, 1881-02-05
Holidays Claim in Congress.

Senator Edmunds, few days since,
in his clear and forcible way, showed rp
the notorious Ben Holladay bill which
has engaged the Senate for several days
in a surprisingly acrimonious debate.
Mr.. Edmunds showed first. that the re-
port Of the committee, on which Senator.
must depend for facts in the ease, does
not even give the original Contract; that,
second, when the committee came TO IN
quire into the actual losses sustained or
claimed to have been sustained by Holla-
day, they did not ask him to produce his
books which should have shown his losses
but accepted the afidavits of stage drivers
and o.her people who spoke IN some cases,
as Senator Herman had already shown,
not from actual knowledge, but from
hearsay. And this kind of testimony was
brought into tie Senate 10 sustain clam
for almost 500, 900 He added that be-
sides the 81 900, 900 year which the CON
tractors had from the Government they
xera allowed to pre-empt $40 acres OF
la for every ten miles Of their route,
and it did not appear what had been done
with these extensive grants OF land Next
he said that the contract in changing the
route, gave the contractors leave to run a
pony express and obliged them to carry
only FIVE pounds of United States mail
matter, but allowed them to carry private
matter at 81 per pound, and the Govern
ment was now asked to pay damages IN
nearly $500, 900 for alleged losses suffered
from risks which the contractors took
with their eyes open, and for which they
we're paid very large sums.
Mr.. Voorhees, and others tried vainiy
to overcome the arguments and exposures
Of Mr.. Edmunds, and the debate will be
renewed.
This claim came up first IN 1866.
The House passed bill, but the Senate
disagreed, to send Mr.. Holladay to the
Court of Claims. The claim then rested
until 1872, for six years, when 1t once
more appeared, but was again dropped
until 1873, when Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon
reported bill instructing the Court OF
Claims to settle the matter on the evi-
dence at hand The Senate refused to
do this, bat changed the phraseolosy so as
to instruct the Court of Claims to hear
the case fully; not on e1 parte testimony,
but with careful and complete scrutiny
and on competent evidence Therenpon,
after some resistance to this, by Holla-
davis friends, Mr.. Mitchell moved the
bills recommittal and it once more disap-
peared. Now after further delay, 1t turns
ND again, and once more its friends resist
the motion to allow the Court Of Claims
to hear il and decide it on competent evi-
dence
Mr.. Herman and Mr.. Bayard. as well
as Mr.. Edmunds, have exposed the
weakness and contradictory character of
the evidence on which the claim IS press
ed. The battle is over Dir. kernans
amendment which simply relesates Holla-
day to the Court of Claims and directs
that Court to try the case on Its merits
and decide it ON competent testimony.
This is vehemently resisted as though 1t
were injustice to the claimant. Mr..
Thurman offered an amendment to Mr.
Kernan's, further guarding the rights of
the government by providing that Holla-
DAVIS reference to the Court Of Claims
ehall not be construed as an admission of
the Governments liability for any part
of the claim.
This oiain 5vvms to create an unac-
countahle excitement and interest in the
Senate. 1t is discussed as though it had
the Importance of great public measure
and has now occupied a good deal OF the
time of the Senate since the 9th OF Janu-
ary. The discussion is not yet ended.
MI. Beck and Mr.. Cockerell, are, it Is
understood, to follow Messrs. Edmunds,
Bayard, Herman, Wallace and Mcpherson
in favor of sending the case to the Court
of Claims where it belongs, and where the
claimant can get full and public hearing
and a decision on the merits and On COM
petent testimony. No one has yet shown
why this Is not Just; or why the Senate
should order the payment of 4 claim OF
such doubtful character without refer
ence to the Court of Claims.