Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-01-12
COTTON.
mite Of the Whole on the Qaes-
tiOR Cotton Claims.
WAsHINGT0N, J
IN THE HOUSE.

IN THE HOUsE-
After some business of minor i'm
pOrt2nce, the House went into Commit
tee of the Whole, and took up the Leg
islative Executive Judicial Appropria
ton Bill, pending question at adjourn.
ment yesterday. An amendment wa,
offered by Mr.. Smith, of New York, for
bidding the payment Of judgments oftht
Court of Claims for cotton captured be.
fore June, 1865, except special aDpropri.
ations are made for them. Mr.. Garfield
of Ohio, replied to Mr.. Smith:
speech, repelling the idea that
any judgments had been paid by the
Secretary of the Treasury, except il
compliance with law. He cited the
unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court to the effect that the receipt o.
pardon relieved the claimant from al
difficulties in regard TO their loyalty
that whenever the United States Gov.
ernment held property which it has
fOrcibly seized it holds it only as trustee,
and must restore it. Mr.. Smith did not
ask the House to throw itself ia the
teeth of the decisions of the
Supreme Court. He was Of the
opinion that a disloyal claimant,
like Love, of Georgia, who was Confed-
crate Loan Commissioner, and who had
already received four hundred and sew
enty-fOur thousand dollars, and Lamar.
of Savannah, were to be paid.
He submitted that at least it should be
on the report of those judgments to
Congress, so that the Congress OF
the country should know. In the
McOrdle case Congress had deprived
tho Enssrar,,n = ,F IL, II
ton. He admOnished Congress, the
Supreme Court, and the administration,
that the people were behind them, de-
termined that the 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 a court superseryiceably loyal, il
was the Court of Claims, which had at
its head, as Chief-Justice, the Drake
amdndment.
Mr.. Perce opposed the amendment as
being an attack on the South. He
showed the various stages of proof
which q claimant was obliged to
go through in order TO get, not the
full value Of the cotton, but the net pro-
ceeds of il, paid into the treasury, which
in some instances did not amount to
One-fourth the value, and asked whether
they should be compelled to come before
Congress and have their claims passed
upon by partisan influence. He appealed
70 all Southern Representative TO vote
against the amendment.
Mr.. Hawley, of Connecticut, sustained
the amendment. He said that he
wanted every judgment of this
kind reported to Congress, So.
that Congress might exercise is
discretion as to whether it would paw
those claims in preference TO the claims
Of loyal men.
Mr.. Sargent denied that the cotton
in these claims had been
seized after the close of the war-after
the proclamation of peace, there was,
therefore, no justification for its seizure
Or withholding payment from its
owners.
Mr.. Shellabarger said the way Of
meeting the difficulty was to remit the
Court of Claims to the position
which it originally occupied-that of
being really the Auditing Committee of
Congress, to audit 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
n order TO escape the effect Of the de-
,ision of the Supreme Court in reference
70 the rights of amnestied persons.
Mr.. Maynard argued in favor of ex-
lending the privilege of the Court of
Claims to this class of claimants until
January /, 1874
Mr.. Merriam offered an amendment,
repealing the law giving jurisdiction
Dver these cases to Court of Claims, but
ln point OF order being raised BY Mr..
Sargent the amendment was ruled out.
He argued in support of Mr.. Smiths
Mr.. Bingham opposed the amend
ment, and argued that the only remedy
was the repeal of the law. That could
not be done on the opposition bill.
The amendment was further opposed
Dy Messrs. Harris, Beck, Mcintyre and
tarnswOrth, who argued against the
dea Of subjecting the judgment of the
Court of Claims to be passed upon by
Congress. 1t would be like appealing
from Philips sober to Philips drunk.
Mr.. Smith denied the statement by
dr. Sergeant that these claims were for
,Otton seized after 5une 30th, 1865. BY
he express terms of his amendment
uch cases were excluded from its opera
ion. Such claims were adjusted not by
. Court Of Claims but by the Secretary
f the Treasury.
Finally the debate closed, and the
mendment was rejected, there being
My thirty-eight votes in the affirma-