The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read a third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McKEAN, Chief Clerk, announcing that they had passed a joint resolution to correct a clerical error in the act approved June 22, 1854, to authorize a register to be issued to the steamer El Paraguay by a new name; and A bill for the relief of H. B. Rowan, of Louisjana.

FRANCISCO LOPE URRIZA.

On the motion of Mr. WELLER, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill for the relief of Francisco Lope Urriza.

It is designed to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Francisco Lope Urriza, $10,250 as full compensation for the value of the schooner Julia, improperly seized while lying at La Paz on the 18th of September, 1846, by Commander S. F. Dupont, of the United States Navy.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. If there is a report, I should like to hear it read.

Mr. WELLER. There is one made by myself from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The report was read, from which it appears that the petitioner seeks from this Government remuneration and indemnity for certain losses alleged to have been sustained by him in Lower California in 1846 and 1848, while that territory was in the military possession and under the protection of the United States.

The first item is the value of the schooner Julia, seized by Commander S. F. Dupont, of the United States Navy, while lying dismantled at La Paz, on the 18th of September, 1846, and subsequently on the 24th of June, 1847, condemned as a lawful prize, and ordered to be sold by Alcalde Walter Colton, as judge of the United States court of admiralty at Monterey.

Second, for $1,600, the value of a lot of cotton yarn deposited in the house of Don Francisco Palacia de Micanda, in La Paz, and destroyed by the Mexican forces in an attack upon the town, on the 16th of November, 1848.

Third, for $3,287, the amount of arrearages alleged to be due him for pay as a retired lieutenant colonel of the Mexican army, lost by his espousing the American cause.

Fourth, for $5,000, the alleged value of the Island San José, which he was compelled to abandon after the restoration of Lower California to Mexico, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

In regard to the first item, there is no evidence to show that the schooner Julia had ever been engaged in the service of the enemy. On the contrary, it is proven that she had been employed in peaceful commerce between La Paz and Mazatlan. That while lying at La Paz, in a dismantled condition, without either flag or sails, on the 18th of September, 1846, she was seized by Commander S. F. Dupont, of the United States Navy, used as a tender for some months, and on the 24th of June, 1847, condemned, and ordered to be sold as a lawful prize, by Alcalde Colton.

It is further proved that Commodore Sloat, then commanding the naval forces of the United States on the Pacific coast, had, prior to the seizure, (on the 7th of July, 1846,) issued a proclamation to the citizens of California, in which he pledged full and ample protection, both of person and property, to such of them as should lay down their arms, and either espouse the cause of the United States or remain neutral in the contest. Upon the issuing of that proclamation, the petitioner at once became an active partisan in our ranks, and identified himself with our cause; and further, the schooner Julia was, at the time of seizure, the property of the petitioner, and of the value of $10,250. These facts are fully established by the testimony of American officers, who were privy to the transaction. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the schooner was not properly subject to seizure. And besides, the United States not having established a court of admiralty at Monterey, the decision of Alcalde Colton, condemning and ordering the vessel to be sold, was wholly unauthorized and illegal. This item is therefore allowed.

The cotton yarn for which compensation is claimed, as shown by the evidence, was, when destroyed, deposited in a private house not occupied by our troops for military purposes at the time it was burnt; nor does it appear that it had been previously so occupied. In no case has a claim of this character ever been allowed to our own citizens.

As to the arrearages of pay due to the petitioner as a retired lieutenant colonel in the Mexican army, and forfeited by his taking side against his own country, upon no principle of justice or national morality recognized by this Government can this item be allowed.

In regard to the fourth item, without entering into a consideration of the question how far a naval commander in an enemy's country can, by his proclamation, bind this Government, it is believed that the protection promised by Commodore Sloat to the citizens of California, in his proclamation of the 7th July, 1846, referred alone to Upper California, and therefore cannot apply to any rights of property in the island in question, it being an appendage of Lower California, which, under the treaty above mentioned, still remained as a part of Mexico. This item, therefore, is not allowed.

subject for prize. Therefore, the committee came to the conclusion, under all the circumstances of the case, (and inasmuch as it is proved by the testimony of all the American officers that the claimant was one of the most active and efficient men upon the American side during the progress of the difficulties upon the Pacific coast; he had at one time been taken prisoner, and his life forfeited, and it was by a bare accident that he roade his escape from the Mexican officer after he had been ordered to be shot,) that he was entitled to that portion of his claim.

