The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-15


The bill was then reported 10 the Senate and ordered TO
be eugrossed Tor It's third reading BY unanimous con-
seO,, IL was read the third lime and passed,
4 r. 8, SANGER.
Tbs Senate then took up Senate bill No le9 reported
from the Committee on Naval Afars-beiog "A bill iof
the relief a w \. Sauger;" which read the sec
ond ume and considered IN committee OF the whole.
ns V as as % he o. @
rate OF compensation ior the time he employed as
engineer in The Norfolk nayy-yaJd as WAS allowed by
Congress 1850 in the OF engineer employed in
The Pensacola navy yard
No amendment beng offered in committee OF the whole,
The bill was then reported TO the Senate and ordered TO
he engroseed for its third reading. By unanimous
sent, II WAS then read the third time and passed.
/ MRS. HELEN MAcKAY.
The Seasie then took up Senate bill No l7O, reported
from The C3I,mitlee Military AfaTsbeing "a bill Tor
the relei oi Mrs Helen Mackay. executrx OF Lieu
United States slmy;" which was read second time and
considered in committee OF The whole.
/ Mr. EVANS called for The reading Of the report, and
| it was read accordingly. g.
/ No amendment being offered committee OF the whole,
| the bill was then reported to the Senate.
The question was upon ordering lhe bill TO be engoss-
The question was then stated upon ordering the bill
to be eDgrossed for third reading
| Mr.. WALKER wish TO inquire OF the senator who
reported this bill If there was any proof before the com
mttee which either conclusive, or which tended TO
satisfy the committee that in point OF fact these two re-
ceps were mol for the same sum OF money ior u mere
| may hereafter 6nd ourselves in this difficulty We may
direct the accounting officers TO settle with Lieutenant
Mackay, and 10 allow both sums. Captain Mckissack
will, of course have them both charged 10 him. and ne
will have forward and ask US TO relieve him
from the dealcation of $25,Ooo standing against him
occurs TO me that ought 10 be fully satisfied that
these receipts were for different OF money and that
The charge should justly be made against Captain Nc
Kissack Unless we take care OF that matter, cannot
see why il will not be inevitable that we shall have TO
settle the matter with Captain Mckissack hereafter, un-
less we can prove them to be different sums.
Mr.. BADGER. 1 will suggest to the honorable SEN
ator from Wisconsin that this rests upon ground which
requires no proof for the that there are not re-
cepts for The payment OF the amounts upon the same day
Bu one payment was made upon the Isl OF May, lsa7
and receipt was given and the other receipt Tor the
pay ment OF another upon the 1Ah OF August iS47
So that suppose the prima fscie assumption would be
that they were for different sums OF money II 'he re-
ceipts ad borne the same date they might have been
presumed to be for the same sum but II there be no
positive evidence TO show that they were for le same
sum NJ, WaIKER Suppose tbs, hereafter Captain Nc
Kssack is charged with this sum-and he must be charg
ed with il il alleged in the report that be made no re.
turn of it-if then he shall come forward and show
thai these receipts given for the same sum OF money
although given al different times we must OF course re-
lleye him Having relieved Mackay, that amount tEen
will be so much loss TO the government II true that
il would be incumbent upon Captain Mckissack 10 show
that they were The but II he should show IL,
think shall have TO relieve him, and the government
Mr. BADGER. The question, then, is this: In deal.
lug oui the measure OF justice 10 The representatives OF
Colonel Mackay, we 10 refuse 10 do 1uslice 10 tne
because OF question that may hereafter arse be-
tween US and Captain Mekissack. 1t Is plain prina
aes case, that the man has paid both amounts de nae
receipts tor them both but The department will not al
low them, understand because they have rule that
the payment must be acknowledged.
Mr. JOHNSON. Ii the senator from North Carolina
viii pemi, me to interrupt hin recoliect very distinctly
as a me nber of the Committee Military Affairs. that
This subject called and discussed, and examined al
very considerable length The committee were unanimous
in their report They became thoroughly and entirely
doff he
lar was present al the time, but cannot now 60 on
10 explain The BILL for the facts OF the have escaped
nv recollection since the action OF the committee. As
The chairman OF the committee, who seemed TO be more
familiar with the than any other member, not
present. and the gentleman who reported II rs also alb
sen propose that be laid over, IN order TO save ds
cussion upon il. There no doub, with the commit
tee o the matter
Mr. BADGER l do not understand the senator from
Wsconsin 10 object 10 the bill Captain Mckssack and
Lieut. Mackay are both dead aud II IL not kely that
we can ge, any further light by delay:
MIR WALKER. made no objection TO The passage
Of the bill / merely wished to call attention TO this
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for third
reading, and read third time and passed
W. R.
The Senate then proceeded to the consideration OF Sem
ATE bill No III entitled "A bill for the relief OF William
r. Neyins y which read the second time, and con-
sdered az in committee OF the whole.
The bill provides that the expiration OF the term oil The
original patent OF William X Neylns Tor machine Tor
The renewal o the patent. mn.
MIR BADGER am very willing that this bill shalt
lie over II any gentleman in favor of the bill desires IT.
am totally opposed to the bill for the renewal OF the
palen of Mr. Nevins He seems to have made some IN.
yenton about rolling biscuit; and the purpose OF this bill
Il 10 repeal some section OF law which IN ITS general
operation prevents him from getting renewal oil that pa
tent so that we may stll have restrictions imposed as to
the mode In which biscu shall be made Now, sir,
biscuit are very good wholesome and useful things and
do not want the bousekeepers OF thus country 10 be
subjected TO damages for making biscuit upon break,
or plan invented by Mr.. Nevins anybody else II
he has had patent, he has had The use OF II Tor The
time the law gives il TO him Let hun avail himself oil
his existing rights If, under the existing law, be s
no notion Of imposing distractions upon the operations OF
domestic cookery in the country BY passing special act
OF Congress TO enable who has invented some ma
chine or plan for making biscuit bread TO hold persons
responsible who II in the ordinary operations OF do
nestle cookery
MIR SEWARD asked for the reading of the report ),
which was accordingly read II appears that at the time
Of the expiration Of the patent, IN March, $780, ils valid
iy was in litigation, and not decided until Novem
b.r 1851 II appears also, that while the petitioner has
expended in and about perfecng and establishing bis in
venon S4,6o 81, he has received from only S203oi
involving loss of 81 sol 81, instead OF having received
an adequate remuneration Tor the time and labor. and
money expended, in perIectlng bis invention.
| Mr.. BAYARD asked Tor the yeas and nays upon 'hs
bill which ordered
| Mr. DAWSON Two years ago made report from
The Committee on Patents in favor OF this bill. am
az ans the extension of patents general propositon
as il is known to senator's having never voted, believe
for more than two. This on his way to New or-
leans injured very severely He expected TO return
10 Washington within the time requisite TO procure The
extension Of his patent according TO law but his mis-