The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-01-10

The question was stated TO be upon the motion to
strike out the words "from the 4ih OF March. 1887"
Mr. HUNTER. | call for the yeas and nays, as this
settles an important precedent
The yeas and nays were ordered
Mr. BERRiEN. ! wish the chairman OF the commit.
lee would explain the facts connected with this case,
that | may have some information about the claim l
do not understand why he did not urge his claim ten
years ago. Immediately after the verdict was rendered
Mr. RUsK. My recollection OF the matter is. that it
was pressed upon the department Immediately This re-
port made some two years ago, and oil course some
OF the facts have escaped my recollection Bat OF one
thing sure,hat the claim presented and urged
Immediately after the performance OF the contract and II
has been pressed than once and finally the claim
ant agreed TO take nine hundred dollars The whole
matter investigated in 1871 by jury Whether or
not any application has been made TO Congress prior
TO this time, do not know. think there has not but
may be mistaken AT the time his application to the
department failed, he applied TO Congress-two years
ago:
Mr.. BERRIEN My inquiry was, whether the verdict
had been rendered in this case and application had been
made for its payment and when 4 The United States
have no nexble rule in regard TO the payment OF inter
est in these They proceed generally upon the prin
cipe TO refuse interest," assuming that The government Is
always ready TO meet all just demands against them
Now, the facts upon which he has relied rest upon the
verdict OF the jury But we have been told that verdict
OF aury against the United States is notaways the surest
criterion OF the justice OF claim that can be assumed
We assured by the chairman that he was satisfied,
after having examined the evidence upon which that YER
dict rendered. that there was claim against the
United States, which is ascertained TO be just; and
il followed that the payment OF that claim would subject
the United States TO the payment OF interest My inquiry
is, that CLAIM, when II was asceralned TO be Just,
presented in season.
Mr.. HAMLIN If the chairman will allow me TO an
swer the senator from Georgia, will state that cannot
tell the specific time, but The papers on the hes will show
will answer him by saying that immediately a
very few months at the turtheshs matter was presented
to the department. and urged upon them This individual
the contractor for other services, and this claim
mixed up with Others and he continued to urge IT until
the day OF his death then into the hands Of other
parties, who now press it upon the consideration OF the
Mr. BERRIEN wish to see the original claim,
which would be satisfactory than the recollection OF
individual senators concerning IT, suppose report has
been made and, if that report s here, presume the
mee can refer to it. II not, should prefer myself to
take time to look into the matter should not press this
but the friends of the bill choose to fix upon the time when
payment should be made and we are called upon to give
assent TO the correctness OF the claim which is mpos
sible without observation.
The question being then taken by yeas and nays re-
sulted-yeas %, nays las follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Bayard Berrien, Borland. Bat
er Clarke, Cooper Davis, Dawson Dodge of iowa. Fech
Fish Geyer Hunter James, Jones Of Iowa. King, Mason
Underwood, Wade, and Whitcomb--2S
NAYs-MessS Bradbury. Brodhead, Dodge of VISION
Morton, and kusk-ll.
So the amendment was agreed TO-
The bill was then reported to the Senate, the amend
ment was concured in, and the bill was ordered 10 be
.engrossed for a third reading
RICHARD CLANCY
The Senate then proceeded 10 the consideration OF the
bill for the relief of Richard CLANCY and others which
read the second time, and considered in committee
of the whole. No amendment being offered, il was re-
ported The Senate and ordered TO be engossed for
third reading.
SILLY.
The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the
bill for the extension of patent heretofore granted 10
John Silly, of the State of Georgia.
MIR. BADGER inquired whether the bill had been re-
ported unanimously by the committee
Mr.. NORRIS stated that had dissented, The
original paientee having died, his heirs had failed to
make the application in Time.
Mr.. DAVIS suggested that the bill provided for ex
tending the paten, for fourteen years. whereas the law
only extended it for years IL had been the prac
tce hitherto limit the extension the period allowed
by law. He therefore moved to Substitute seven" for
fourteen"
The question being taken upon the amendment it was
agreed to-
No further amendment being offered. the bill
ported TO the Senate; and the amendment having been
concurred in the bill ordered to be engrossed for
third reading
On motion, the Senate adjourned.