Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-12-07
bill clause reducing letter postage
to two cents. Adopted.

w LWO C6ubs- duOpJCu.
Mr.. Kellogg, chairman of the com
mit,ee on ways and means, offered
resolution for the distribution of the
Presidents message, and the House
proceeded, in committee of the
whole, to the consideration.
A resolution was amended so that
the question of the Hawaiian treaty
was referred to the committee on
foreign affairs, instead of to that on
ways and means. The res luton
was then reported back to the House
and adopted as amended.
The House then at lis went into
committee of the whole, Mr.. Waite,
of Connecticut, in the chair, on the
state of the Union.
The first bill to be considered was
one refunding to the State of Geor-
gia the sum of $4,000 expended by
that State for the common defense
in 1777.
Mr.. Holman opposed the bill, and
its passage was advocated by Mr..
Turner and Mr. Blount, of Georgia,
who contended that the claim was a
just and equitable one.
Mr.. Hiscock, of New York, moved
to strike out the enacting clause,
stating that he was opposed to any
bill 100 years old.
Mr.. Speer. of Georgia, conceded
that the claim was an old one, but
none the less a just claim, and re-
peated actions of committees of the
House and Senate had attested it's
justice. This great government, he
said, could not afford to plead statue
of limitations.
Mr.. Singleton, of Illinois, in>
quired whether, as a legal PROPOSE
tion, the Federal treasury had not
been discharged from any obligation
to that of Georgia by reason of that
State going into the rebellion.
Mr.. Speer replied that he did not
think SO.
Mr.. Turner, of Georgia, gave a
detailed history of the claim, which
he argued was of such character
that it should have been paid upon
presentation.
After some discussion upon a
point of order, the committee de-
cided that the motion to strike out
the enacting clause was debatable.
Mr.. Terner, of Georgia, was sur
prised that within few years from
the celebration of the centennial
anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence, Congress should be
asked to refuse to pay to any State a
just claim for expenditures made in
securing that independence.
Mr. Singleton, of Illinois, said
that he was opposed, on general
principles, to bringing the exhumed
claims of century, before Congress.
It seemed to him that there was
something in the idea that though
Georgia had aided in creating the
Union, she had also attempted to
destroy it, and that though she had
expended money in securing the
Union, she had relinqrished all
claim upon the treasury by with
drawing from the Union.
Mr.. Ray, of New York, member of
the committee on claims, which re-
ported the measure, stated that the
committee had been unanimous in
favor of the claim. For one, he
would never vote to reject the claim
of any State which he believed to be
just and honest, Notwithstanding
that the statute of limitations ought
to run against it.
Mr.. Hlscock, of New York, read
an act of Congress providing
that the revolutionary claims of
the States must be presented
and settled prior to 1888. If Con>
gress proposed to take any action in
this case it should open the doors
and allow all of the accounts be-
tween the States and the general
government to be reopened.
Mr.. Biount, of Georgia, contended
that there were precedents for the
payment of revolutionary claims of
States. He said that the reason for
Georgia eing tardy in asking for
payment was that sue was careful
that no unjust claim should be pre-
sented.
Mr.. Hewitt, of New York, said
that the claim of Georgia would
probably have been audited and all
lowed pryor to 1888, had she not
been careful to see that no unjust
claim should be brought forward.
The question was whether Georgia
should be punished for exercising
that care. He failed to find, after
good deal of research, the prece-
dents referred to by the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr.. Blount, But he
had found that the government had
settled Revolutionary claims of in
dividuals. He contended that Cons
gress should do as much justice to
a State as to an Individual.
Mr.. Hammond, of Georgia, thought
that it did not co1nport with the
dignity of the great United States
to plead the statute of limitation
against a claim which was indis-
putably just and honest.
Mr.. Holman, of Indiana, argued
that the debt of the people of Geor-
gia to the United States for direct
taxation should be made set-of
against the present claim of that
State.
Mr.. Blount regretted that the
gentleman from Indiana (Holman)
alone should see fit to revive this
old tax question, when the people of
the North had provided that the tax
should not be collected.
Mr.. McLlain, of Maryland thought
that when the gentleman from Indi>
ana had been addressing himself to
~ e.x,,.4oe <f tha oaca IL poiUbE hayn