Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-05-15
Proceedings in Congress.
PAYMENT FoR HORSES.

Mr.. SAPP, from the Committee on Mill
tary Affairs, reported back bill to amend
an "Act TO provide for the payment of hor-
ses and other property lost or destr, yed in
the military service of the United States, "
approx ed March 3, 1849.
Mr.. LINDLEY. Mr.. Speaker, | hope
there will be no objection to putting the bill
at once on its passage. 1t was reported
from the Committee on Military Affairs at
the last session of Congress, and would have
become law if it had not been for want of
time to consider and act on it. 1t is an
amendment merely to the law of March 3,
l849. It's provisions are simple. They aim
to bring back that law in its construction to
what was intended by Congress in its pass
age. II is in fact n repeal of the instruc-
tions or constructions Of the Department in
reference TO the mode Of proving the loss of
horse.
The Department requires that such loss
shall be proved by the officer under whom
the claimant served. This bill provides that
the proof may be by such officer or two pri-
Yates of the company. l have conversed
with several officers, and have been uni
formly told that privates of the company
would be more likely to know about such
losses than the commanding officer, who
would hardly recognize the claimant if bro't
before him, much less know about the loss
of his horse.
The law of l849 provides:
"That if any payment has been made to
any claimant for the Use and risk or for fo-
rage, after the death, loss, or abandonment
of the horse, said payment shall be deduct
ed from the value thereof, unless he salts
fled tie paymaster at the time he made the
payment, or thereafter show by proof, that
he was remourted, in which case the de.
duction shall only extend to the time he was
on foot"
Now, although that law provides that de-
duction shall not be made if the claimant
satisfied the paymaster that he was re-
rr outed, TIE rule Of the Department requires
it to be proved again before it when the
claim is presented. Whenthe soldier proves
the loss Of his horse for want of forage, the
Department preSumes that he was on foot
from that time on, although he may have
satisfied the paymaster that he was re-
mounted, and though the law of lS49 says
that shall be sufficient. This bill then pro-
vides that such settlement shall be concu-
sive of the fact. This was evidently the
intention Of Congress; and the law Of 1S49
would be amply sufficient but for the rules
of construction which are evidently in con-
fict with it. These are the principal iea-
lures Of the bill. 1t is only intended TO do
Justice to those soldiers who sustained these
losses and who feel aggrleved that they can
not get their pay when there is law passed
for the purpose,and claim regularly proved
and filed.
hope there. will be no objection to put
ting the bill on its passage now, and that it
may pass.
The bill was read in ericnSo.
Mr.. COBB. of Alabama. The bill is not
general enough; and, though | should like
! TO amend il. will not move to do so for fear
that it would be fatal to the measure which
provides tor many, if not all, the meritori-
ous cases. Many are left out which ought
to be, and | hope soon will be, provided
for. .............
Mr.. QUITMAN. can inform the hon.
orable gentleman from Alabama that this
bill has received the careful and mature con-
sideration of the Committee on Military At
fairs. There are variety OF cases TO which
the principles of the bill are applicable, and
we nave endeavored so to guard the bill as
to prevent impositions upon the Government
and at the same time, TO cover all those
cases of losses incurred in the service, and
which the Government are bound to pay for,
and which have not been properly covered
by previous legislation, or by the construc-
tion which the Department has placed up
on it. ......-
M. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. / move
the preuious question upon the passage Of
the bill. .... .. .......
Mr.. COBB. The chairman of the Com
mite on Militry Affairs informs the House
that they have carefully considered this sub
iect. So did consider it two years ago,and
came to the conclusion that it was right, but
the bill does not go far enough.
Mr.. MORGAN. would inquire if it
is order now to move TO refer the bill 10 the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union?
The SPEAKER. 1t is not in order pend
ing the call for the previous question, made
by the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr.. STANTON. Imove to lay the bill
upon the table; and upon that motion de-
mand the yeas and nays.
The veas md nays were NOT ortlered