Mr. BAYARD. Before the honorable Senator undertakes to censure me for my course, he ought to understand the objection which I have made. I say that, on the face of the report, without regard to the evidence, according to my judgment of the principle which should govern the action of the Senate, the bill ought to be rejected. The principle is this: I have never yet heard that the Government of the United States, or any other Government, recognized its liability for the illegal acts either of its naval or military officers. The basis on which this claim must be paid is, that Commander Dupont illegally seized the vessel of the claimant. Now, sir, if he did it illegally, the claimant has his remedy against him. The committee report that this admiralty court had no jurisdiction. If it had not, then its proceedings were wholly coram non judicé, and the Government would not defend the officer, but the officer would be liable to the party for the damages done. But who ever heard before of a Government being liable for every illegal act of seizure committed by its officers? The Government reserves to itself the discretion, when an officer, in the performance of his functions, makes a mistake under circumstances in which he becomes personally liable, and a suit is brought against him, to remunerate the officer; but I know of no case in which it

Mr. WELLER. I think it a very hard case that this bill should be defeated by the opposition of the Senator from Delaware. It is very obvious that there is not a quorum now present; and if the yeas and nays are taken on the passage of the bill, it must inevitably produce an adjournment without final action upon it. I undertake to say, that if that Senator will take the trouble to look into the testimony in the case, he will be satisfied that the Committee on Foreign Relations have acted properly in reporting the bill. There were four different items in the claimant's account. The Committee on Foreign Relations considered that but one of them was a proper charge against the Government. This vessel was seized, as we are satisfied from the proof, without authority of law. She was not a proper subject of which to make a prize. She was carried to Monterey, and there Alcalde Colton, claiming to be an admiralty court, under the laws of the United States, proceeded to condemn the vessel, and she was sold. I think the Senator from Delaware, if he will take the trouble to look into the testimony, will be satisfied that the Committee on Foreign Relations have not erred in this particular; and I think it is due to this claimant that, before the Senator undertakes to reverse the action of a committee of the Senate, he should put himself to the trouble of investigating the case.

I have in the report, very briefly, it is true, recapitulated the testimony as it was produced before the committee. The testimony was ample that this vessel had never been used for any warlike purposes. She was engaged in peaceable commerce between the ports of La Paz and Mazatlan; and while lying in the former, without any flag to designate her national character, she was seized by an American officer, used for a long period as a transport vessel, and afterwards taken to Monterey and condemned by Alcalde Colton without any authority of law. There is a record of the case. You will find that it is a regular condemnation: "The United States court of admiralty, in 1847, at the city of Monterey." Now, I need not tell the Senate that there was no United States court of admiralty there having jurisdiction of this case, even if the vessel had been a proper

ant has been injured, he has his right of suit against the individual who did the illegal act.

That is the ground on which I oppose this bill, without going into the facts at all. The allegation on which the report is founded is, that the vessel, which was the property of the party, was illegally seized by Commander Dupont, and confiscated by a pretended admiralty court. If these proceedings were all illegal, the parties who performed them were unquestionably personally liable in an action or suit at law to the claimant. Why does he not press it? If a recovery was had against the officer of the United States, and he could show that the act was committed under the emergencies of war, and by a mistaken opinion of his duty, it would be a question for us whether we should relieve him; but I deny the right of the claimant to claim payment from us on any principles of which I know, according to the facts stated by the committee themselves. I cannot perceive what the subsequent part which the man took in the struggle in California has to do with the question, though I confess such things are very often thrown in here.

And further, sir, in judging of the case I judge of it as I should of a case in private life. Senators are fond of making an appeal to the analogies between the transactions of individuals with the Government, and transactions between individuals and individuals. In judging of transactions between individuals, if one person were to present against another four claims three of which were so palpably baseless and void, if I may say so, of all pretensions to a claim as those which the committee have rejected, what would be the inference in regard to a party who could be so biased by his interest, and have so little regard for justice, as to present claims which, on a bare inspection, would be rejected? Surely it would not enhance the character of the other claim.

