Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-01-12
CONGRESSIONAL.
Lengthy Debate on Southern Claims.
ron Friday the Senate adjourned over
till Monday.]
HOUSE.

4 Went lnJO COllinllJeo Oi In0 NQOl6 anu
took up the Legislative, Executive and Ju-
diciAl appropriation bill. The pending ques-
ton at adjournment yesterday was the
amendment offered by Mr.. Smith, of New
York, forbidding the payment of judgments
of the Court of Claims for cotton captured
before June, 1866, except special sppropria'
tions are made for them.
Mr. Garfield replied to Mr.. Smiths speech
of yesterday, repelling the idea that any
judgments had been paid by the Secretary
of the Treasury except in compliance with
law. He cited the unanimous decision Of
the Supreme Court, to the effect that the re-
ceips of 8 pardon relieved all claimants of
all difficulties in regard to their loyalty; that
whenever ID United States Government
holds property which it has forcibly seized,
it holds it only rs a trustee and must re-
store it.
Mr. Smith did not ask the House to
throw itself in the teeth of the decisions of
the Supreme Court. He was ofthe opinion
that if disloyal claimants, like Love Of
Georgia, who was Confederate loan com
missioner, who had already recovered
S474, 600, and Lamar of Savannah, were to
be paid, he submitted that al least it should
be on the report of these judgments to Con-
gress, so that Congress and the country
should know. In the McArdle case Con
gress had deprived the Supreme Court of
Jurisdiction. He admonished Congress, the
Supreme Court and Adminis' ration that the
people were behind them, determined that
loyal people should be paid first.
Mr. Potter expressed his satisfaction at
hearing the Court of Claims arraigned for
not being loyal, because if there ever was
! Court
SuperserviceabIy Loyal
it was the Court OF Claims, which had at its
head as Chief Justice the author of the
Drake amendment.
Mr.. Perce opposed the amendment as
being an attack on the South. He showed
the various stages of proof which the claim
ant had to 60 through in order to get not
the full value of the cotton but the net
proceeds oft paid into the Treasury, which
| in some instances did not amount 10 one
fourth of the value. He asked whether
they should then be compelled to come be-
fore Congress to have their claims passed
upon by partisan influence. He appealed
to all Southern Representatives to vote
against the amendment.
bir. HaWley, of Connecticut, sustained
the amendment and said that he wanted
every Judgment Of this kind reported to
Congress, so that Congress mi ght exercise
its discretion whether it would pay those
claims in preference to the claims Of loyal
men.
Mr.. Sargent deried [?]that the cotton en-
braeed in these claims, had been seized az
ter the close of the war, after proclamation
Of peace. There was, therefore, no justi-
fication for its seizure, or Withholding pay
ment from its owners.
Mr.. Shellabarger said the way Of meet
ing the difficulty to remit TIE Court Of
Claims to the position which it originally
occupied, that Of being really
An Auditing Committee
of Congress, to audit claims presented to
Congress, its findings to be realy nothing
more than information on which Congress
was subsequently to act. They should
have to come back to that point in order to
escape the effect of the decision Of the Su-
prene Court. in reference to the rights Of
amnest;ed persons.
Mr. Maynard argued IN favor Of extend
ing the privileges Of the Court of Claims
tn this class of claimants until the 1st Of
Jan, 1874.
Mr.. Merriam offered an amendment re-
pealing the law giving jurisdiction over
tEese cases to the Court Of Claims, but on
a point Of order being raised by Mr. Sar-
gent, his amendment was ruled out and he
argued in support of Mr.. Smiths amend
ment.
Mr.. Bingham opposed the amendment
and argued that the only remedy was re-
peal of the law,which could not be done on
AZ appropriation bill.
Ihs amendment was further opposed BY
Messrs. Harris, Beck and Mcintyre.
Mr.. Farnsworth argued against the idea
of sQbjecting the judgments Of the Court
of Claims to be passed upon by Congress.
Il would be like
Appealing from ''PhIlip Sober TO
Philip Drums"
MT. Smith denied the statement By Mr..
Sargent that these claims were for cotton
seized after June 80, 1865. By the express
term of his amendment such CASES were ex-
Guided from its operations. Such claims
were LOW adjusted, not by the Couit OF
Claims, but by the Secretary Of the Treas
urY.
Finally the debate closed, and the amend
d ent was rejected, there being only IS
votes in the affirmative.
The Pacific Railroad Leeches.
Mr. Randall offered an amendment, pro-
|
railroad company for transportation OF
mails or troops while such company is in
default for interest cn bonds Issued by the
Government.
Mr.. Sargent made point Of order that
there was nothing in the bill to which such
a provision could apply.
The Chairman sustained the psint Of Or
der and excluded the amendment. Subse-
, uuently Mr. Randall found the item for
: CONTINGENCIES in the War Department, and
the point Of order against it was OVerruled.
Mr. Holman moved 10 amend the amend
meut by repeating the law under which the
Pacific Railroad Companies were relieved
! from The necessity Of allowing charges
agairsj the Government for transportation
: to be withheld from the amount ofinteTest
paid by the Government on the bonds Civ.
} en- or loaned to the Companies.
> Mir. Sargent made a point of order against
, Mr.. Holman's amendment, ald 1t was
ruled out Of order.
Llr. Eolman appealed from the decisi on
! of the Chair, but the decision was sustained
. by large majority.
Mr.. Sargent opposed Mr.. RandalPs
J amendment, and argued that even II it was
adopted it would only be applicable to the
item of $4,000 TO which it was attached,
and would not be otherwise binding on the
Executive. He denied that the legislation
which relieved the Pacific Railroad Compa
nies was got through in a
r SurreptittOus
manner, as is charged by Mr.. Randall.
Mr.. Holman declared that the section re-
, ferred to had been read in the House to
day the first time; that the House had
known nothing whatever about it. Every
dollar withheld from the Treasury under il
had been wrongfully withheld. Instead o.
repeating it indirectly, it should be repealed
by direct provision of law, blotting it ou
of the statute book as measure which was
Never there rightfuliy.
Mr. Beck whose name had been men
toned in connection with the names OF
| Dickey and Logan as on the committee of
conference through which the section re-
ferred to had become law, said he did mo-
+ recollect having signed the conference re
, DO 1T, but be expressed the opinion that tht
section complained of was only carrying
out the plain provision Of the law organic
ing the Pacific railroad companies. II;
? suggested that the discussion go over fol
The present and he should be able to loci
into the matter.
81 ,,