The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-18


take the sbor which do do again Of reading
every report made upon private eaim,) ! thought the
pnnep upon which rested was unsoundi aud hat me
tesuony did the reported by the
rniliee This induced 10 look into A. did SOL and by
reeng the Senate isl OF CLAIMS found the anterior pro-
ceedngs. brought those matters before the Senate The
question was fully and ably discussed in favor of the claim
by the honorable senator from Florida, Mr. MALLORY but
the Senate indefinitely postponed the consideration OF the
bill against the report Of the committee only mention
that illustration Of think might say, the hum
dreds Of which, any gentleman will take the trouble
examine the Senate list Of claims he will be astonshed 10
find been persiseny presented after adverse report
upon adverse report atinteryss OF hve en snty years
and frequently have been ultimately passed. although they
may have been so repeatedly rejected.
Well the government stands Ia very dofeneeless
and unjust position in this respect If the claimants ol
passes he gels his money and there end OF the mailer
II his claim is rejected al first ten chances 10 one II !. hay
allowed for the practice under the rule, OF Withdraw
ing papers an allegation that there proof discos
cred, II you will take the trouble TO look INTO H. you Wh
find thar the now proof generally noshng more 'hsh
merely slightly cumulative testimony, and amounts 10 no-
ing which would Justify rehearing OF the case win any
intelligent aud very often, too IS again referred
and reported upon yoaby precisely the same proof on
which originally rejected because the texture of The
committee may happen 10 be different
The honorable nalor further supposes that used an un-
fair argument representing that Mr. Janifers testimony
as 10 the tobacco the Cedar Point warehouse showed that
the Britsh nkng tobacco there when the militia went
down attack them because he said the statement had no
application the before the Senate The tobacco
claimed in Magruders and Nottingham warehouses
stated my opening and believe the papers prove land
buugh committee not show IL,
baceo notes do-hat small portion of the tobacco for
whrh payment il claimed here stored at the Cedar
Pom, warehouse. But sir, used the testimony OF Mr..
Jtiler show the intention of the British in the
asstueton carrying away Of the tobacco. used IT 10
show hat oct done IN and about the same time when
there resistance occupaton Indicated the nion-
OF the British the destruction Of the tobacco,
irrespective Of its occupation by troops there or else
WHERE much strongly than the opinion OF two
land that is oil the evidence to the cause OF
destruction furnished by the claimants IN this case that IT
"a
Of tho United States That fact to be proved used
Mr. Jenter testimony and the proceedings at Alexandra
for the purpose show that where there was
cupaon defence the British had removed or destroyed
tobacco used the proceedings Alexandria TO show that
they avowed officially The general intent to lake away all
merchandise capable Of exportaton, without regard 70
whether defended occupied by troops Of the United
States Is that fair mode of using testimony in order
pe wha, has been tempted be proved the other
eide this case solely by the opinion of two Witnesses that
the destruction IN consequences OF the occupation by the
troops Of the government vhen in fact there no occu-
patton at all
hope therefore, have relieved myself from the charge
of using this id eopsaadum argument meant 1t TO
be real think both just and fair argument
think il is far stronger and natural inference than that
by which the their minds arrived the
opinion hat iecause tobacco warehouses wore not
destroyed therefore must be assumed that these, which
destroyed where there fighting, de-
stroyed in consequence of their being defended. think
their opinion ia sequiur, and that my argument
establishes the position for which meant to contend The
testimony Of MIR. Jsner OF series of facts
ncc,ed together, by which intended to show that The
British did destroy this tobacco consequence of its
occupation by the United States a fertilization,
availability for such purposes but because they meant
plumber four cotton tobacco and all other expornbc
articles, subsequently their official avowa in the
ceedngs at Alexandra.
Mr. President the honorable senator further says tina,
should have made the objection which suggested in
regard these tobacco notes being payable order and
that would have made if had noticed the
ions of the BILL had noticed the provisions Of the bill,
ard made the objection the want Of title to those
for this this is old claim, and had seen
tkatu h1pu dn nat
know what proof will be admitted under aud thought
that these claimants produced in evidence before the
committee of the Senate these notes. drawn to order as con-
sttuug one-ha of the alleged ground Of claim right
say that that portion of evidence in tbs showed
claim all the part of the claimants unless sustained by
other proof that those notes had been ghuy transferred
10 them.
But sir the honorable says that my other oblec
ou arising Of the lapse Of mc and the fact that ,hoss
may have been obtained for speculative purposes.
objection which founded in fact; and he
think unjust to the parties. did not say cannot
say when they obtained Them but said that, according TO
the evidence the case, they the Of this
property the time ofIts destruction IL is unnecessary to
deny that they the owners al that time. know not
how that fact may really bel but always take II for grant
ed porte case, thar where the party prove
fact which he should essentially and rshduy prove for the
purpose Of success he Will prove ana should be- held to
the proof of it. suppose that If Hodges Lansdse
in business that tme and then owned the notes. they
would have given you sworn extracts from their books,
sho wing when and what time they purchased the
In the absence Of such testimony oil that said that
claim appears before the Senate, might be speculative
claim which the real Of the properly which had
been destroyed had sold the for song sup
posed because there from the books
the parties and afidavs prove when and how they
became the owners OF the properly.
Again the honorable classes this argument which
addressed the Senate the ground that these might be
speculative claims, among those which he designated
ns ad eoptnndum. think not did not intimate, and
do contend for moment, that fhis claim with
10 tho principles which you should give relief the
original and party presents himself you here and
proves that the original owners right Of property has been
transferred him, you osght not to relieve him much
the original owner. concede fully and freely that
much bound relieve the assignee the original
but he first prove his When he brings his claim
before You and omts that proof and when look
what the honorable from Maryland entirely omitted
10 advert his remarks that early 1878
the restricted laws of 1916 and 1877 frauds had become
great thct the government refused hosc
yond the time when they expire by their orgns
limitation, say that argument OF this kind, connected
with what may be aspccoIotve claim, which she
TO be otherwise by the party who make II, and who NIGH
have shown IL II otherwise, addresses itself To The
sound consideration Of the Senate weighing the
in support Of a stale demand.
will attempt go into the different arguments u.ed
by tho honorable senator from Maryland reply
which urged will barely notice OF tho cases
which he has cited, contrary to my views FIRST
the treaty Of Client Without gong all into the question
whether from the Of this case comes within the
treaty Of Ghcn this is conclusive The COMMITTEES
didnot bring within IL the evidence does bring with
in IT, There tribunal established for the purpose oil
making fair allowance TO every person who within
the of that treaty IL II reasonable to suppose
that every person who had just claim before the
board Of commissioners established hs clam
the money IL reasonable now becauso there may hap