The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-21

the me that Mr. Callaghan had aided in setting fire TO
The goods. mentioa this iactnot TO censuTe him
for II right TO destroy the goods at all not
wrong in him TO aid in their destruction Again, think
is fact OF my Knowledge. that officer OF the
regular army remained TIE Rio Grands with The Texan
volunteers after Colonel Ha,dey and the regular troops
returned. The goods berz left behind and Mr. Gala
CHAN with them, the presumption IA, doubt not The
fact was that they in his charge and possession
that 49, he remained there voluntarily with them. for pur
poses OF his own, (surey he subservng no public
interest and consequently his responsibility, and
at his risk It's said that Captain Cady. the senior
captain oi the Texan volunteers that remained the Rio
Grande who commanded after Colonel liarney returned
the order burn the goods. do not question this
But do deny the rghuness OF thai order deny The
righulnessf Captain Cady, Mr.. Callaghan or single
pan of the expedon (even they went there rghtfully
at s remaining an hour after the order had been given
to them 10 return.
Then, as to the want OF transportation cannot un
derstand how that want about When the expedi-
lion went out they had sufficient transportation Tor they
carrieh besides all their other necessaes Mr. Callaghabs
$s23 600 worth Of goods. Now, tho means Of
transporting this amount from San Antonio The Rio
Grande sufficient TO carry back again the reduced amount
oil $lO,O00! MY opinion is, that there was not, and
could not have BEEN any want OF transportation. In
deed, well remember Il was said at the time that wagons
were burnt together with the goods and had supposed
that their estimated value made part OF the 10000
claimed for loss ! may be mistaken in this, though
Illinois, coone Haey Wss u The as hsb it0 no ony
giving orders with decision, bat OF having them obeyed
also. But that Mr.. Calghan carried along sloleas
military order and that he did moi wish 10 co. or was
afraid to is not sustained by the circumstances of This
case He was an old trader in the Mexican country
the Rio Grande and in the constant habit of rav
elling backwards and forwards from San Antonio lie
was interested in working one Of the Mexican silver
mines perhaps that Of Santa Rosa. He in the
slant habit OF trading back wards and forwards and he
kept stock Of goods suited that business One rea-
son-perhaps the controlling one--why Colonel Harney
made arrangements with him 10 go with the expedition
the fact that he could carry goods which were suited
MeXCang. he
familiar with their character and habits and experienced
in trading with them be would be able to render
al service to the expedition in procuring suppes while
he was, at the same time. serving himself by exchanging
his goods for Mexican forage and PROVISIONS which be
selling to the troops, and, upon the operation, realiz
Mr. SHIELDS. As far as understand the senator his
objection turns the fact whether Colonel Harney au
thorized the destruction OF the goods
ber when made my first remarks, be would have heard
the three grounds OF my objection The first is, that the
expedition was unauthorized one. The next is, that
Mr.. Callaghan ought not 10 have remained upon the
banks OF the Rio GTande after the expedition had been
ordered back and alter the main body of the troops bad
returned TO San Antonio He ought not have remained
there beyond their protection, when he had the oppou
nifty and means OF getting back to San Antonio 10 good
time. Ii the circumstances were such TO require the
expedition TO fall back, he should have returned. My
third ground OF objection is the want OF wha. regard,
and what understand the Senate has heretofore regard
ed as competent proof OF the order, by proper authority
to destroy The goods or OF the necessity OF that order,
suppos,ng il To have been given.
Mr.. SHIELDS. have already stated what heard
those gentlemen Say | hope the gentleman does moi
pretend thai stated. that incorrectly They told
mel not responsible for what they said ,6i may
have told me fal9enoodsnat Colonel Harney had gone
there. had pressed the goods had taken possession OF
them and when he left that place had taken the wagons,
carried oh the residue, aud left these goods with
ons that il the Mexicans and forced them TO aban-
don their POSITION ih man whom he lett there IN charge
OF the goods Cailaghan-should destroy them. do
not suppose the gentleman preiends 10 that did not
hear these statements.
Mr. BORLAND have said nothing at all about the
senator's statements II to me he has introduced
ta, unnecessarily am not questioning his statements
upon any poiut; but | stating the circumstances
Which satisfy my mind that the goods were not DESTROYED
under The circumstances alleged 10 the noral in such
way and By such authority would entIte the pe,i-
toner TO relief. make no question OF the senator's
or elsewbere bat do question the validity OF this claim
most emphatically and have presented the facts and
considerations which, n my opinion. DO utterly desroy the
only foundations upon which II can pretend TO rest
may be wrong 10 the positions have taken. II so,
then tie claim should be allowed II the Senate shall be
satisfied, st thai the expedition authorized one,
that Colonel Harney bad right to make IT, and 10 incur
all The expenses and responsibilities which il involved.
and that those responsibilities Justly fall now upon this
government, then that ground OF my objection is.to
your mind, not nlne-removed Next, II you shall be
satisfied that Mr. Caagban rghtfully remained upon the
banks OF the Rio Grande after the order, from unques-
tonable authority bad been given for the whoe expe
dion 10 san Antonio. and after the greater
part had so returned and Colonel Haney wnh il, then
the second ground o my objection lsto your mnd not
nine-removed. And third, IL ii Is satisfactorily proved
10 the Senate that the destruction OF .aese goods
necessary the public service, and that the order under
which they were desifoypd from a lawful source,
ndrealy given then that objection sto your mind, not
mine-refnoyed.
Now sir. how far does this responsibility Of the gov
ernInent extend. in the opinion oil sena,orsp The i'll
lock which Mr. CaIlsgtan experienced iu this famous
expedition did at all deter him from repetition OF
his trading excursions into the Mexican country. Just
beyond the RIO Gfande II generally known that
he made several alter this time.
Nr. SHIELDS. Under protection.
Mr. BORIAND II he had protection, am not aware
OF It, mel bun 10 the month OF November at PTesidio,
with protection at all, save such afforded him
by his little escor oi Mexican servants whom he had
assist him. with cargo OF silver which he had Obtained
in the about Santa Rosa IN exchange for goods he
had carried thsre aud IN collection OF debts How many
of these expeditions he mide, do not know; bu do
know that the newspapers stated tha, in returning from
one OF them, he fallen upon either by Mexicans
Indians, Others robbed OF his goods, and nearly
lost bis c. Do senator's think he can claim paymeat
for his losses on that occasions think be could, with
much lawful right he does Tor those sustained
at the RIO 6faade. Why no,l
Mr.. RUSK. Mr. President, dislike to trouble the
Senate; tor know that very frequently heightened speak
ing these small bills, instead OF benehlng them, does
them positive injury. But there is conflict here
in regard to the testimony. The senator from Arkansas
says ha, this claim has before the Senate Tor long
time That is very true but Il has been up for action
only twice II before the Senate several years ago.
and was then discussed al length. The honorable
tor from Afgansas that occasion showed us much
zeal he has shown to prevent the passage OF The
bill Still, the bill was then passed BY this body. pro-
pose 10 read some of the testimony IN this case
there seems 10 be conflict ia regard 10 IT, hope,
therefore, the Senate will pardon me for reading from the
testimony. ! will first read the statement OF Captain
Cadv gentleman undqr whose orders the poots ware