The daily union., 1852-05-08


would be all that would remain. Even remedy had
been already souxh and farher acton oil The Kind was
n Ieaqed py any prnslge o. justice % ae ,h sin
interests oil the nation The rulers who should saer
flee the latter 10 the former would violate The paines
principles oil duty, and beay the high nus OF delegated
Bati have said enough-lihaugh not "a iihe Of what
might be said-or the occasion Ii am correct IN these
as hs s Tsssaly Of Of the asd States W with The demands
OF these claimants | shall close with a lew remarks on
two other subjects which have been presented on
behalf OF the claimants and which may be considered as
rather incidental IN their character lraga. 1if II
We were1od IN The remarks made by The honorable
senator from Maine. Mr. BRADBURy,l who as chairman
OF the select committee. reported tins bull that these
claims subsianlIaed by more than twenty witnesses,
whom he now summons before u.s. The testimony TO
which the senator refers s The reports OF committees o
Congress, who have heretofore given them a favorable
consideration These reports present evidence OF facts,
and bring no new knowledge OF the transactions on
which the rights OF partes are founded They are com
mentares, aud not testimony, They show the INFER
ences which certain men have drawn from the docu-
ments, while counter statements and adverse reports
show that others have regarded the merits different
light; ani the whole questoR is open 10 our unbiased
Judgment So much have these former reports been re-
gaed authority in favor OF the claims. that list OF
them has been annexed 10 the report OF every COMMITTEES
which has been made for several years past s.l lwa
Mr. President this s ancient claim. For fifty years
il has been before Congress-for than hall
ury that OF complaint has existed il cause there s
AT The first blush It's antiquity would challenge an exam
naon into the why the claim had not been pre-
viously allowed Sir, there have been just and wise
men IN the Legislative department OF this government
during that whole time There have been men whose
ability to investigate has been representations
love OF justice has been exceeded-whose sympa-
hies with the injured glowed with more than ordinary
ardohose attention has been long directed 10 the sub
ect yet these claims have been allowed II seems
TO that there should be some Limitation as TO time in
these claims against the government ! am no scker
for any strict, unyieding rule upon the subject BY which
just right should be barred but are we TO have claims
presented here for years and yeasfor centuries per-
hapsrepea,ed again and agalnll time shall end Are
they and they alone of all that earthly TO be stamped
with immortality Will the next fifty years be more sue
cessfu in bringing termination 10 these claims than the
past fifty years, Perhaps not And are we to 80 on
anoher-anolher, and yet another fifty yearsl Where
the bounds to be esablshcdl IL the importantly is
cease, and il TO adopt. the principle
clearly developed IN TINS case that CLAIM becomes
stronger and stronger as becomes older. there is no
suit however unjust 1t may ,olher than the eventual
allowance of all such demands ss9sa1ts -s.5l l.6
Mr.. BADGER Will my friend allow me to suggest,
that difficulty about the lapse OF time, that
during the administration of MIR. Polk both houses OF
Congress concurred in he passage OF bill providing ior
the payment OF these claims and 50 far from the Ptesl
dent thinking that the lapse OF time objection, he
vetoed the bl assigning among other reasons that Con-
gress had been too precpaie and had not taken time to
consider it, We think have lime to consider il.
Mr.. FELCH. think that two reasons were assigned
by the President for the veto FIRST the antiquity OF The
claim and, secondly the precipancy and want Of deb-
Grafton with which Congress had passed the bill at the
very close Of the session. a lr aJ -o8 .aiy1f5 VA
Mr.. BRADBURY. ) And also that il was passed at an
improper tmewben The country was involved n war,
and all its required for other parposes.
( MIR. FELCH There were several reasons stated M
the veto message, and among them those mentioned BY
the honorable seuators--that Congress bad been too
precipaie but another the great antiquity OF the
claims and, lastly, that The bill passed al improper
insa iie. u bis a5ssgy freis 1G ,ft3f 81 s}4
Y While regard the great antiquity of claim as a
presumption against il, nevertheless admit that may
properly be explained by testimony and by any facis
which the history of the may present in explanation
excuse and my open 10 listen 10 anything OF the
kind which shall show Why ii just they were not long
ago recognised and paid tg. tt.a an ta sla. " ~
LIE, look ihen al the history OF this matter in Con-
gress and at the reports which from time to time have
been made on the subject-the Witnesses which have
been summoned before us from the committee rooms.
These claims were fret presented by petition 10 Con-
gress ia 1902. when Mr.. Giles, in the House OF Repre-
seuiatlves, made lengthy statement mbodyng almost
all the facts We have before now and concluded with
out recommending any action upon The subject He did
not declare them to be IN bis opinion just or unjust bui
presented merely historical statement, expressing
opinion as 10 the merits OF the application .t.r Hi
The next report was made BY Mr. Marion in 1907,
This report in general tenor, favorable TO the clam
ants, bat il closes by declaring that The committee could
not decide from what period The losses should be paid
II accompanied by BILL resolution, or any
ommendaon OF definite action upon the subject by The
House. The next was adverse report, made in The
Senate in 1878 by Mr.. Roberts The next was in 1922
n the House by Mr.. Russell, which was also adverse
The in the House 1924 BY Mr. FORSYTH, also
adverse. This exhibits the action OF both branches of
Congress on the subject prior 10 The year 1897 This is
the history OF the matter for twenty-five years after the
Ol Inc TesuU oil all Inc
efforts TO obtain acknow edgment OF their justice
claims on our government BY Congress Is found in one
report expressing opnion--one admitting that there
may be claim but declaring that il is npractcable
10 determine what portion OF the Losses oil the petitioners
were enited TO compensation three adv reports
Neither the Senate House took any favorable action on
the subject during this long period OF quarter oil
tury There is evidently nothing in this action OF Con-
gess which be REGARDED excuse, IL the claims
were Just, for the failure 10 obtain within this
long period, or can give any additional weight TO the de-
mand. n so . - A
We have here presented the action OF both branches OF
Congress the subject prior 10 1927 Here Commences
In 1926 the Senate called upon the President
Ia furnish all The documents giving information upon The
subject of these claims II furnished by the Secre-
ary OF Stae--the volume 10 which have often re-
erred-and printed 1896 by order OF he-Senatc IL is
certain that the action neither OF Congress OF IFS
mltees favorable to these claims prior TO that time,
but The claimants aege that the new light yielded by this
publication has secured the favorable action of commit
tees since But examination of the documents,
assert that the merits and gst oi this whole case not
witos,anuing the publication OF this volume did not take
place until twenty -four afterwards will be found
Mr. Giless report 10 IS01 Although the correspondence
and journals OF the negotaors and other officials then
presented were not referred 10 in thai report yet main ea
lures and iacis. upon which the determination OF this
matter must depend, are 10 be found in full.
Let US look to few oil the reporis subsequent 10 the
publication OF this document The next report made was
by Mr.. Holmes in the Senate in 1897 and he closes his
report with resolution requiring the Pfesiden TO pro-
cure the evidence and documents relative TO the claim,
and 10 them 10 be laid before Congress The next
report was made in toe House OF Representatives by Mr.
Everett in 1873, which is favorable in the general
sulis 10 the calaanls, but The committee asked be lis
charged from further consideration OF the subject be-
cause The Senate had II under consideration.
Again, 10 1929 reports made by MIR. Chambers in