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

OF our money say. again, that il has always been
an memorable rule OF proceeding. in all the have
ever heard, that the committee have not assumed
10 examine a case until they have got the answer from
the prJef party II Is not from The Secretary
OF the Navy himself that want, but of The adminsira
tive officers charged with the execution of the duty and
who know what done and why il was done We
have always done that 1t has not been done in this
go back, sir, to-my original proposition and say that
in my opinion, the is not before the Senate that it
is sided representation; that the government has
had chance to be heard through the proper officers
those charged with the business.
The honorable tlor made Jew remarks in concu
sion, which were iaaudible.
Mr. BERRGEN The senator from Missouri is under
amsappehe nson in supposng that have read the
original contract have read both the original contract
and that male subsequently. referred that entered
into in March, 1910. for the purpose of showing that
Pauding left the Office OF Secretary of the Navy that il
under consideration and progress during the year he
remained in II. He entered upon il at tme presume
when he lid not expect to yield the Office in S4l How
the second contract may have been made the
piring moments of that administration of the depart
ment 1t did not seem 10 me important to this latter
contract, at what time II entered into, because
question which II material to consider, was whether
engagements upon the part OF the government had
been deliberately entered into' supposed had proved
that when had shown that the original contract
tered into twelve months before this gentleman ceased to
administer the affairs Of the Navy Department .
Now' ST., upon the question ' OF the urgency OF Mr.
ato from Missouri says, and says upon his own knowl
edge, is OF course. to be uncontradcted but is
emey easy reconcile the statements of the gentleman
from Missouri with what believe to be the real facts of
the The statement of Mr.. Myerle is, that he
engaged in the business OF ropemakng; that having in
Department, Mr. Pauldng then made the suggestion to
him. the year 1885, that he declined in the first in
stance stating the difficulties attending the process but
he promised upon the urgency of Mr. Panldng. take
the whole matter into consideration. Subsequently, in
1882 he announced his readiness enter upon the
pertinent 1t at that time, he alleges, that the letters
49, 4.
They introduced to show to the Navy Department
that he an individual competent in point of skill
and entitled in point Of character to make the expert
In respect to the personal character of Mr.. Myerle and
the benefits of the experiment. the suggestion is that the
OF those States where hemp raised opposed
the bill and deny that they have received any bene
fits from his experiments. have said sir, and maintain
that whether benefits have resulted from not, is not
the question if Mr. Myee. at the instance of the gov
emmenl, has conducted himself fairly and skfuy in
making the experiments. return to the letters find
here, independent OF that of General Butler.
THE honorable senator here mentioned five different
individuals who ha given MIR Myere letters of the same
tenor.
have inquired OF the senator from Missouri who sits
gentlemen, and he testes to the responsibility Of the
character OF these men, some OF whom he has known
personally. and Others by reputation. They in
their statements. t.a
[Iie then read one of the letters
This the character of all these letters and they are
from persons stated TO be OF respectable character stand
been appealed denying the benefits which have re-
suited the experiment Under these circumstances,
suppose that he stands fairly before the Senate thai
they may determine the question whether they will
9nesoe in the amendment proposed BY the senator from
Kentucky which will be destructive, in fact, of the whole
bill; and if not. whether they will pass the bill!
Mr. BADGER asked for the reading OF memorial as
to the expenses incurred by Mr.. Myerle.
Mr. BRADBURY intimated desire to move that
the bill be recommitted.
Mr. ATCHISON gave way by Withdrawing his mo-
Mr. BRADBURY then moved to recommit, with in
structions 10 inquire from the Navy Department for fur
ther information
Mr. BERRIEN There is no information to be OBJ
Mr. BRADBURY I wish to say one word II is
this: have nowhere any information which seems
to be authentic TO the ground Of rejection OF this hemp
BY the commissioners and it may be that information
he furnished that the department is in possession
Of the grounds OF rejection which will throw mater
al light upon the subject; and hope, therefore that
will recommt The bill.
wish to remark. further, that in making this con-
tract the department offered its bounty by giving to
MIR Myere price great deal larger than the market
price, and that was IN this way that lie was to derive
his benet-and the Secretary OF the Navy made the
port which has been read BY the senator from Georgia.
mr. BERRIEN,l recommending al nance of 49, 900
1t worthy of notice. that Congress did adopt that
recommendation, but that the Secretary went forward
and ma lie new contract which has been read leaving
Mr.. Myerle TO seek his benefit from that contract
Now whether the board that acted upon this hemp were
liberal towards hun or not, we have no information, ex-
cept that which rather TO be in the nature of nor
nation derived from others; certificates of gentlemen al
great distance with relation to benefits derived through
the country fron the introduction OF this process.
Whether these letters from persons TO whom he is
indebted, who they from. we do not know will
submit the motion.
The question being taken upon the motion to re-
commit, no quorum voted and then
The Senate adjourned A
WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 81, 1919.