The Indianapolis journal., 1892-07-11
MRS. FREMONT AND GENERAL coBURS
The Laiter's Reply TO the Accusations Brought
Against Him ty the Former.

Ine Laiters Reply 10 the Accusations Brought
Against Him ty the Former.
To the Edltor OF the Home-Maker
In the first article in your magazine Of
February, 1892, have been referred to the
closing paragraphs, in which the author,
Mrs Fremont, severely censures mo for de-
feating her claim to house in San Fran
cisco while q member of Congress. am
charged with unreasonab ableness. obstinacy
and cruelty in style so harsh that con-
not allow 1t to pass unnoticed.
So far as / am concerned, her article 10
unfounded tn fact. She says that the bill
was stopped by a single objection of mine;
that refused 70 give reason for my oppo-
sition to what was otherwise sure of .
largo majority; that. as Republican, had
asked for and received from General Frc-
mont personal aid for my reelection; that,
by an exercise Of the one-Inan power OF OBJ
lection, ! nullificd the will of all Congress
by my obstinate and unexplained objec.
tion; that the daughter of Mr.. Haskell I'M
plored me with tears to waive my objec-
tions on behalf of her invalid father, who
was killed by my refusal.
ond Congress for the benefit of the former
occupants of Point San Jose. . military
reservation. in which Mrs. Fremont had an
interest. 1t was covered by bill. No.
172S, which provided for the adjustment by
the Court of Claims of these claims limit
ing the amount to be allowed to $500, ,0OO.
This bill was referred to tho committee
on military affairs of the Honse, whore 1T
was duly considered. and . report ordered.
which was made by myself on the 11th OF
January, 1872. This report sets out tho bill
IN full and proceeds to comment on It. Tho
bill was designed to include, on behalf OF
the claimants, the value of the land and
the improvements at the time possession
was taken by the military officers.
The facts, SO far IS they had been de-
veloped, were cited in the report, and the
conclusion arrived at that 1.-The claimants
have no titles to the land. and. st most,
have al equitable claim for pay for i'm
provements upon lands on which they were
mere sQuatters. the government having at
sll times the right of disposal or reserva-
| tion, until, by act of Congress q reg
ular conveyance. the title was parted with.
The report states that this reserv vation
for military purposes was twice declared
by President Fillmore. once in 1850 and
again in 1851. His power to do so was IN
questioned, and the report proceeds to
state shat while the claims were alleged TO
San Francisco, no evidence of this was sub
mitted and even If it had been, it was of q
date long subsequent to the reservation.
The subject was reviewed In the report,
which expressed not only the views of the
committee, bnt my own. The report was
submitted TO the House and cOncurred In
in without dissenting voice: the bill was
laid on the table ana the committee dis
regular open, fair aud unanimous against
the bill. Not friend of the bill arose to
advocate it's passage. Then u majority
could have passed the bill.
After this. at the same session, on the
night of the Sd of March, 1873. at late
hour. the Senate bill, No. 755. which was
identical with tho Honss bill, believe.
was taken from the Speakers table and put
upon its passage. Mr.. Holman. of
it had not been referred to
House committee. Mr.. Negley, of Penn
sylvania. objected to it's passage because it
had been reported against aud rejected hy
the committee and the House. Mr.. Cogh-
Ian. of California. favored its passage aud
said it was u good bill; that it had been ap-
proved of by q Senate committee and had
passed the Senate. Mr.. Coburn, of In
diana, offered o substitute providing that
only the improvements taken from the
equatters and 10 lanu ehOnld be paid for
and the amount was to be limited to Si0,-
co., This was defeated upon q vote of the
House. 1t seemed that the House was un-
willing to nav anything. Then the vote
was taken on the Senate bill and it failed
/ to pass. This ended the matter. IN a fcw
hours Congress adjourned.
Thus it will be seen that did not defeat
it by an objection; that offered an amend
mont TO pay for the improvements; that
vote was taken on 1t, and then on the bill
| itself; that it was rs fairly submitted to .
vote as any bill ever was.
Mr.. HaskelPs daughter never implored
me to withdraw an objection. never saw
her and never heard of her before. She
could not have done as stated. for / never
objected to a vote of the House. was not
obstinate, for offered an amendment. and
when that was defeated l voted on the
passage of the bill, which then and there
was defeated. If Mr.. Haskell was killed
the House did II, not /; if Mrs Fremont
was injured. the House aid it; If injustice
was done, was one of q majority who
acted together against bill that seemed
to be without merit. There was never q
day in the months it WAS before it when
the committee on military affairs was not
ready tn hear and consider any and oil evil
dence that the claimants would submit,
but very little was produced. No gag was
put upon the action of the House at any
time by myself or by the committee.
As to my asking and receiving political
aid in my canvass for reelection from
General Fremont let me say that
never diG. / made more than hun
Slsd IN BIS when
no credit for IT, and know OF no 0bllga-
tion that an, under. or ever WA. to him.
If political debts are TO be paid by Con-
gressmen ont of the Dublic treasury some
one else must be called upon than myself
TO do So If not only political creditor is
to be paid but. in addition, . gang of his
souatter friends are to be snbsidized ont of
the publio money, then let me be considered
an migrate.
For what have said about tho action of
the House let me refer to the Congressional
Globe. part third of the third session,
Forty second Congress, pages 21l6 and 21l7.
and report twenty three of third session OF
Forty second Congress. Vol / of Reports of
the Honsc. 1s12-73. A reference to tho CLIQUE
of that date will show the action Of the
House.
If the bill had so many friends, why has
it not been passed since left Congresss /
have not been there since March. 1875. IF
it was so Just. why was it not passed in the
twenty years that elapeed before that time7
How strange IL seems that alone. In all
that time, could have attacked 1t in
the only hour in which it could have been
defeated. Was there no other opportunity
to get it through, except that single hour7
Let forty years answer these questions,
forty years in which these claims have not
been recognized.
I think Mra Eremont haa been mla,n.