sion bonds and falling. they come now to ask you to pay
the $4,000 Volentt non fit injuria.
Mr.. KING moved to lay the bill upon the table; but
withdrew it at the request of Mr. UPHAM.
Mr. u said: This is the first time have occupied
the attention OF the Senate this session in support of
private claim from the State have the honor in part to
represent This bill was reported by the Judiciary Com
mttee 1t has twice passed the Senate and failed in the
House of Representatives for of time consider it,
This session it taken up in the House of Representa-
lives, investigated passed. and sent here for the consider
alton Of the Senate. 1t is not new question in this
body. This is follows: Mr.. Emerson was a
pension agent in Vermont. The petitioners were his
surees for the faithful performance of his duties such
agent large sum OF money was placed in his hands
anterior to the period when pensions 10 be paid and
he used the money for his personal benefit and then
signed his property to favored creditors, and became in
solvent. The suretes applied to the proper authorities
and departments OF the government and requested the
United States TO assert their legal priority by attaching
the property of Emerson amount sufficient to secure
the sum he owed the government No attention
paid to this reasonable request by the suretes of Ene
son to save them from loss. The whole sum due from
Emerson might have been secured if suit had been
commenced as the sureties desired.
Now, sir, | maintain that the refusal OF the United
States to commence suit, and assert their legal priority
when they could have done it, equitable discharge
of the surees Ii the transaction had been between
dvduals Judgment could have been recovered against
the suretes A court of equity would have granted
against the sureties And will the United States enforce
the collection OF judgment that could not have been
recovered by an individual! The suit commenced
upon the bond against the principal and surees after the
property OF Emerson placed beyond the reach OF the
United States, and the surees could not essa recovery,
because they could not file their bill for injunction
against the United States, the government cannot be
sued. This the view taken Of this subject in 1913,
when Congress RENTED the balance then due on the
Judgment The suretes were released from the bal
ance due on the Judgment says the act of Congress
OF February 4, lS43, because " appeareih that the
amount due the United States by said Emerson might
have been obtained from him without resorting to
said sureues. if legal proceedings had been adopted
against him by the proper officers of the United States,
and that said officers though requested by said suretes to
and prosecute such proceedings neglected and
refused to do There, sir, The solemn declaration
OF Congress on the statute book OF the nation, that the
sum then due on The judgment should be RENTED be-
the United States might have obtained satisfaction
for the sum due from Emerson without resorting TO the
sure,ies if legal proceedings had been adopted against
hm by the proper officers Of the United States, and that
said officers, though requested by the sureties
nence and prosecute such proceedings neglected and
fused SO TO do Now, with these facts staring them
IN the face senators prepared to say that the amount
paid by the suretes on the judgment against them ought
not to be refunded With these remarks submit the
question to the decision of the Senate, with full confidence
that this bil will BECOME the law of the land.
Mr.. WESTCOTT. If this case is put upon the ground
assumed by the honorable senator from Vermont Mr..
gPHAM] although was in favor of it in the committee,
shall vote against i now do not vote upon any such
upon which sustain this bill is directly the reverse.
was upon the ground that the United States had pr
ory in this by law of all they could get, and not
that there any neglect the part OF the United
Sles in getting 1t; not that they refused to commence
Mr.. UPHAM The honorable senator does not under
stand my position put it upon the ground that the
United States had priority and should have held Emer
son responsibe and that the sureties would pay up
Mr. wEsTcoTf no u md it to be upon the
ground of neglect on the part of the government
Mr.. UPHAM. No, sir, did not put it upon that
ground at all
Mr.. WESTCOTT. | think the bill ought to pass for
The reason have stated and not for that which under
stood the Re Sc, senator from Vermont to maintain.
MIR. KING. The allowance proposed to be made to
these sureties is to my mind most extraordinary The
proposition was introduced by memorial for those
securities asking to be released from the amount then
due They did not pretend TO ask that they should be
imbursed for the amount they had actually paid, but only
me balance OF the judgment which they had not paid
whether that priority existed after the attachment OF the
property OF this man, and still more doubtful whether
taee was suicency to pay the amount if it had all
peen appropriated to the payment OF the debt due to the
United States This a defaulter to the govern
nent The suit was not brought against him, il is true
but nasmuch as the property had been previously attach
ed becomes question whether the United States had
any priority; and the probability u.s. that it would be de-
caed upon proper investigation, that there such
priority belonging to the United States Neither do they
pretend to state that that the They do not pre-
lend to state that the money could have been made but
hey believed it might have been made if the suit had
been commenced in very short time. Now, sir from
an idea that there degree of equity the pay
ment OF this demand inasmuch the government had
not prosecuted the suit as they required to do
neutrality-suspicious. there was no strict obligation
upon them to do so-they were released, and that
was all they asked. But having been released from
that, they now forward and ask that they may
DC reimbursed the amount paid on the judgment OBJ
famed by the United States. Ii this was a case in
which the parties could come forward and show the
validity of their claim, there the place for them to
bring forward the evidence that the had not been
prosecuted it should have been and have asked that
1ney might be released. But such thing was done
1hey paid. under the Judgment of the United States,
SsOoO We, generously as | conceive, released them
and nDxnf h.tn y 90 tI..