American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1873-01-18
CONGRESSIONAL.
Debate IN the House on the Cotton
Claims.

Debate IN the House on the Cotton
Claims.
In the House of Representatives.,
Jan. IL, the pending question at
adjournment was an amendment Of
fered by Smith, of New York, for
bidding the payment of judgments
of the Court of Claims for cotton
captured before June, 1865, except
special appropriations are made
for them.
Garfield replied to Smiths speech,
repelliDg the idea that any judg-
msnts have been paid by the Sec
rotary of the Treasury, except in
strict compliance with the law. He
cited the unanimous decision of the
Supreme Court to the effect that
RECEIPT of special or of a general
portion, relieved claimants of all
difficulties which they might other
wise labor under i'm regard to their
loyalty; and whenever the United
States Government holds property
which it has forcibly seized, it holds
it only as trustee and must deliver
back when the owner comes and
proves title to it with regard to his
moral character.
Smith did not ask the House to
throw itself in the teeth of the Su-
preme Court, but if the Court
was of the opinion that dislOyal
claimant like the one of Georgia,
who was a Confederate loan COM
missioner and had already recovered
S474 600, and Lamar, Of Savannah,
were to lie paid. he submitted that
at least it should be on the report
of these judgments to Congress, so
that Congress should know, and
the country should know what was
being done He reminded the
House that in the McCardle case
Congress had, by an amendment to
an appropriation bill, deprived the
Supreme Court of jurisdiction, and
he admOnished Congress, the Su-
preme Court and the Administra-
ton that the people were behind
them, determined that loyal people
should be paid first. If the govern
ment was going into liquidation
they should prefer their conditional
creditors. That is all their was in
his amendment.
Potter. of New York, expressed
satisfaction that the Court of Claims
was to be arraigned for not being
loyal, because if there ever was a
Court that had been superservicia-
bly, loyal, it was the Court of Claims,
which had at it's head, as Chief
Justice, the author of tho Drake
amendment.
Perez, 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 go through, in order to get the
full value of their claim but net
proceeds, which it paid into the
treasury and which, in some in
stances, did not amount to quarter
value, and asked whether they
should then be compelled to come
before Congress and have their
claims passed upon by partisan in
fluence. He appealed to all the
Southern Representatives to vote
against the amendments.
Hawley, of Connecticut. sustained
the amendment, and said he wanted
every Judgment of this kind to be
reported to Congress, SO that Con-
gress might exercise discretion,
whether it might pay these claims
of loyal men, whose property had
been destroyed in the cause of war.
Sargent of California, denied that
the cotton embraced in these claims
had been seized during the war.
1t had been seized after the close of
the war, and after the proclamation
of peace. There was, therefore, no
justification for Its seizure or for
Withholding payment from its own
ers.
Shellabarger, of Ohio, admitted
that under the decision of the Su-
preme Court all these amnestied
persons had been fully restored to
their rights, and these rights could
not be confiscated; but there was y
way of meeting the difficulty; and
he was in favor of meeting it; that
way was to remit the Court of Claims
to the position which it originally
Occupied-that of being really an
Auditing Committee of Congress,
to audit claims presented to Con-
gress its finding to be really nothing
more than Information on which
Congress was to act. They should
have to come back to that point in
order to escape from the. effect of
the decision of the Supreme Court
in reference to the rights of amnes-
tied persons.
Maynard, of Tennessee, argued in
favor OF extending the privileges of
the Court of Claims to this class
of claimants till the LIST Of June,
1874.
Merriam, Of New York, offered
an amendment repeating the law
giving the jurisdiction of these cases
to the Court of Claims, but, on a
point of order raised by Sargent, of
California, the amendment was
ruled out. He argued in favor of
Smiths amendment.
Bingham, Of Ohio, opposed the
amendment, 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 Op-
posed by Harris, of Virginia. and
by Beck, of Kentucky, and McIn
-