The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-01-13
Congressional.

SOnts EcJSkvksaks
|: WAsH1EGToN, January 11.-There was no
session Of the Senate.
. In the House, the pending question of ad-
Journment yesterday was the amendment of
Mr.. Smith, of New York, forbidding the
payment OF judgments of the Court of Claims
for cotton captured before June, 1865, ex-
cept special appropriations are made for
them.
Mr.. Garfield, of Ohio, replied to Mr..
Smiths speech of yesterday, repelliDg the
idea that any judgment 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 gene
ral or special pardon relieved the claimants
Of all difficulties which they labored under
In regard to their loyalty, and that wherever
the United States Government hold property
which it has forcibly seized, it holds it only
as trustee, and must deliver it back when
the owner comes and proves his title to it,
without regard to his moral character.
MIR. Smith did not ask the House TO throw
Itself in the teeth Of decisions of the Su-
preme Court; but if the Supreme Court
was of the opinion that a .disloyal claimant
like Love, of Georgia, who was Confederate
covered $4,000, and Lamar, OF Savannah,
were 10 be paid, he submitted that at least it
should be on the report of those judg-
ments to Congress, so that Congress
should know and the country should know
what was being done. He reminded the
House that in the McArdle case Congress
had. by an amendment to an appropriation
bill, deprived the Supreme Court of juris-
n nd ha olp
Supreme Court, and the Administration that
the people were behind them, and deter
mined that loyal people should be paid first.
ton they should give the preference to their
was in bis amendment.
Mr.. Potter, of New York. expressed his
satisfaction at having the Court Of Claims
arraigned for not being loyal, because If
there ever was court in the United States
that had been superserviceably loyal it was
the Court of Claims, which had at it head as
chief.justice the Drake amendment.
N1r. Perce, of Mississippi, opposed the
amendment as being an attack on the
southern section OF the country. He
showed the various stages of proof which
claimants had to 90 through in order to get,
not the full value of their cotton, but the
net proceeds of it paid into the Treasury,
and which in some instances did not amount
to one-fOurth the value; and asked whether
| they should then be compelled to come be.
fore Congress and have their claims passed
upon by partisan influence. He appealed to
| all southern representatives to vote against
| the amendment.
Mr. HaWlcy, of Connecticut, sustained the
| amendment, and said that he wanted every
| judgment of this kind to be reported to Con.
gress, SO that Congress might exercise its
discretion whether it would pay these claims
in preferment to the claims of loyal mer
| whose property had been taken or destroyed
| in the cause OF the war.
Mr.. Sergeant, of California. denied that
! the cotton embraced in these claims had beer
seized during the war. It had been taken
| after the close of the war, and after the
proclamation of peace. There was, there.
| fore, no justification for its seizure or fol
| withholding payment from its owners,
MIR. Sbellabarger, Of Ohio, admitted under
! The decision of the Supreme Court that al
these amnesticd persons bad been fully re-
stored to their rights, and those rights could
meeting the difficulty, aud he was in favor
|
Court of Claims to the position which il
originally occupied, that of being really an
auditing committee Of Congress, to audit
claims presented to Congress, its binding to
be really nothing more than information OH
which Congress was subsequently to act.
They should have to come back to that point
in order to escape the effect of the decisions
OF tue Supreme Court in reference to the
/ ,,;f of onpoctia6 rarsppc
Mr. Maynard, of Tennessee, argued in fi,-
vor of extending the privileges Of the Court
| Of Claims to the class of claimants until the
LIST January, 1874.
Mr.. Merriam, of New York, offered an
amendment repeating tue law giving juriS-
diction over these cases to the Court of
Claims, but on a point of order raised by
Mr.. Sargent, Of California, The amendment
was ruled out lie then argued in support
of Smiths amendment.
Mr.. Bingham, Of Ohio, opposed the amend
ment, and argued that the only remedy was
the repeal of the law, and that could not be
done in an appropriation bill.
The amendment-Was further opposed by
Harris of Virginia. Beck OF Kentucky, and
MCINTYRE of Louisiana. Mr.. FarnsWorth,
of Illinois. argued against the idea Of SUBJ
| jecting the judgments Of the Court Of Claims
to he passed upon by Congress. 1t would
be like appealing heeHs hfeeH :.Philip sober to
Philip drunk" --~,
Dir. Smith, of New York, denied the
statement made by Mr.. Sergeant, that these
claims were for cotton seized after the Both
of June, 1865. BY the express terms Of bis
amendment such eases We're excluded from
it's operation such claims were now adj
justed, not by the Court OF Claims, but by
the Secretary Of the Treasury.
Finally, the debate was closed, and the
amendment offered by Mr.. Smith, of New
York, was rejected, there being only 3S
votes in the affirmative.
Mr.. Randall, of Pennsylvania, offered an
amendment that no money shall be paid to
any railroad company for transportation o.
mails or troops while such company is in
default for interest OH the bonds issued by
the Government.
Mr.. Sargent, of California, made the point
of order that there was nothing in the bill
to which the proviso could apply.
The Chair sustained the point of order
and excluded the amendment.
Other amendments of like nature were
offered and ruled out
The House then adjourned.