The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-16

II
COMMITTEES. not recommending il. as understand Or de-
carng TO be AT all necessary, bat stating what VIII bt
the amount that will be required to cover the claim ls
Senate choose 10 pass The estimates we had ~ view
in making this rule take to be estimates for publ; pur-
poses, eqoed by the interests of the government oI
the purpose OF carrying on the operation OF me govern
men lhe department is to ascertain them TO De neces-
say and not only state The amount but recommend their
passage Now do not understand the Secretary OF the
Treasury 10 make any such recommendation under
stand hat he merely writes letter 70 he chairman OF e
COMMITTEES on Finance stating that this appropriation
should be made certain amount would be required 10
cary i nsv,O os, ,,.,.., IVA, =. ..,,o, ,,om
Arkansas allow TO correct error into which he has
fallen in relation to the letter from the Treasury Depart.
ments The letter addressed TO myself as chairman
OF the Committee on Military Affairs. will read the
letter. H14aatsa tf.a t"96
Treasury DEPARTMENT, Feb. 27, 1851
SIR. ihas been made known this department ,ha.
Judgment has been rendered against Lieutenant Colonel
Mnchs IN The clrcu couy Of the United stats, Tor me
him individually for an act done by h,n as lieutenant
the late with Mexico, and performed by HIM in good
faith aud IN obedience TO the orders OF his tupeor ocer
"a To-" w ,sa"e M sse IA % ssVe s
quenl thereon and have the honor request and
ommend that an appropriation OF that amount may be
Very respectfully, your obeden, servant.
THOMAS CORWlN, (.
Secretary OF the Treasury
Chairman Committee of Military Affairs S,nate
Mr. BORLAND resumed | did not refer to the chair
man OF the Committee on Military Affairs when spoke
the letter from the Secretary OF the Treasury but
ered TO letter to the chairman OF the Committee on FL
nance appreh nd however, that the letter to The chair
man OF the Committee Military Affairs which has
as, been read could not be fairly construed into esti
mate from department coming to the Congress OF the
United States, and recommending appropriation My
reference to the letter to the chairman OF the Com
m,ee Finance, who has charge Of this bill and do
not think construe into recommendation IRON
department TO the Senate letter addressed not to the
IL. r. a. the
bill in charge but TO chairman OF the Committee Mil
lary Affairs Not understanding that to be an estimate,
repeat that my determination 10 vote TO exclude this
under the rule has no reference whatever to the merits
OF the claim for do hesitate to say that in regard
Colonel MITCHELL think he has rendered mertorous
services and is entitled to projections but not at thus time
Mr. DAVIS, OF Mississippi. | should be very sorry to
the Senate adopt such construction OF the rule as
that given by the senator from Arkansas II would not
only affect this case, but others. The Committee on
Military Affairs have special charge o matters connected
with the army; and the Secretary has been greatly IN err
lift is supposed that an estimate must necessarily be
sent TO the Committee on Finance. He has sent other
estimates to the Committee Military Affairs, and ex
poets them TO provide Tor other contingencies II he has
been in error, il is public service which is likely 10
suffer, aud not individuals IL great pity, indeed, If
such construction this to be pat upon the rule that
earlier notice has not been given, and that some blank
forms have not been sent to the Secretaries OF the differ
eD departments that they might know the exact form
in which the Senate desire the estimate To be made
supposed estimate a recommendation OF an appro-
with the statement OF the number OIL dollars re-
Quired for that specific purpose.
Mr.. HUNTER. We have always supposed that an
estimate sent any committee is estimate under the
rule from the department. and that il need not be directed
10 us.
Mr. DAVIS resumed am glad that the chairman of
the Committee Finance puts that construction upon IT,
The from Arkansas put different construction
upon it and # that construction should obtain, other
amendments recommended by him and recommended by
the War Department will faI. They have based their
expectations upon the suPposlon nal % ,heiI estimates
should be sorry indeed TO such construction put
upon the rule adopted by the Senate have been no
great friend of these new rules introduced into the SEN
ate. We understand old practice very WELL and hope
shall long be able TO do without strange rules intro
duced into the body This introduction of this new rule
seems likely produce embarrassment than II can
do good hope that this construction, al least will
not be put upon It.
But sir has been argued that this is private claim,
for the benefit OF private individual An officer IN the
discharge Of his duty is not aly to be 40 considered
What did matter TO Lieutenant Colonel Mitchell, as an
individual, where this trader went with his goods, or
whether his property fell into the hands OF the enemy or
not Tba, matter concerning him only SO Tar as
he desired to protect his country from wrong and the
duty he performed devolved upon him only far he
an officer charged with that duty; suit was instl-
ued The government icok charge OF it, and through its
own agents defended the suit Judgment was rendered
against him the person sued but II was conceded at
the time tina, the Judgment was actually against the gov
ernment He did not defend it individual whose
private property involved He could not have anti
cipated such opposition as is here exhibited; yet belev
ing that IL was faudueDt claim against the govern
men he did all that he could have done, except give
his personal attendance to the su to prevent the loss OF
the suit which he thought would run against the
ury OF the United States for he could not doubt that the
Judgment rendered against him would be followed by
law 10 protect him, But nothing remains except
writ OF error and that writ OF utterly worthless tc
this individual, unless he can get writ which will su
persede the judsmeDtunless he get order from
The Supreme Court supersede the execution That he
cannot get unless he give security; and IT is unfair
to expec, him hnd that security, unless you n'epose
this ultimate and contingent protection. II you are really
earnest II the Senate does actually desire to have hi.
suit brought up to the Supreme Court and properly de
tended this the first slept is the necessary and the
proper step But if the Senate think proper TO throw Il
upon the individual who is not able TO give the security
required, the execution against his property. H'
property then is to be sold His credit is oshs prop
eny sacrificed ask you II your equity will permit you
hereafter to refuse to return to him the fall value OF h'
property sacrificed under the execution The prop
erty which may be sold for thirty thousand dollars
be worth three four times that amount Will you here
after claim that you had right not TO step betweeT
him and the execution, but 10 allow his property to b.
sacrificed
The PRESIDENT The honorable senator is re
minded that the question for the Senate 10 decide
whether the amendment is in order or not
/ Mr. DAVIS. II my remarks do not properly direc
Themselves to the acceptance OF the amendment, vii
''1R 4he PREsDEAT The senator is certainly dseussn,
the proprety Of adopting the amendment and paying th
money but not whether the amendment is in order unde
| the Senate shall decide this question.
j Mr.. BERRIEN. j desire 10 say one word, agre
entirely with the senator from North Carolina IN believ
ing that this is of the nature Of public claim, or that
is public obligation, would say and not Of descrp
ton coming under the rule Il II be true that the Unite