The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-20

IN regard 70 the conveyance Oh land II was applying The
Mr. YUIEE inquired il the amendment came from the
MT DAVIS replied that il had not All the time the
wilhih necessity for the amendment proposed. The
amendment was drawn up By Judge Of the supreme
bench, who suggested that i expedet from res
son oil failure oil an Indictment already stated, in
one OF the courts OF the United States, for setting fire to
Mr. Y0LEE said that the amendment proposed to add
another to the list Of offences upon the hsh seas and he
would prefer that the senator should propose bis amend
ment in separate bill and have i referred to the Com
mee on the Judiciary. Il seemed 10 him that il would
be hasty mode OF action on so important matter, 70
adopt II now as an amendment TO the present bill.
Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts Il seems 70 be mat
ter which does not require much consideration IL pre-
SCENTS single point alone and that s that any person
except the owner, who shall wlfully set fire 10 ship
while she at sea-, shall be punishable for the crime
Mr. BUTLER WHAT'S The penalty
Mr. DAVIS, Of Massachusetts. Not exceeding ten
years, and not less than three years imprisonment
Mr. YULEE. Is tin order to move reference to the
COMMITTEES on lhs Judiciary
Mr. YULEE would like 10 have il take that course,
If the honorable senator is willing and think that the
committee will be abeto report in day two, unless
the committee Is ready TO report IN its favor now.
Mr. Blu LER. Ipresume that the senator from Mas
sachusetis has had the amendment drawn up in such
guarded and technical language TO define the offence
without using any unusual words. As well as could
hear, when Il read, il seemed conhnng the offence
TO arson, far wifully and crninay setting fire 70
ship at sea II so think the penalty quite moderate
II any SHOULD deliberately burn ship IN which other
lives were embarked, can see reason why II should
not be regarded high felony, to be punished with high
penalties. give 1t my Individual sanction. OF course
have no right 70 speak as the organ o the committee
ask the honorable senator from Massachusetts il the de
milton is so guarded
MI DAVIS, Of Massachusetts, do not know that i
should mention il here but have been informed that
the amendment drawn up by one Of the judges upon
MI hi Tier / regard that as sufficient guaranty
Mr.. DAVIS, OF Massachusetts. ! was informed that
il was drawn up BY this judge he having found the
deficiency 10 the laws furnishing this crime, hope the
amendment will be adopted, as there is considerable anx
Nj r HAMLIN would like to hear the amendment
read.
The amendment was read accordingly
Mr.. HAMLIN, happened 10 be absent, and do
not know what discussion has occurred in connexion
with this matter But really hope the amendment will
not be adopted II is not germane the BILL which
one which the demands OF commerce require.
/ Mr.. DAVIS, OF Massachusetts The senator. per-
haps does not understand the objects If he did be would
not object TO IT. II has been discovered recently, upon
the trial Of Indictment that there was no statute pre-
vision covering this precise offence, and the criminal
escaped in consequence Of i This amendment j. made
the laws It seems to me to be sufficiently gennane to
Mr.. HAMLIN. My only objection to the amendment
was thai Il was not appropriate here II there is def
cheney requiring such section. my object s certainly to
nterpose no objection il, win now, if those who
no objection though think il would be better TO have it
in separate bill
The question being then taken upon concurrng in the
amendment, it was agreed to- and the amendment was
ordered TO be engrossed for third readngthe bill was
read a third time, and passed.
JUDITH woRTHEN.
Mr.. HAMLIN moved that the Senate take up for con-
sderaon Senate bill No 5obeing the bill for the relief
OF the heirs OF Judith Worthen, deceased which motion
was agreed to- and said bill considered in
Mr.. HAMLIN. | will state in very few words what
are the principles involved in this bill which has twice
passed the Senate
II appears IRON the papefs presented, that Judith Wo
tn, n the widow OF Isaac Worthen, revolutionary PEN
sioner, applied at the Pension Office for pension. under
the act oil July y 1888 This act gave to the widows OF
certain revolutionary soldiers for the term OF five years
from the 4,h OF March, 1896, the annuity or pension
OF previous act i living at the time il was passed.
Her husband received his penson under the previous act
referred TO- until his DEATH which occurred on the LIST day
Of March, lSaI. On the Sd day OF March, 1913. the
widow made her declaration, under the act OF h July,
1898, and the next month filed her papers with the Com
missioner OF Pensions These papers were not finally
acted at the Pension Office until alter the Both April.
ls44 On that day act was passed, providing thai no
pension should thereafter be granted to widow for the
same time for which her husband had received one
The five years for which the pension granted to
widows By the OF July 1885, extended from 4th OF
March, 1886, 10 March A. ls4l The husband died on
the LIST March, S4l and in consequence OF the law last
mentioned. the Commissioner granted her pension for
only three days, from his death the is until the 4th
March, 1S4 Ii the had been decided at the time
the papers were presented she would have received,
che was entitled under the law the whole five years
pension, al SIS per X is claimed by her heirs
that the delay in deciding the AT the office, upon
proofs found amply sufficient. should not prejudice her
rights and that the money withheld should be paid 10 her
legal representatives.
II is not the policy OF the pension laws to grant PEN
sons the arrearagcs oil pensions, 10 the heirs oil the
pensioners When, however money has actually become
due and payable 10 pensioners and all the papers TO OBJ
tain its payment filed with the proper officer and the
payment delayed account OF press OF business which
prevents the examination at early day. the committee
eriy OF the pensoner, which his heirs may he justly
entitled In this case, nothing but the delay IN examining
the papers filed, until after the act OF Hn 30 1874, pre-
vented her receiving themoney. Her hight 10 was per-
feet under The law OF 1898, until long alter she had done
all tina, required OF her 10 obtain it,
To AVOID the injustice OF the restrictive act OF April 3d.
1884, IN like that here presented. joint resolution
passed the 23d January, is45, providing that the
restriction should be construed 10 affect the claims oil
OF pension at the passage Of The resolution, shall
have been made and hed IN the Pension Oice, awaiting
The decision Of The Commissioner OF Pensions thereon
Toe restriction enacted IN February, lS4J hut
cases in which like that under consIderaon) the deca
ration made before April -, 1874. and filed n
the Pension Office before the 23d January. lsi5,
were expressly excepted from lis operation
tbs only the smidl amount OF $40, and places this
widow upon precisely the iooling With other
upon BY the department. she would have received long
before her death.
No amendment having been offered the bill was then
reported back the Senate, odd re 10 be ensrosscd for
Ihrd reading, and read third time, and passed