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

missioner Two years were allowed for this purpose
But The commissioner trapscended his authority, AZ TO
branches Of relief aud reported loosely that the
President beeae alarmed TO the extent 10 which No
would involve the interests OF the government for what
he supposed to be an improper construction OF lne law
aud hence he suspended the execution oil the coImis-
sion until Congress could act further upon the subject
In consequence OF that, Congress reformed the law oil
1916 and ultimately transferred the performance OF the
duties under the commission the Treasury Department
The Cases heard there. Those who chose 70 make
claims came before that department, and their claims
Were acted upon---ether rejected or admitted.
But the number of claims great that Congress
again passed general law, in which they authorized an
extension OF lime The first law was limited in It's ooe-
ration TO April 1873 Congress then extended the provs
ions OF the laws OF 1915 and 1877 to all cases previous
y presented and undetermined upon and undsposed Of
to the Treasury Department for Its decision and they
were all acted upon under the law. From that time, un
donbtedly there may have been here and there private
which have crept through founded upon what 10
called additional testimony which means nothing more
than cumulative testimony, that species Of testimony
which arises in par from the lapse OF
time, BY dispensing with testimony which would have
been essential under the original law, not merely a
technical requisite, but in order to ascertain the true state
OF the facts.
Under these circumstances. cannot, at present ad-
the case might alter my opinions in relation to ii but
from the mere cursoTy reading OF the report senator
cannot give bill such an examination as he would de-
sire but upon these general grounds must oppose It.
When this bill was before Congress years ago il was
rejected From my own experience, in the examination
Of these cases. have found that what is called addition
al testimony is, in niHey-nine out Of hundred,
nothing than cumulative testmOny-and that, too,
when the facts Of the by lapse Of tme have passed
change occurs that lapse of time has pened into fact that
which originally mere impression or hearsay The
lapse OF time sometimes, BY constant impression on the
mind OF the Witness rpens into fact what before was but
hearsay and he positively to that which he would
probably have stated al first only hearsay information
This is necessarily incident TO the defects ot humanity,
arising from the ravages which time will make In the hu
man emory and the human intellect, no matter how
bright may be either the one or the other
Under the circumstances cannot vote for this bill re-
jeced formerly by Congress- for am not prepared TO
overturn that decision on any statement which see OF
additional testimony, in the absence OF any proof that
The testimony which The law required and required IN
the soundest principles OF justice, could not have been
obtained at the time when the claim was originally pre-
sented II it obtained in consequence OF the de-
entire deuson 10 permit him now when years have
gone by TO waive testimony which was considered es-
sentia then when it has arisen from his own negectha
MT. WADE Mr. President, report this bill from the
Committee of Claims; but do not know that can say
anything which will more satisfactorily explain the case
the Senate than the report explains it, Tor the report
made deliberately, in full view OF the testimony In
the case. But, sir, the senator from Delaware make:
general argument against whole Class Of cases He
does look the evdencen this He does not touch
other than general principles He does not examine the par
cuar but he strikes at the class Now, this case
grows out OF the war Of lsi2 There were laws passed
been adjusted il the parties had been siglant those
laws continued Tor two years, EXPIRED and were revived
y
undoubtedly, the parties have obtained redress under
existing laws and they have come here constantly 10 seek
special redress whenever they were able TO make out sat
sfactoy So far as know, We have always gwen
them that redress and justice requires that all should be
placed upon the same footing
| remember very well somewhat similar CASE do
not remember the OF IT, perhaps The senator from
Delaware does-arsing In this District DO not remem-
Der the names OF the persons but know Dill was re-
ported and passed both branches OF Congress- was
case where man had his property on wagons Tor the
purpose OF taking beyond the reach OF the enemy at the
time this city invaded by the British The officers in
command OF the United States troops pressed the wagons
into the service, unoaded the mans goods and put those
of the United States board, by reason OF which the
mans goods entirely lost In that case we gave re-
ference only that that claimant lived here them at the
sea, OF government where he might have avaed him
self easily Of all the laws then in force whereas this
on the frontier. at that time an utter wilder
ness. remote from the place where the claimant could
seek redess and where be very likely not to prose-
cuie his claim with great diligence The testimony here
show that this man, being suer IN the army, having
for thai purpose. bad provided eams nj the time
of the evacuation Of Fort George and the burning OF Bu
fao for transporting bis property out OF the reach OF the
enemy which he undoubtedly could have done il the Of
dcers had no, interrupted him. The proof IL that the
were pressed into The service under the order OF
ibe United States commanding officer, TO United
States military stores, &C. They unIoaded his goods BY
The side OF the road, where they lost, in
quence OF that order undoubtedly,
When The case first came up il was thought that the
evidence no, entirely satisfactory. and the claimant
finally obtained the testimony OF the officer who
cuied the order. The senator from Delaware says this
is cumulative testimony, and therefore unsatisfactory
do not know, sir, that there il any rule which prevails
here, in Of the courts, where, upoH seeking
new trial. cumulative testimony rejected not within
the rule. There is no such rule here The question,
then, is whether this additional testmony-ihs OF the
party who execaed the orderis OF such character that
Il ought to be satisfactory, and whether have any
son TO doubt it's truth think read the ies
mony and doubt that the loss did
OF the order Of the United States o6icer that II was
TO the injury OF the claimant and that the governmeE,
is Justly responsible for It. l can see very Eood
reason. to which have already alluded, why u was
not prosecuted with that vigor that II might have been
and ought 10 have been Persons living the extreme
frontier in a remote wilderness, before the means OF
travelling were such they are now, could not very
we'll prosecute claim with the same facility that they
can now.
All that wish ssy is that the evidence in this
case was entirely satisfactory 10 the whole committee
Il is analogous the where have given relief
before and in our judgment, il proceeds upon the same
principle. We ought not 10 take one mans claim and
grant IL and refuse another which IL founded on the
that thing bu, il il does prove IT, and we gave
redress to another similar claim, we ought TO
give il to him. The former case to which have alluded
was under consider and discussed long time be-
fore we established the rule Having established H.
should be very sorry to give need OF justice to
man and another to another man.
Mr. BAYARD lam not aware of any rules established
by the Senate by Congress, in references to the char
ac,er OF the testimony in this II s very true the
committee may have been unanimous upon the subject,
but who does not understand perfectly WE'LL mean
know nothing abou, these thinGsihat all these inves
0at,one nj prlyate ca,ms in