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

OF protecting this from the opeston OF Judgment
cannot os ooa'ned by the process which he proposes io
the tune has elapsed within which writ OF error being
sued out car be Superseded BY The law. writ OF error,
70 be a supercedent. be sued out within ten days.
Sundays excluded Il the iadgmen, is rendered. II is too
lae now to prevent the operation OF the Judgment
II the writ OF carried up There is therefore.
seems 10 me, object which will be accomplished by
this amendment unless IL beo express the determination
OF the United States ultimately 10 indemnify Cooael !
Mitchell tsIl .Ha.r
The PRESIDENT. The Chair will again suggest tina,
men under the rule or to reject and after that is de-
cided the merits OF the question viii come up
Mr.. BERRIEN. Very well will yield
Mr. RUSk. The mischief here is IN The rule. The
rae expressly excludes private claims, and this is clearly
private claim All the reason urged against It's being
considered private claim Is, that there s 10
against the execution which has been ordered. In my
Judgment there is just asmuch obligation 70 pay private
individual TO sustain public officer, the claim Is
pacity and If relax the rule in this should 90
all others What will be the practical operation OF
il l. will be, that every claimant who considers that be
has Just claim upon Congross TO whom ossA.A t0.
sand dollars, will ask that his bill be introduced and
will have just much right TO do il as Col Mitchell or
MIR Harmony The amounts have been ascerained here
by judgment in the court There other cases OF that
very description. have two reported by The Post
Office Committee. il which the jndsmen OF court has
Ii we relax the rule these claimants will apply to the
Secretaries for estimates to cover their claims.
Mr.. HUNTER. The senator from Texas says that
out Of that is not to be supposed that any rule which
could be introduced that relates to large class OF bust
before the Senate this. could be executed with
out difficulty at first In my opinion, there is no fault
in the rule, and no difficulty in relation 10 1t beyond what
might reasonably have been expected from It. That IS
rule very similar in principle TO one which has been long
adopted and practsed upon the House OF Representa-
yes; and believe it TO have been very sautary IN lis
effects upon the legislation of that body. acknowledge
that there isa difficulty IN asceralnag what are private
stance The rule is specific, and excludes all private
claimants, whether sanctioned by an act OF the Senate
before Sy from What hs hsaa 0
claim! In the House they have settled the matter as
understand by OF judicial interpretation may
use the expression-hat Is. by long course OF pre-
cedents.
There is one distinction, which il TO me would
strike everybody in relation TO that matter claim
which involves obligation between the government and
public officer, would seem to cannot be private
claim. A claim although may be for the beneh OF an
individual. which is founded upon law winch mas
sanctioned by the President cannot be private claim
But claim which does not regard the liability OF any
publc officer is not founded upon some law OF Con-
gress, is, apprehend, private claim he question
now raised by the point OF order s whether THIS claim
comes within that principle. think It does not ms
is matter which arises out OF the obligation OF the gov
his public and Official duty 1t is very different clam
from that which arises from some equity which an n1
government, because of wrongful act done towards
him. OF loss sustained by hun in the service OF
the government There would seem TO be an obvious
propriey why such claims as this might come IN when
estimated for by the proper department They the
Judges TO extent as to what are the dutles oi pup
lie officers and what the obligations OF the govern
ment towards those public ohceIs and II so, they may
well estimate for them Ii seems TO me here Is one dis
tnc,onI will no, say il is the only onewhich estab-
fishes the difference between private and public claim
Ia transaction between the government and pubic
officer arising from matter OF public duty It seems clear
to me that the claim is public and not private.
Now, sir, in relation to the objections suggested 10
tha rnla nv he rO
other claim, if you get department to estimate tor
it, may be brought under this rule, let me say that
The head OF department chooses 10 lend himself to such
things, bu, for the distinction to which have already
referred, perhaps it might be done, although do mol
think could be if look 10 the true distinction which
exists between public and private CLAIM. But are we
to suppose that the head OF department will lend himself
to such things This thought OF at the time the rule
was formed consulted friends on both sides OF the
House relation and II suggested that II was
TO allow an amendment offered upon esli
from the head of department. because Perchance
the administration nigh, be IN minority and IL II was
in a minority, oder such rule IT could moi present such
propositions as might think proper unless tue rule
shad admit estimates from the heads OF departments,
and permit its friends TO offer such amendments Ihat
portion of the rule essential 1t seems to me, 10 pro-
ect the Executive when in mlnony and DO not De-
eve that the end, il will cad 10 any mischief be-
eve the rule has proved TO be valuable one ana wl
be more and more valuable II shall become settled by
precedenls under the Interpretation OF The Senaie
think the principle have sought to establish drawing
distinction between private and public claim, Is just
one and if it be us then this amendment Is IN ORDER un
less the objection could be sustained OF there having been
no estimate for it, But there has been an estimate The
chairman OF the Committee on Military Affairs has pro-
auced one estimate There another which was so
unfortunate as TO lose yesterday which accounts Tor
fact which seems 10 strike members with surprise
for the clerk of the Committee Finance wrote to the
Secretary to learn what the estimate and was in
answer his letter that this second estimate appeared
Mr. WHITC0MB. | would ask the senator IRON Vr'
gina how the case would stand if this officer or any
other officer had committed mere trespass upon phi
vate individual without any pretence OF advancing the
public interests under his charge presume that would
not be pretended it, under such wr judgment had
been rendered against him. and he should think proper
10 prefer that the government o the United States
| for indemnity, it would be public CLAIM. presume all
would concede that 10 be private claim Then, how are
we to know that this does not come within that cat
esoryl That matter to be determined by the court
That does not appear before II matter auro.
The question, then, whether this claim IA one IN the
prosecution of which the gentleman alone is 10 be bene-
fitted, and for which he ought therefore TO be ndem
ni6ed
The question then taken upon the point of order,
and resuted--yeas ~, nays 21-as follows:
YEAS--Messrs Atchison, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Ber
ren Clarke, Davis of MASSACHUSETTS, DAVIS OF M-ssiPp,
| Gwin Hunter Jones' Miller, Morton, Pearce, Ranton,
Shields, Smith, Wales, and Yulee-A
| NAYS-.Messs. Borlapd, Bradbury, Bugh Cass; ohase
Dawson. Dodge of Iowa. Downs, Fecb, Hale, Hamltn,
Houston King Norris Rusk Sebastian Sturgeon, iurney
| Underwood, Walker, and Wbtcomb-2l
So the amendment was admitted TO be in order.
! Mr. BRIGHT / move that the Senate do now ad
| journ. -
Mr. DAVIS, Of Massachusetts. VIII the senator yield
4 the floor for moments ~. +.
i Mr. BRIGHT II The senator will renew the motion,
| Mr. DAVIS wish to give notice that l Will, at Thu