It is, however, sir, on principle that I object to the bill. I am willing to take the report of the committee; it is unnecessary to investigate the facts. I say that I know of no principle on which to justify the allowance of this claim. The case of Colonel Mitchell, which occurred here some time ago, is one which illustrates what I have already said. The Government, after a recovery was had against its officer, interposed to save that officer; whether rightly, in that case, is not the question. That is the ground which it took. The basis of the allegation here, that the act on the part of the officer of the United States was illegal, can

33D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

be supported before this body in no proper mode, except by showing that a suit has been recovered against the officer. That is my view of the ques

tion.

The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. BAYARD. Then I suppose I can get a division.

The question was put; and, on a division, there was not a quorum voting.

Mr. STUART. That disposes of the question to-day. I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. SLIDELL. I ask the indulgence of the Senate to take up and pass another bill.

Mr. STUART. I am willing to withdraw my motion, if we can get a quorum.

Mr. SLIDELL. If there be the least objection to my bill, I shall be willing to let it go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ADAMS.) The bill which is now before the Senate must be disposed of before another can be taken up.

Mr. SLIDELL. I move to postpone it until to-morrow.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Let it be postponed by

unanimous consent.

Mr. WELLER. I do not wish to interpose any objection

Mr. BAYARD. Can the Senate proceed with business without a quorum?

Mr. WELLER. I believe I have the floor, and I trust the Senator will allow me to proceed. I desire to say that I have, of course, no disposition to obstruct the business of the Senate. A number of my friends around me are anxious to get up other bills; but, at the same time, I do not very much like to be compelled to yield to the Senator from Delaware, when I am satisfied that his opposition is groundless.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will suggest to the Senator from California that it appears there is not a quorum present. No business can be done until a quorum be in attendance. The bill is still before the Senate, and no other business can be transacted until it be disposed of.

Mr. WELLER. I move that its further consideration be postponed until to-morrow. I shall then endeavor to press it, notwithstanding the opposition of the Senator from Delaware.

The motion to postpone was agreed to.

WILLIAM H. AND ROBERT HENDERSON. The bill to confirm the claim of William H. Henderson and the heirs of Robert Henderson to five hundred acres of land in the Bastrop grant, was read a second time; and, on motion by Mr. SLIDELL, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration.

It proposes to confirm to W. H. Henderson and the heirs of Robert Henderson, of the parish of Morehouse, Louisiana, their claim to five hundred acres of land, in the prairie of Jefferson, on which the heirs reside, as represented in the report of the register and receiver of the land office at Monroe, in their report of July 30, 1852, and to direct that a patent issue to them after a legal survey, duly returned; but the act is to be construed only as a relinquishment of title on the part of the United States, and is not to affect the claims of other persons, if there be any.

The petitioners claimed five hundred acres of land in the Bastrop grant, in Louisiana, under the provisions of the act of the 3d of March, 1851, for the adjustment of land claims in that grant, and presented their claim to the board of commissioners provided for by that act. It was not recommended for confirmation, because it did not come strictly within the provisions of the act from which they derived their powers. It is No. 7 of the first class of claims in their report, and is submitted to the further consideration of Congress, because, while, under the principles of the law, they were forced to report against the case, justice required that they should recommend it to the indulgence of the Government, the claimants having purchased in good faith, and for a bona fide consideration.

The petitioners, and the persons under whom they claim, had remained in quiet and uninter

WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1854.

rupted possession of the land for seventeen years only three years less than the time required by the act of 1851. The fact that the chain of title to them is not complete, is not material to the Government; for the only question is, ought it to be confirmed to the claimants, whoever they may be? The petitioners have had possession long enough to hold it by preemption against individuals, and the bill is so framed as to amount to a relinquishment of title only on the part of the Government; so that, if any other claimants have a better title to it, it will not be prejudiced by the confirmation, but, on the contrary, it would inure to their benefit. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read a third time, and passed.

SALE OF RESERVED LANDS.

