Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1873-01-17
HEADQUARTERS.
IMPORTANT DECISION.
IMPORTANT DECISION.
THE LOUISIANA MATTER TO BE
INVESTIGATED AT WASH
INGTON.
. H.s e.
CONGRESSIONAL.
INTERESTING DEBATE.
LOYALTY THE BASIS OF JUS
TICE.

WASHINGTON, january 11-Night.-
Judge Grandon, of Mobile, has been
in Washington for several days looking
after the interest of his clients i'll Mo
bile, against whom suits have been i'll
stituted for the recovery OF duties on
merchandise imported during the war,
and which paid duties Mt the same time
to the Confederate States authorities.
Secretary Boutwell, has decided the
question favOrably to Judge Grandon's
clients, and the decision will be receiv-
ed i'll many districts of the South as
one of timely relief and evincing better
disposition on the part of the Govern
melt than has prevailed hitherto.
It is understood that the Senate Com
mittee on Privileges and Elections, ii
meeting late this evening, determined
not to send Commissioners to louisa
IA to take testimony regarding the po-
litical troubles there, but to summon
all needed witnesses to come to Wash
ington and give their testimony here.
1t is also understood that a deputy
Sergeant-at-Arms was despatched to
New Orleans this evening for that pur-
pose. =
SENATE session.
HoUsE.-Private bills. The pend
ing question at the adjournment yes
terday was the amendment offered by
Mr.. Smith, of Kentucky, forbidding
the payment of Judgments by the
Court of Claims for cotton captured
before June, 1865, except special APP
preparations are made for them.
Mr.. Garfield, of Ohio, replied to Mr..
Smiths speech, made yesterday, re-
polling the 1dea that any judgments
had been paid By the Secretary of the
Treasury except in strict compliance
with the law. He cited the unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court, to the
effect that the receipt of a special or a
general pardon relieved the claimants
of all difficulties which they might
otherwise labor under in regard to
their loyalty, and that whenever the
United States Government holds prop
erty, which it has forcibly seized, it
holds it only rs a trustee, and must
deliver ii back when the owner comes
and proves his title to it, without re-
gard to his moral character.
Mr.. Smith, of New York, did not
ask the House to throw itself in the
teeth of decisions of the Supreme
Court, but ii the Supreme Court was
of opinion that dislOyal claimant,
like Love, of Georgia, who WAS Con-
federate loan Commissioner, and who
had already recovered &474, 900, and
Lamar. of Savannah. were to be paid,
he submitted that at least it should be
Oh the report of those judgments to
Congress. :" that Congress should
know and Tx, country should know
what Wa, being done. He reminded
the House that III the NcArlie case
Congress had, Ivy AN amendment to the
appropriation bill, deprived the Su-
prcme Court of jurisdiction. and he
admonisheh Congress, the Supreme
Court and the Administration, that the
people were bclj:',d them, determined
that loyal people should bc paid first.
II the Government was going into
legislation. they should prefer their
confidential creditors. That was I'LL
th.r, was i'll his amendmcnt.
Mr.. Potter, of New York, expressed
hi; satisfaction :,t hearing the Court of
Claims; .,rraigircd Ter not hci,," loyal,
brt.a,,St, ii there. over WAS ii Court ill
the United States that had been super
strvicrahly lny:,l, it VA, the Cnnrt of
Chains, which had at it's head rs Chief
Justice, the Drake amendment.
Mr. Peirct. of Mississippi, opposed
the amendment us being an attack on
the Southern section OF the country.
He showed the various stages of proof
which the claimants had to- go through
in order 70 get, not the full value of
their cotton, In: the net proceeds of
it paid into the Treasury, and which,
i'll some instances. did not amount to
one-Quarttr the value, and asked
whether they should then be compelled
to come before Congress and have their
claims passed upon by partisan in
iuencc. He appealed to all Southern
Republicans to vote against the
amendment.
Mr.. Hawlev. of Connecticut, sns-
tanned the amendment, and said that
he wanted every Judgment of this kind
to b. reported to Congress, so that
Congress might exercise it's discretion
whether it wauld pay these claims III
preference to the claims of loyal men,
whose property had been taken or de-
stroved IN the course of the war.
Mr.. Sergeant, of California. denied
that the cotton embraced in these
claims had been seized during the war
1t Ilittl IjttIl StlLttl itItti lilS- I1pSS VI
the war and after the proclamation of
peace. There was, therefore, no j,lsti-
fication for its seizure or for with
holding payment from its owners.
Mr.. Sheliabarger. of Ohio, admitted
that under the decision of the Supreme
Court, all these anlnestied persons had
been fully restored to their rights and
their rights could not he contradicted,
but there was a way ot meeting the
difficulty, and he was III favor of meet
ing Il. That way was to remit the
Court of Claims to the position which
it originally occupied, that OF being
really all Auditing Conlnittee of Con
gress to audit the claims presented to
Congress- its findings to be really
nothing more than information on
which Congress was subsequently to
act They should have to come back
to that point in order to escape from
the effect Of the decision of the Su-
preme Court in reference to the ghts
of amnestied persons.
Mr. Maynard, of Tennessee, argued
in favor OF extending the privileges of
the Court of Claims to this class of
claimants until the lat of January,
1874
Mr.. Merriam, of New York, offered
an amenement, repeating the law
giving jurisdiction over these cases to
the Court of Claims, but on point of
order raised by Mr.. Sargent, of Cali
fOrnia, the amendment was ruled out.
He argued IN support of Mr.. Smiths
amendment.
Mr.. Bingham, of Ohio, offered the
amendment, and argued that the only
remedy was the repeal of the law, and
that could not be done in an apprOpri
alton bill.
The amendment was further opposed
by Messrs. Harriss, of Virginia, and
Beck and Mcintyre, of Louisiana.
Mr.. Farnsworth, of Illinois, argued
against the idea of subjecting the
judgments of the Court of Claims to
be passed upon by Congress. IT wonld
be like appealing from Philip Sober
to Philip Drunk. .t
Mr.. Smith, of New York, denied the
statement, made by Mr.. Sargent, that
these claims We're for cotton seized
after the 30th of June, 1865. BY the
express terms of his amendment such
cases were excluded from it's operation.