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


sa"'n .. 'Asy Furnish us subscriber. for gratis
Mr.. BERRlEN The senator from Alabama was I'M
der misrepresentation when he supposed had not read
the original bill am perfectly of its provisions.
II puts the widow and children upon the same footing.
and provides for equal distribution of the prize money
and if there be children. excludes coatesals il
gives the whole to the widow. If am asked why /
have adopted the course have suggested why dis
tnguish these colIateTals and nieces of Commodore
Decatur from others, | answer that the distinction is
made upon the ground that Gommodoree Decatur him
SELF in his lifetime made IT, He changed their charac-
ter as coaterals that OF children aud it is that determ
nation which wish TO carried out
Now sir, in relation to the suggestion of the senator
from Ohio that the condition OF those relatives should
enter consideration in determining the distrbu
ton agree perfectly and therefore authorized to
state, that the motive which induced to interfere in
gallant officer who belonged to the State from which
came, and has been left in INDECENT circumstances,
unprotected, in consequences Of the death OF her gal
liant husband. The suggestion is made TO me by
senator me- that this lady, OF whom speak, has
not only lost her husband hut her also, in the
with Mexico. She has children. and is in INDECENT cir
suggestion, would aai 10 the Senate TO make the dis
tncon in her favor presume her sisters though not
having the charge upon them. in circumstances
equally necessitous acqueSce, therefore in the sug
,estion Of the senator from Ohio say 1t is upon the
ground Of the necessities of these collateral relations
whose character has been changed that ask that they
should be placed upon equal footing with the widow who
is the object of the public bounty on this occasion
Mr.. DIX The remark of the senator from Ohio in
reference to these partes and the amendment as was
originally offered precisely in accordance with the
provisions of the bill the distribution
cerned
Mr. BERRIEN Yes sir. precisely
Mr. DIX 1t assumed that these were the children OF
Commodore Decatur and if he had lived, he would have
provided for them as children With regard to the sltua-
ton of these parties which the senator from Ohio refers
to- of the nieces the wife OF purser IN the navy'
another is Mrs Twiggs who lost her husband and son
in Mexico Both of them lost their lives in the field of
Shp has L understand
without means, excepting pension OF $500 a year.
The other sister is unmarried has no means and lives
with her brOther-ln-aw, and Is assisted also by her
brother, who is in the navy. 49,
of the bill make
SENATOR One fourth to each
Mr. ALLEN. An equal distribution to the four ladies'
A SENATOR. Yes, sir
The question being then taken upon the amendment
to the amendment, it was rejected,
The question recurring upon the amendment, 1t was
agreed to.
The bill was then reported to the Senate with the
amendment, which concurred in. and the bill was
ordered be engrossed for third reading, and was sub
sequenty read third time and passed.
wM FULLER AND cHAs SAVAGE.
On motion by Mr. KING, the Senate proceeded to the
consideration of the House bill for The relief of William
Fuller and Charles Savage which, having been amend
ed, reported to the Senate the amendment was con-
Cured in the bill ordered to third reading, and was
read third time and passed
VIM FULLER AND c. sALTMARsH.
On motion by Mr.. NILES, the Senate proceeded to
the consideration of the bill for the relief of VIM Fuller
and Orlando Satmarsh and amendment being offered,
il was reported to the Senate and ordered third read
ing and subsequently read third time and passed
DAVID MrERLE.
The Senate as in committee Of the whole, resumed the
consideration of the bill for the relief of David Myere,
the question pending being upon an amendment hereto
lore submitted by Mr.. UNDERWOOD.
Mr. BRADBURY. When this bill last under
about t., calling the aeTS Saa o. ne
closed what had 10 say; but there were one or two
more remarks which | intended 10 submit II will be
recollected that the object which ascrbed to the
Navy Department in making the contract was the intro
uction of the process of waterrottng hemp. We know
that was the purpose. The contract was made with
Mr. Myere, first TO supply 200, and afterwards it was
extended to 500 tons |, commended that under that
contract he forward and succeeded in establishing
and Introducing that process for preparing the hemp for
certain quantity, sent it forward to the navy-yard in
Chailestown for examination, and that that quantity,
thus sent was improperly eeesd s,isr rs mot mot
contract, that he would have legal claim, which
might be enforced against the government if the govern
ment stood in the attitude OF private individual but
that his claim trusted TO the equity of Congress- for the
that he did not deliver the hemp within the spec
fled line and it is alleged that the Secretary would have
relaxed somewhat from the sctness OF the contract
on receiving this hemp, because he had substantially
complied with The acquisitions, although the hemp did
not pass the inspection.
Congress, we have TO inquire who has the equitable
claim 1t has been stated. and not denied, that the
which tnOSe experiments WeTc uIeu, anu
which paid for this hemp, was furnished by Messrs
Morlmun & Cornwall, who were the assignees OF the
hemp forward TO the navy yard IN Charlesown. Ii
that hemp had been rejected, It IS contended that 1t
should not have been, who would have received the
benefit of that difference between the price which was
realized after the rejection, and the price which would
We been paid had the hemp been accepted? understand
that it was sold for something like half priceone hundred
and fifty dollars tonwhle the contract price was three
hundred dollars The hemp assigned to Messrs.
Mortmun& Cornwall to secure them for the advances,
and would submit, that the assignment OF the article was
in equity, an assignment oil the claim II the money
had been paid over by the government, Mortmnllin Y
of that contract Now, sir it alleged that this hemp
was improperly rejected and that rejection was to them,
40 far an injury Do we propose To place the money IN
the hands of the party that was injured! Not at all
The bill proposes to place it in the hands OF the party
who was not the individual to whom the money would
have gone. An amendment offered by the senator
from Kentucky, proposes that portion OF this mo.
new if granted by the bill, should go to the hands OF
those who were the assgnees OF the contract and who,
in equity the assgnees OF the claim 1t was stated.
and not denied | think by OF the senators who
personally acquainted with Mr. Myere, that when he
tanned means from the assgnees whom have named.
Now they the parties that are injured Mr.. Myer!e
had no money to lose; and shall give the whole
amount that is proposed to be granted to him who
has lost and deprive those who the losers OF the
very money with which the experiment tried from
participating in portion OF it think not; and thus
the adoption of the amendment would be violation OF
the principles upon which the Senate have heretofore
acted.
While am up, | desire to make one two remarks
upon the bill itself have looked into the report and
also into portion of the vouminous evidence, to ascer-
tain By what mode of computation we had arrived az me
sum of $4,000 contained in the bill The report al,
hat chi of n,Vprp