Mr. MALLORY. I find upon the general orders, a bill which is not a private bill, but which will not occupy the attention of the Senate for more than a minute. It is a bill to authorize the sale of reserved lands, and for other purposes," and is of great interest to me State. I am confident there will be no dispute about it; I therefore ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to consider it now.

There was no objection, and the bill was read a second time, and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration. It had been reported from the Committee on Military Affairs with an amendment, which the Secretary commenced to read; but he was interrupted by

Mr. WADE. I believe that is not a private

bill.

Mr. MALLORY. I stated that it was not, and

therefore asked that it might be taken up by general consent. It will not take a minute to dispose of it. It has been prepared at the Department. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was taken up by unanimous consent.

Mr. BAYARD. It is well known that there is not a quorum present. I shall call for the yeas and nays on the bill.

Mr. CHASE. I move that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; and
The Senate adjourned.

Mr. DICKINSON. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer, from the select com. mittee on the superintendency of the armories, the following resolution:

Resolved, That the select committee, to whom was referred the consideration of the change in the superintending of the national armories, be authorized to visit Spring field, in Massachusetts, and Harper's Ferry, in Virginia, for the purpose of making such further examination into the subject-matter of their inquiries as will enable them to furnish Congress with the fullest possible information before their final action in the premises.

Mr. McMULLIN. I object.

Mr. DICKINSON. I ask the consent of the House to say a single word upon this subject. There was no objection, and

Mr. DICKINSON proceeded: This is the first time I have had occasion to ask a favor of the House, and I will occupy but a moment of its time under the circumstances. I shall be compelled to leave the city for a few days, and I feel compelled to appeal to the House to grant the request contained in that resolution.

The select committee of which I am a member have already had the subject under consideration for several months. They have been in session from two to five days in a week, for the purpose of examining the questions which have been referred to them in connection with the superintendence of the national armories-whether superintendents should be appointed from the Ordnance Corps, or whether they should be appointed from

NEW SERIES.....No. 100.

the citizens of the United States generally. We have had a large mass of testimony before us, written and verbal; and we have had contradictory testimony; we have had the reports of the commissioners appointed by the President of the United States, and who spent some three months in making examinations and taking testimony at Springfield and Harper's Ferry last year. But we have had such a mass of contradictory evidence that it has for a long time been my view, and I have proposed it to the committee time and time again that we should visit the establishment ourselves, for the purpose of satisfying ourselves from our own observation; but I have not been able until now to obtain the assent of the majority of the committee.

On a recent visit to Massachusetts, I spent two half days at the armory at Springfield in making inquiries into the state of things there; and I found that I was able to obtain more information, such as was necessary to base our action upon, in that time, than from all the time I had spent here in committee; and I believe the committee would ascertain more reliable information, as to the real state of the case, by a personal examination, than they have been able to do in the three months which they have already spent here in its investigation.

This is a matter of much importance to the country. It is a matter of which I care nothing about personally; but it is of so much importance to the country at large, that I think the select committee should be authorized to visit the armo

ries personally, by which they will be able to obtain reliable information upon which to base their action. I offer the resolution which has been read;

and if there be no objection, I will move the previous question.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I look upon this whole controversy as a Buncombe humbug, and this as a proposition to authorize the members of the select committee to absent themselves from the House. I object.

Mr. FAULKNER. I ask the indulgence of the House to make a single statement upon this subject.

Mr. CRAIGE. The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. KEITT,] who made an adverse report upon this subject, is not now in his seat, and therefore object.

CORRECTION OF AN ERROR.

Mr. ORR. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce "a joint resolution to correct a clerical error in an act approved June 22, 1854, to authorize a register to be issued to the steamer El Paraguay by a new name.

There was no objection; and the joint resolution was read a first and second time by its title.

It provides that for the word " Joy," in the bill of 22d June, shall be substituted the word "Ivy." The joint resolution was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was read a third time, and passed.

Mr. BARKSDALE, by unanimous consent, previous notice having been given, introduced a bill; which was read a first and second time by its title, as follows, and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads:

A bill to establish a post route from Citronelle, Alabama, to Columbus, Mississippi.

