Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-20

hH& INV 8ehFUf ttos'
This claim Is before the seaate oi Ihe
United States. Il awakens considerable in
tcfcst, both IN and oat OF Congress u is
for supplies taken by the United States
Military during the war Miss Murphy is
an Alsbamian from Decatur, OF near there,
some accounts tx tho amount ef the claim
q, sls0u, some al $1,000 and somc at sta.
600. These who are advocating the pay
ment Of this claim, urge that Miss Murphy
Is aud was loyal This is denied by others.
Why should this case awaken such intcrcet
and receive - much attention
1t a tea. case Behind il, there arc
thousands In similar condition. IL loyal
citizens In Iowa, New York, or Nassaehu
sets, who furnished property ipr The
United States service, were entitlCd 10 pay
and receive pay, there is NJ good reason
why loyal eitiasns In Alabama or Tennes,
sec, who did the same thing and were ua
der restraints aud difficulties, should not be
raid also. II cost much n,orc to ho u 10, nj
man in one OF these border States than II
did in the North. There was really more
merit in furnishing supplies 80 the army in
Tennessee than In Ohio or Pennsylvania
Mr.. Fowler might WILL SAY, ~ he did IN the
Senate, that Tennessee is largely interested
in this case. We shall follow It up Cluscly
IL ought a. sucCecd-vc believe il will
II is as just a,slaim a. that ot tho bondhol
dcrs, We cannot believe that Congress
viii do the injustice 20 r"tuse ~ ailo~ H.
The action hsd upon the case VA the Son
ate oa Tuesday Of last week is given below
The senate then. on motion II Mr.. Howe,
resumed the consideration Of the bill Tor
the relief of SUE Murphy, of Decatur Ala
bama.
Mr. Cole opposed the bill He thought
the Government ought 10 pay Tor property
taken in all cases whcrc there was con
tract oppressed OF implied, which there was
no, in this case. The dosSsaue that loyal
citizens in disloyal districts should have
their lesscs paid Tor by the Govornmeut
would be very dangerous onc, asd would
deprive such loyalists vi one great motive
ior exsrlion against the instruction
Mr.. Fowler advocated tbs payment ui the
claim Of Miss Murphy, because she had al
ways been loyal citizen, and her property
had been taken by the Coy ernment i"r a
public use.
Mr.. Conkling unmarked thai II such
giaims were 10 be paid because ui the loyal
" Of the claimants then, ii The late amnes
~ proclamation should be sustained. their
rebel ncighbors, being thus purgcd VI their
disioyaliy, might cine inwith similar claims
Mr. Fowler did nut think that the proc
lamation even il valid, could have any ii, h
eject, but would operatcly merely Ia re.
lieve disloyal persons from the penalties vi
their lisloyalty. He regarded The Loyalty
Of the claimant NJ most important ClrCum
stance. Would Congress declare that those
WAS no difference between loyalty aud die
loyalty Lis State. TenI essec, was much
Interested ia this question, because she had
furnished 80. 900 loyal soldiers 20 the Union,
whose property, much Of IL, was damaged
or DESTROYED while they were absent eight
ing the battles OF the country and II they
were now TO b. told that they stood ~ the
same relation 20 the Government IS their
rebel neighbors, he warned the Senate aud
the country that no aid Eeed be expected
from them 20 sustain the faith Of the nation
! pledged IN the bondholdcrs. The lpyallsts
of the South would never consent 10 become
the slaves OF tho money changers under the
miserable doctrine Of constructive treason.
Mr.. Pomeroy thought this an unfortunate
Ease tor the ioyalisis of the South 10 rest
their claims upon, heenuse there seemed Io
bc no very strong evidence that Miss Mur.
ply was loyal at ali.
Mr.. Summer road AZ this connection. a
| letter 10 him from Mr.. u UmphrrS, OF
Alabama, asserting that the property
claimed by Mise Murphy really belonged
20 her step father, from whom he ttm-
| phrcy) had bought some Of IT,, and whom
nobody claimed 10 have been loyal that
the property cost before the war, when al
its highes. value, only 1000 that he had
seen Il stated that Miss Murphy herscli hal
made during the war more rebel har-
argues, in presenting rebel hags, than Sou
ator Howe had made Union speeches.
| Mr. Anthony said he could not recall cA
aotly the evidence upon which the commit,
| tee had come 10 the conclusion that she had
been loyal during the war, but he had =
very distinct recollection that her loyalty
had been clearly shown.
Mr.. Pomcroy read FROM the report ui the
| COMMITTEES 10 show the insufiCionvy oi the
| evidence of her loyalty.
Mr.. Fowler asked him whether there was
| a particle Of evidence Of her dlsloyalty
except the ststomenL vi umphroy, Who, he
| had no doubt, could be shown Ia bo a ms.
| erablo scamp
Mr.. Pomeroy replied that he wls not
trying to make out II case OF di-loyaltNr bat
Wa merely saying that it was an uniurtu'
nate test case, because loyalty was not POS
itively proved.
Mr., Warner said hc know Nj Imphc,
to be reputable gentleman not at all u
miserable scamp,
Nj. Spencer felt called upon, the question
Of Cmphrcy's character being up, 10 ..sy
that he was u troublesome man Ia Alabama
aud that he knew nothing about Mis- Nun
phys character, and probably had nsl a.
seen her. lilo believed that Miss Murphy
had clearly established her loyalty by the
testimony OF officers OF the United States
in regard Ia her loyal character and ssryi-
| Ces.
Mr.. Puuleroy said that the evidence only
showed the loyalty of Misc Murphy after
the arrival u the United States army, aud
| there was no evidence VI previous loyalty.
| lie read sumo Of the testimony given before
the COMMITTEES on the subject, and leiter
from General Grant ~ Mise Murphy, say
ing that her loyalty had beon clearly prov ,
cd that her claim soomed 10 him Just aud
that il any claims were to be allowed ior
damages done or property taken by the
army In the South, ho would recommend
that hers be allowed, but adding that the
whole question was 10 be determined by
Congress.