Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-16


corporations and TO decide in favor of other
classes of citizens; but he would not do
such violence to bis judgment and con-
science, as to give that which would, in his
judgment, violate the settled, recognized,
honorable principles of law. There was an
element of cupidity in the bill, and he ar
gued that it should not be in its present
form passed. He very greatly preferred
the proposition of the gentleman from YER
mont (Poland) to submit the distribution
to the courts.
Mr.. VOORHEES,, a member of The COM
mittee, replied to the arguments of
Beck and Kerr. There was iu those argu-
ments, he said, an element of respect 10
England as well as of respect to the insur-
ance compancles. According to them the
insurance companies must be looked TO
with awe. If not, then England must be
looked to with respect and awe, because
thai government would hold the Unit d
States responsible for not applying the
money paid in the way that it was
intended to be paid. A more degrading
idea had never entered into consideration
in regard to the foreign policy OF This coua-
try. The distribution of this money was
the business of the American Government.
A more shameless and degrading
idea had never been advanced in the
House of Representatives as that a foreign
power should follow here and tell the Gov
ernment of the United States what it should
do with its own people and its own funds.
1t was not only absurd, but it had to be re-
futed by the instructions to the American
agents at Geneva not to be committed to
any thing required at their hands by Eng
land as to what should be done with
single dollar of the money. Whenever he
could see his way plsia in settling up the
dreadful results of a dreadful war by stand
ing up against further acces:ions of enor-
mOus wealth, against further speculation on
The side of already floaLed fortunes, aid
on the side of the equities Of the poor who
were not here powerfully represented, he
should certainly be found there.
Ben Butler Catches a Tartar.
Butler, of Massachusetts, closed the de-
late in support of the bill as reported by
him. He argued that Mr.. Poland's p opo-
sition was wholly inapp!icaole, and would
lea7e without any remedy all small CAIN
ants who could not afford to sue in the tri-
banals provided therein. He defended the
provision of the bill in regard to insurance
companies. Stated that the whole theory
of surance was that the premiums paid
the losses. The fact in this case was that
the insurance companies had paid little
over five millions and bad received as war
premiums little oTer six millions. Not
more than Ewo-thrds fthe war premiums
had yet come in. AS the claims stood, the
insurance companies, as body, had made
q million dollars of profit. He thought
they had made two and half or three
millions. But it was proposed to let them
partici pate in this distribution. Some men
called that equity, justice, but he knew
where the gentleman from Indiana (Kerr)
had got his notions on the subject. He had
seen him accompany the al orney of the
insurance companies, Mr., Evaris, into the
committee room or the judiciary Com
mittee and listen to his argument.
Mr. Kerr, angrily-1he gentlemen's state
ment is not true.
Mr.. Butler-Were you not there?
Mr.. Kerr-Yes, but did not accompany
the attorney as the gentleman states.
Mr.. Butler-The difference is this--you
were there only at TINT time and at no
other time.
Mr.. Kerr i had The right TO go there
under the courtesy CT the committee and
listen to the argument. l went there but
accompanied nJbody there except the gem
tleman from Kentucky, Mr.. Beck.
Mr.. Butler--Well, that is the key note of
the gentleman's argument.
Mr.. Kerr-It is not true.
Mr.. Butler did not see the gentleman
there afterwards, and simply saying that
'it is not true" does not alter the matter at
all when the fact stated is true. Now l am
aware that it was an agent of the United
States at Geneva, paid attorney of the
United States who came before the CON-
mittee aud said he was the paid attorney CT
the Insurance Companies before be was
the agent of the United States. Hs went
10 Geneva as
The Retained Counsel
of the insurance companies. He came be-
fore the committee aud argued the case in
favor of the insurance companies. He has
been on this floor arguing the case, with
what results we have seen, but not to
change the vote of any honest man in my
Judgment who has heard both sides. Per-
haps be may have influenced the minds of
those vino have heard only one side.
Mr.. Kerr--Will the gentleman let me ask
him one question?
Mr.. Butler-I cannot.
Mr.. Kerr-My question is whether the
gentleman himself is not
The Hired Attorney
of other claimants.
Mr.. Butler-No sir.
4
he is.
Dir. Butler-Thst is false.
MIR. Kerr-It may bel donot assert it.
Mr.. Butler--Then it Is insinuating what
a man dare not say.
Mr.. Banks--I rise to question of order.
It is not the right of any membsr to charge
another member with ialsehood here.
Mr. Peters-He only said that the state
ment was false.
Mr.. Butler-I will not discuss. That is
all.
. Mr.. BaDks-It is not admissible. Such
debate should not be allowed.
Mr.. Butler-I have said nothing unpar-
iamentary. l have nothing TO take back.
What mean to say is that there are some
men who are so little acquainted with hon
est transactions that they don't know it
when they see it. (Laughter.) That is
all l have to say.
Mr.. Kerr-And you are one of that kind.
Mr.. Butler-Thst may be, but am not
alone. What | mean to say directly and
exactly is that these insurance companies
have received six millions for war risks
when they have paid out only five millions.
There are some men who seem TO desire to
give them five millions more out of the funds
in the treasury or out of the funds OF
honest claimants. 1t seams to me so
monstrous a proposition that it cannot be
supported by any honest mind for mo-
ment. No honest mind will supportit, un-
less such mind is led astray by sophistry.
Mr. Bird moved to lay the bill on the
table. Rejected by division.
Various amendments, offered b. Messrs.
Eames, Monroe, Potter and Poland, were
severslIy rejected.
The vote on Mr.. Potter's amendment
was So yeas to 156 nays; on Mr.. PolaDd's,
65 yeas to lis nays.
The bill was then passed by yeas 122,
nays 81.
The fourth section provides that the
United States are 10 be indemnifed for
losses of vessels and property By cruisers
in the same manner as provided in the case
Of private vessels.
The fifth section provides that to all
corporations or citizens who had paid
premium of war risks on vessels and car