The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-04-07
i'm THE SENATE OF THE U. STATES.
sPECIAL SESSION. +
MONDAY, APRIL 4. 1858.


MONDAY, APRIL A. 1858.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. GWiN I ask the indulgence of the Senate for a
lew moments Tor the purpose OF making personal expla
nation IN regard TO what published in Of The
papers OF this city part of the report of the committee
a late senator from New Hampshire Mr. Halel during
the last session OF Congress- in which he alleged that
individuals outside OF Congress bad procured the passage
OF the law giving additional compensation TO oheers
seamen and marines serving the Pacific coast. When
the senator from New Hampshire made the statement
speaking for the Senate and the Naval Committee, To-
which the subject had been referred al an early period OF
the last Congress- pronounced false, because knew
il was false. stated al the same time that the subject
had been considered in committee at an early period OF
the first session of The last Congress, and the committee
unanimous in favor OF granting The additional com
pensaon. and will now prove this Tact by reading 10
The Senate the bill reported on The 2ilh OF February
1852 six months before the naval appropriation Dill was
considered in that committee:
That the proper accounting officers OF the treasury be,
and they hereby authorized aud directed 10 allow to
The officers, petty officers seamen and marines OF the Uni
ted States navy who served in the Pacific ocean, the
OF California and Mexico, during the late with
Mexico such additional compensation shall be equva.
lent the amount OF accrung 10 such officers, petty
officers, and marines during The period uiore-
said"
This, Mr.. President was the deliberate action of the
committee than six months before the clause IN the
appropriation bill covering the object acted
in committee in The Senate. One OF the members OF
the committee Mr. STOCKTON had served The coast of
there who aided in the conquest Of the country large
portion of them my constituents and that dslin
guished senator and myself took special interest in the
matter; and person did approach US on the sub
ect directly or indirectly, nor, as believe, any member
OF the committee We considered that It was our duty
give this additional compensation TO these gallant
and needed prompting TO induce US 10 perform that
duty Subsequently it was determined in committee, as
there doubt II the bill passed the Senate whether
il would be acted in the other House. that amend
ment should be offered the naval appropriation bill
| yUha rehv he
on the coas, Of California would be placed the same
footing with the officers and soldiers of the army
vice in California and Oregon by the act Of 1850 Under
the instructions Of the committee, did the fol-
lowing amendment which passed, but single member
of the Senate Directing TO 1t
"That proper accounting officers OF the treasury
and they hereby authorized aud directed TO allow and
pay, of any money in the treasury otherwise appro-
priated the officers petty officers, eamen. and marines
Of the United States navy and officers and the
service, who served in The Pacific ocean, The
California and Mexico, during the late with Mex.
al compensation been by law directed to be paid
the officers and soldiers OF the army who served in Cali
fornla"
The senator from Virginia [Mr HusrrRl objected to
il, but said that he willing TO give them the ad
dtional pay, by taking the provision from the
House." then read The clause in the army appropra-
lion bill OF 1850, IN these words;
." For pay the commissioned officers and enlist
ed the army of the United States serving in Oregon
California. 1925. s54, on the following basis TO wit
aforesaid, whilst serving Aforesaid, per d in add
ton TO their regular pay and allowance OF two dollars
each and 10 each enlisted man as Aforesaid whilst serv
ing aoresad, per dem in addition their present
pay and allowances equal to the proper OF each
be retained until honoraby discharged. This add
tona pay continue until the Isl OF March, 1882 until
Otherwise proviued"
The Senator from Virginia then said
81 am willing to add the fifty per contum which we
agreed 10 IN relation TO the army have no idea that the
House ill agree TO it,
This was the only opposition the proposition met with
in the Senate.
The Committee on Naval Affairs acted on this subject
in February, 1862, when reported the bill, section of
which have read; which was, with Sigh, nodhca
ton, 10 make II more acceptable TO the House OF Repre-
sentatves, incorporated in the amendment the naval
appropriation bill; and therefore, my statement in reply
10 the nsinuaton OF The senator from New Hampshire
was strictly correct, that outside influence induced
The. committee 10 act upon that matter.
My remarks were made without having the slightest
inmaton that any particular individual implicated
10 the remarks OF the senator from New Hampshire for
had paid no attention TO what he saying until
warned that be was attacking the Naval Committee.
Subsequently was called on by Mr. J. Knox Walker,
and informed that he was the person alluded 10 BY the
senator from New Hampshire | recolected that he had
exhibited some activity IN regard 10 the amendment 10
the naval appropriation ball. but not by way OF inuenc-
The opinions OF members OF the committee for those
opinions had been known TO the Senate months BEFORE
the bill which have read As TO the particular wording of
the amendment, or who daughe it, was Indifferent If
covered the object OF The committee had especial
recollection Of Mr. Walkers action in the matter; and as
he had prepared statement OF the facts which he had
said he ready 10 verify By bis affidavit endorsed lis
couectness believing him TO be a gentleman OF yerac,y
This bad not The slightest reference TO the action of toe
committee, which had been matured more than SIX
months before
The report of the select committee on frauds says that
explained the discrepancy" IN my statements by say
ing that supposed, al the when Mr. Hale made his
remarks, that he alluded 10 another bill The report OF
the committee does not state the facts correctly There
was no discrepancy in what sad in reply to Mr Hale
and my endorsement OF MIR. Walkers statement The
committee had acted upon the subject months before Mr.
Walker preiends that he bad any intercourse with any
member OF IT IN reference TO the matter We reported
bill, which calendar Did he cause us TO re-
port that hilii Did he approach member Of the
committee when were celebrating on the subecli ID
is not pretended that he did We subsequently, incorpa-
rated the substance OF bill in amendment the
naval appropriation bill In the action OF Congress. on
this question at that period in his statement he says he
did take active part not TO influence the Senate ts
Naval Committee for both in favor OF giving the
increased compensation; but his labors 10 have
been directed The House of Representatives and the
committee OF conference. Neither he nor any other
man ever induced The Naval Committee OF the Senate or
any member of it, to adopt the principle that this addition.
al compensation should be paid TO the officers and seamen
and marines who served on the Pacific coast.
merely make this statement that 1t may go upon the
record, 10 show that there discrepancy in anything
that said on the subject
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1853.
NEW MEXICO.