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

stated indt Tue pcuonef had produced evidence show
habily-s claim that just and equitable am sais
Ned mat he correct, and will withdraw all opposition.
NO amendment being proposed. the bill reported 10
ing
The Senate then proceeded TO the consideration OF the
bill for The relief of Mrs. A. NJ Dade, widow OF The
late Major +. l. .Dade. of the United States army !;
which read the second time, and considered as in
committee OF The whole.
Mr. MORTON That bill, as its tile imports. is for
the relief OF the widow OF Major Dade oil the United
States army. Major Dade, sir fell al The commence
ment Of the Seminole war in Florida in the year 1885
he fell IN that battle, well known in the history Of that
massacred BY the Semnoles This bill passed the Senate
during the last Congress, believe, without any oppos
ton passed to the House OF Representatives. andfaed
with other private bills hope il will be the pleasure
Of Inc Senate, without any comments my part,
pass this bill with the same unanmity that they did at
the last session OF Congress.
No amendment being offered, the bill was reported to
me Senate and ordered 10 be engrossed for third read
ing.
RUFUS DwMAL
The Senate resumed the consideration OF the bill for
the relief Of Rufus Dwnal which was read The second
time. and considered as in committee OF the whole.
Mar. HUNTER called for the reading of the report
Mr. HUNTER. move TO strike out that part of the
bill which relates TO paying interest believe is not the
practice OF the government OF the United States TO pay
interest upon claims against il.
Mr. HAMLlN. know very well what the rule OF
this government has been in relation 10 paying interest
But seems to me that this is one of the cases that
come within the rule with regard TO paying interest that
the government itself has adopted There certain
cases, which have always met the favorable considera-
ton OF Congress, in which interest has been allowed to
States and Individuals, where the claim has not been
allowed not account OF the remissness OF the prnci
pals to whom the money was due, but account Of the
action or non-acon OF the government. The report in
this case predcated and this claim based upon the de-
cision Of jury and their judgment that this amount
due 10 this person that time Certainly If there any
il tha n of a
OF the country, before whom there has been trial. and
where witnesses have been introduced by the government
determining the amount due II to me, therefore,
that this is of those where the claimants are
sQuitably entitled 10 interest There have been applca
tons made before in relation to this claim and in reply
to the question why il has not been granted only
give an answer that applies 10 other casesthe of
due diligence upon the part of senators and representa-
think this is of that class OF cases where the
committee have done right II is trne that am mem
Der Of the Committee the Post Office and Post Roads,
and gave my concurrence to this report But il was
matured at previous session, when was not mem
Der OF that committee
Mr. HUNTER | do not feel the force of the argu-
ment OF the honorable gentleman from Maine, Mr. HAM
LINZ II interest is allowed in this case | do not see
why should not be allowed in every other case where
il is claimed as due and that is claim that is made in
relation 10 every other claim presented here. do not
see that the verdict Of jury gives this claim any peculiar
forcegives ii any greater right to interest than other
claims presented here which are perhaps Just as good
The United States does not allow itself to be sued and
why Because il is afraid 10 trust itself in the hands OF
luries Now, this is an indirect mode of accomplishing
what the law does not allow and what the policy OF the
government is opposed TO- Whether that policy right
or not, do not pretend TO say
Now am mol myself satisfied that the claim is due at
ALL am not satisfied that the amount of service was
not according 10 the agreement OF both parties do not
require an instrument OF such ormaty and nicely the
committee IN their report, seem to consider necessary
But as have not examined this matter and the Com
mee on the Post Office and Post Roads have reported
this sum to be due, am willing TO lei that 60 But
am not willing to allow interest on the amounts for do
not if give il here why should not give in
every other where deem the money TO be due
Il Is no answer 10 say that Congress did not act upon ii
IN time for that reason will cover vast amount OF
money in the great number of that have been hang
out that part OF the bin which relates interest
Mr. RUSk. made the report in this case after very
cosc examination and investigation OF all the papers in
relation 10 it, and think IL is strong My opn
ion -. that if il is not strictly legal claim, is very
Just, and certainly very equitable one As the report
Gays, the contract made with an individual and
without any reservation for that purpose, the amount OF
service reduced for the purpose OF relieving the de-
paTment from an embarrassment which was supposed at
the lime be but temporary in its nature and assurances
were given to the contractor that whatever right
should be done for him. The contractor had gone and
Stocked the roads, and made all The preparations and in
CURED al the expense which necessary comply
with the contract as made with the department Being
unable to do this himself, he enabled 10 do by adj
vances made BY his friends. By arrangements which
afterwards made TO relieve The deparlmennot for
any advantage whatever TO the contractor hmsef-his
heavy loss fell upon him, but upon those who had
made these advances 10 enable him TO comply with his
contract The testimony before the jury, Of which there
a great quantity, to show that these
were made to him which mentioned in the petition
and also in the report; and that they intended at
the time TO be faithfully performed there is doubt
because they paid him amount larger than The amount
specified in the contract, and which was due 10 him
cording TO the service actually rendered
The ground upon which this suit brought was
that they had overpaid him TO the of 5000 When
he presented himself here with his claim, and when
those individuals who had advanced him the money 10
enable TO fulfil his contract forward here with
claims against the government, instead OF paying his
claim, they charged him with receiving 5000 than
be entitled to- He consented that suit might be
brought against him here-all parties consented TO that
here, where the department was, where all The tesmo
ny could be got, and where IL taken. The United
States prosecuted their claims against the individual by
able counsel, and before highly respectable jury The
testimony among the papers is that the jury all
highly respectable men, and such would be like
ly 10 do justice 10 all parties Yet instead OF that jury
giving verdict in favor OF the government for the $780,
which il claimed due from this man, they gave
dict in favor OF the defendant for the reported in
the bill.
There other circumstances which would render
our refusal 10 grant this claim particularly and
hard upon the individual 10 whom this claim has now
come, and IN whose favort this bill is drawn up He
the principal individual who hal made advances the
contractor on the faith OF the contract with The govern
ment mere were others who had made advances but
the contractor had gwen the preference to this in
dividual named in the bill, 10 enable him 10 avail
himself of the benefit Of the security OF The gov.
eminent, and present his claim here who went
into the market and purchased the interest OF all
those who bad prior claims 10 his own so that he
has not only advanced the amount OF money which he