The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-16

Tered the amensulenl he now proposes. Tue
amendment does provide that the 100000 shall be
paid out OF that fund.- still II is based the faet that that
fund collected in California, and therefore Al Is argued
that California is entitled TO H. Why sir, upon that
same principle if pay this $500 600, might with
equal justice be called upon again aud again for money
until we have paid to California the whole amount thus
collected.
MIR GWlN do not intend 10 speak again upon this
subject but with the Of the honorable senator
time that this act OF Sd March, lsi9. went into opera
ton there-which from the i2th November. ls49-
up 10 the date OF the admission OF California into the
Union, the government collected S2,ooo.oOo IN add
Mr. BRIGHT Now, have uniformly opposed this
amendment before TIE Committee Finance, and have
opposed here for the that do not believe that
the State OF California has any more right to the money
collected there in the shape OF duties than have any of
the other States which custom houses are suaed and
in which customs collected to the money SO collect
ed Now, was willing, up TO the time when ascer-
tanned that the very merchants who had paid the money
into this fund in the shape OF duties have sued the OH
OF the United States in order TO get the money back
again that time was willing TO pay this $4,000
final settlement Of all claims. But am informed
that suits are now pending IN the courts OF the United
Siates entered into upon the part OF these merchants
who paid those duties alleging that they were collected
without any authority of law. Now IT those suits can
be maintained, and the money thus collected shall be paid
back those merchants the effect of passing this amend
ment and establishing the principle OF Will be to pay
this money back twce-once TO the merchants and then
again TO the State OF California, each getting the full
amount thus alleged to be collected without due author
y OF law. For this am opposed to this amend
ment, and shall vote against it,
Mr.. BADGER. | agree with the honorable senator
from Indiana, tMr. BRIGHT,l that this amendment
stands, the adoption Of is implied recognition
OF the right OF the State OF California to the whole Of
this civil fund it is called am not prepared 10 admit
that California has any such right and therefore, in tho
form which the amendment now possesses. cannot vote
for it Upon what is the claim to this money based
The honorable senator from California [M GwINl and
my friend from Texas MIR RUsKl refer TO the TACT that
owing to difference of opinion IN Congress, territorial
government was established in California. Well, then
| SlD in and
justice OF this case must place California IN cond
ton now, such she would have occupied if terrific
rial government had been established there Now sup
pose such government had been established there.
would the Territory of California have been entitled 10
the money collected there which is now claimed for the
State of California;! Would the duties levied under the
authority of the United States in that Territory have
gone into the treasury OF the United States or ia the
treasury of the Territory Certainly not in the treasury
OF the Territory. If Territory had been erected there,
and had been continued until the State Of California was
admitted the Union, that Territory and that State
would not have been entitled to penny OF these mo-
neys they would have all been the moneys of the Uni
ted States And if they would have been the moneys OF
the United States the event that the United States had
done what gentlemen assume it their duty to do,
but which we failed to do, how does it happen that,
not having done that which they say we ought to have
done. what would then have been our money becomes
now the money of the State of California
Now, one word more do not see and do not under
stand the application OF the argument. These duties
collected They say we should pay them over to
the Stale of California. And why' Because there was
territorial government there. And yet everybody ad
miis that If there had been territorial government there,
the Territory thus established would not have been emit
logic of This argument? IT this, that in certain event.
which did exist these moneys would have belonged
the United States; that event did not exist and there
fore these moneys belong the State Of California That
is the logic of this argument The honorable senator
from California says that this amount OF 81 600 OF
duties collected by military authority Well be il
so What collected Nothing in the world from
the citizens oil California more than collected from
the citizens OF every State in the Union The same and
\ vfal
everywhere else The thing done was right. Ii would
have been manifesty unjust TO have allowed California
to have free ports 10 have allowed her to escape the du
ties that every other portion OF the United States was
subjected 10 by regulations imposed by the tariff laws OF
the United States The thing done right, But il is
said that was done without lawful authority Even if
So who is entitled the money thus unlawfuly collect
ed Certainly not the State OF California but the people
who paid il. What mode of doing justice that would
be 10 say that the United States having by stretch OF
power exacted $4,000 from merchant in the city OF
San Francisco, therefore the United States will pay this
money-not 10 the merchant from whom it was exaced,
bu, the State OF California Does that the
wrong Does that put the matter rght Does that put
things they should have beenl Certainly not 1t
would be just right, friend near suggests, TO
pay the money TO North Carolina or Massachusetts II
is taking money from person wrongfuly, and then
compensatng him by paying that money to another per-
Then, as between the United States and California
the is this the thing done in California:
the dnties collected from her citizens had
been done and have been collected from citizens Of ev-
complain. II those moneys were collected without law,
then those moneys collected should be returned to the
pockets Of those who paid them, and not paid to the
State OF California Nor does the amount OF duties col.
ected in California affect this question in the slighes,
degree. Suppose that there large amount OF du-
lice collected in California Those duties belong the
United States; they TO be expended for the general
purposes OF the government OF the United States they
have been already pproprated-cer,ainly with no mig.
gard handlowads doing for the State oil California what
United States bound TO do for ali the States OF the
Union But abstract this question from the Considerations
of which have spoken, and which think have efec
uay disposed Of and let this stand precisely upon
the fact OF the large amount of duties collected in Cali
fornia and what does II amount tor Ii argued that
100000 have been collected in California therefore
OF that amount 81 100000 belong by right to the Slate OF
California. Now, ii that argument applies to the State
Of California applies equally oievery other State in The
Union. And upon the principle of that argument, II 1t
duties collected in the United States must be Immediately
taken of the treasury of the United States, aud re-
turned the respective States where they were collect
ed There is neither argument nor plausbi'y IN sup
port OF such proposition.
But upon the principle advocated by the honorable
senator from Maryland, [Mr PEARcE,l | am perfectly
willing if the amendment is put in shape which does
not involve acquiescence the claim OF California to
the whole of this 81 100000 10 vote this $1,000, IN
der the particular and peculiar circumstances OF the case,
to the State OF California will do that willingly. And
for the purpose OF testing the OF the Senate. and TO
find out whether not they willing recognise the
nrnciple of this claim. will move a amend the amend