Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-09
The PIONEER MILLS CLAIM. The Hous, o

The PIONEER MILLS CLAIM Hous, OF
Representatives, yesterday. 10 Committee OF
she Whole. resumed the consideration ct the
claim of W. H. Newman and l.. A. Vsntiotf
man for $lS .430 for the use AMI occupation OF
the Pioneer Mills 10 this city during the war.
Mr.. Jones (Ohio) opposed tho bill. aud ex
pressed surprise that democrats should favor
it. because it was that SORT OF claim which
MI. Tllden 10 bis letter on the subject said
should not be paid, as it was clearly claim
growing out of the operations Of the late war.
But be opposed the bill mainly on the priu-
ciple that the Government should not be com.
PEELED to pay for property taken or destroyed
10 q State 10 rebellion. o..
Messrs. Finley and Robinson (Ind.) defended
the justice Of the claim.
MIR. Conger argued that there was nothing
to take this precedent claim out Of the list OF
those that originated out of tho war. II would
open the door to the payment of millions OF
dollars for property destroyed 10 the prosecu.
ton of the war. He argued that the CITY of
Alexandria was at the time this mill was taken.
and at all time during the war, in the military
occupation of the United States; and as it was
taken as military necessity, the claim should
not be paid. He denied the allegation Of
contract to pay, because Commissary Bell, the
officer who took the property, could not make
the contract. ....
Mr.. Eden inquired whether Mr.. Conger, as
member of the Committee on War Claims in
the last Congress, had not assented to the re-
port Of this same bill.
Mr.. Conger denied such assent. He had
even opposed tho payment for property taken
to put into tho Federal foris near Alexandria.
opposed the bill in the last House, after it was
-. s..t III C.,,,, tho
Mr. Couger could not tell how far these war
claims would reach. He was glad to hear the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. MilIs) disclaim any
purpose to pay the war claims, but be feared
the effect of establishing precedent.
Nj. Townsend believed that all claims should
be paid as matter of justice where the claim.
ants were loyal when contract was made.
Mr.. Frye believed that this was fair, just,
and proper claim against the United States,
and as the United States had not gone into
liquidation there should be recovery. After
the proclamation of MIR. Lincoln the Unites
States bad no more right to take this property
10 Alexandria than it would have had to take
property 10 New York. The law should COM
pei the United States to pay for all property
taken from loyal citizen.
Mr.. Hanna objected to the payment Of the
claim because there was not written contract
and the precedent would DO bad.
MIR. Briggs said the bill appeared to him to
be entirely too honest. This property was
taken in 1851, and the claimants we're republi'
cans. Yet they never applied for pay when
they had two.thrds majority 10 both Houses of
Congress and when the President was republi
Gao; but they had come to US Confederates for
payment. Laughter.
Mr.. Tucker desired to correct misapprehen.
sion as to the rebe! occupation of Alexandria.
He asserted that after the ordinance OF seces.
sion. when the Federal troops took possession,
there was not a Confederate soldier 10 AIeX
andria except rs a prisoner
After further discussion the committee rose
and reported the bill formally to the House.
The vote upon the passage was taken by yeas
and nays ADD after tho roll call had been CON-
pleted was announced az Cd yeas and 100 nays
MIR. Huutoo. who had changed his vote to
the negative for that purpose, moved to recon-
slider the vote whereby the bill was rejected,
and
Mr.. Conger and Mr.. Fort moved to lay that
motion on the table.
Pending the latter motion, Mr.. Atkins moved
to adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; and the House at
500 p. no., adjourned.