New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-12
UnlHeky Bulk Grain Shipment
CONGRESS.
No session of Senate-Catron Judgments
of COHrt of CiaiBs-Diseassien 0a an



of CoHrt of Ciai@s-Dissassisa oa an
Amendment.
WASHINGTON, January n.-SsnGse.
session.
Hossse.-Engaged on private bills.
The pending question at the hour of ad-
jonrnment Yesterday was the amendment
offered by Mr.. Smith, of New York, forbid
ding the payment OF judgments Of the
Court of Claims for cotton captured before
June, 1865, except special appropriations
made for them.
Mr.. Garfield replied to Mr.. Smiths
speech, repeliDg the idea that any judg-
ments had been paid by the Secretary of
the Treasury, except in strict compliance
with the law.
He cited the unanimous decision of the
SHpreme Court, to the effect that the re-
ceipS of special or general pardon relieved
the claimants of all difficulties which they
might otherwise labor under in regard to
their loyalty; and whenever the United
States government holds property which it
has fsrcibly seized, it holds it only as o
trustee, and must deliver it back when the
owner comes and proves title to it.
Mr. Smith. of New York, didn't
ask the House to throw itself in
the teeth of the decision Of the Su-
preme Court, but if the Supreme Court
was of opinion that a disloyal claimant
like Mr.. Love, of Georgia, who was Con-
federate loan commissioner and who had
already recovered $474,0oe, and Lamar, of
Savannah, were to be paid, he submitted
that at least it should be ON the report of
these Judgments to ICongress, SO that c n
gress should know and the country should
knew what was being done.
He reminded the House that in the Mo-
Ardle ease, Congress had, by an amend
ment to an appropriation bill, deprived the
Supreme Court of jurisdiction, and he adj
monished Congress, the Supreme Court and
the administration that the people were
behind them and had determined that loyal
people should be paid first. If the govern
ment was going into liquidation, they
should prefer their confidential creditors;
that was all there was in his amendment.
Mr.. Potter, of New York, expressed sat
isfaction at hearing the Court of Claims ar
raigned 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 its head, ss
Ch Z Justice, the Drake amendment.
Mr.. Pores, of Mississippi, opposed the
am rndment as being an attack on the
S. thern section of the country. He showed
the various stages Of preof which claim
an = had to go throug h in order to get, not
the tull value of their claim, but the net
proc eds paid into the treasury, and which
III fDAIh iD6btBCto NIu hUb u1OuHb W OuO-
fOn', n the value, and asked whe they
shvu j then be compelled to come before
COngrrss and have their claims passed
npon by partisan influence. He appealed
to all 4 ,uthern Representatives to vote
against the amendment.
Mr.. Hawke, of Connecticut, sustained
the amendment and said he wanted every
Judgment of this kind t. be reported to
Congress-, 80 Congress might exercise dis
,L.4 - t1aa oIas,r
in preference 10 claims OF loyal men, W hose
property had been destroyed in the course
of war.
Mr.. Sargent, of California, denied that
the cotton embraced in these claims had
been seized during the war; it 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 Withdrawing payment from its owners.
Mr.. Sheiabarger, of Ohio, admitted that
under the decision OF the Supreme Court
all these armistied persons had been fully
restored to their rights, and those rights
could not be eonhscated, but there was d
way of meeting the difficulty, and he WAS
in favor of meeting it that way, which was
to remit the Court of Claims TO the position
which it originally oceupied-that of being
really an auditing committee OF Congress,
to audit clai,us presented to Congress, it's
uutlDS kU UO really uVbhlbS nOLC thdh III
formaUlon on which Congress was to act.
They should have to come back to tnat
point in order 10 escape from the effect of
the decision of the Supreme Court in refer
ence to the rights Of armistied persons.
Mr.. Maynard, of Tennessee, argued ie
favor of extending the privileges Of the
court Of claims to this class of claimants
until the FIRST of January, 1874.
MIR. Morrison, of New York, offered an
diction OF these cases to the court of claims,
but on point of order raised by Mr.. Sar-
gent, tf California, the amendment was
ruled out. He argued in support OF Mr..
Smiths amendment
M. Bingham, Of Ohio, opposed the
amen dIDelh and argued that the only
remedy was the repeal of the law, and
that ouald not be done in an appropriation
bill,
The amendment was further opposed by
Messrs Harris, of Virginia, and Beck and
MeIrtyre, of Georgia. Mr.. Farnsworth, of.
Ininsil, argued az gainst the idea of subject
ing ths iaGgments Of the Court of Claims
to be passed upon by Congress; it would
be like appealing frum Phillip Sober to
Phillip Drank.
Nr. Smith, Of New York, denied the sta te-
ment made by Mr. Sargent, that these
ciams were for cotton seized after June,
1868. BY the express terms OF his amend
ment such cases were excluded from its
Oh, ration. Such claims were now aGj Isted,
Mt by the Court of Claims but Dy the
Secretary Of the Treasury.
Finally the debate closed, and the amend
ment offered by Mr. Smith, Of New York,
Was r. j-cied, thrre being only thiTty-eight
votes III the affirmative.
Mr. Randall OF Pennsylvania, offered an
aniendmeu Ut, proyidIBg that NO money shall
De paid To any railroad company Tor trans
portaCIun of mails OF troops while such
company Is in default Tor interest bonds
issued oy the government.
Mr.. Sargent, of California, made the point
OF order, that there was nothing in the bill
to which The provision could apply.
The chairman sustained the point of or
der, aud exoluaed the amen dment.
Other HmeudmenLs of a like nature were
offered and ruled out Of order, when the
House adjourned.