Mr. FAULKNER. I move, by unanimous consent, this being private bill day, that committees be called for reports in reference to private

business.

The SPEAKER. The business first in order is the disposition of the private bills on the Speaker's table; but the Clerk informs the Chair that there are none there. The gentleman from Virginia moves that committees be called for reports on private cases. Is there objection?

Mr. SEWARD. Yes, sir; I object. Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I gave notice of a bill some time since, which I wish to introduce now, that it may be referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Mr. SEWARD. At the request of several gen

Mr. COBB. When I objected to the introduction of that bill, I supposed it was a general bill. My friend from Maryland only desires that the bill shall be printed, and that when the business of the District of Columbia comes up, it shall be considered. I have no objection to that course.

The bill was then read a first and second time by its title, recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to obe printed.

On motion by Mr. EDDY, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Revolutionary Claims be discharged from the further consideration of the petition and papers of Isaac S. Bowman, executor of Isaac Bowman, deceased, and that the same be laid upon the table.

Mr. PECKHAM, from the Committee on Public Expenditures, reported back, with a recommendation that it do pass, Senate bill (No. 185) "for the relief of the legal representatives of Samuel Prioleau;" which was referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. P., from the same committee, reported hack, with a similar recommendation, Senate bill (No. 337) "for the relief of Eliza M. Evans;" and said: I should like to have that bill put upon its passage. It is of such a character that it should pass; and it will not take five minutes to dispose of it.

Objection was made, so the report was not received.

Mr. P., from the same committee, made an adverse report in the case of the petition of the heirs of Lieutenant Silas Goodall; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

A bill for the relief of Elenor Hoople.

Mr. F. also, from the same committee, made adverse reports upon the following petitions and resolutions; which reports were laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed:

The petition of Samuel M. Latimer;

The petition of Charles J. Burgess, asking for bounty land for the services of his son in the Mexican war;

The petition of John H. King, of Harper's Ferry, for improvement in machinery used at the armory;

The petition of Henry K. Brown;

The resolution to change the site of the military asylum near Washington city to the estate of Mount Vernon, &c.;

The petition of Edward B. Shelton, asking for bounty land for services rendered in the Mexican

war;

The petition of Charles F. Fisher, proposing to sell to Congress his painting of the battle of New Orleans; and

The petition of Captain H. B Fields.

On motion by Mr. FAULKNER, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the resolution of Mr. FLORENCE, in reference to the loss of the San Fran. cisco, and the relief afforded the sufferers; and also from the resolution of Mr. WALBRIDGE upon the same subject, and that the same be laid upon the table.

Mr. HOWE. I have been instructed by the Committee on Military Affairs to ask the unanimous consent of the House that Senate bill (No. 160) "for the relief of Alexander G. Morgan," upon which an adverse report has been made, be recommitted to that committee for further consid

Mr. NICHOLS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill for the relief of Civil, township of Marion, in the county of Mer-eration and examination. cer, Ohio;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HILLYER, from the same committee, reported a bill "for the relief of the legal heirs of Benjamin Metozer, deceased;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FAULKNER, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back the following bills of the Senate, with a recommendation that they do pass; which were thereupon referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed:

S. B. No. 248. An act for the relief of William Harris, of Georgia;

S. B. No. 240. An act for the relief of James Edwards and others; and

S. B. No. 203. An act for the relief of Thomas Snodgrass.

Mr. F. also, from the same committee, reported back the following bill of the Senate, with a recommendation that it do not pass:

An act (S. No. 188) for the relief of Captain Langdon C. Easton, assistant quartermaster of the United States Army.

The bill and report were ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Mr. F. also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of William H. Weirick; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

On motion by Mr. FAULKNER, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Russell Rice, and that the same be laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

Mr. F., from the same committee, made an adverse report on the memorial of N. J. Evans, lieutenant second dragoons, United States Army; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Mr. F. also, from the same committee, reported the following bills and joint resolution; which were read a first and second time by their titles, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed:

A bill granting bounty land to Cornelius Coffey; fey;

A bill for the relief of the heirs of James Grier, deceased;

A bill for the relief of John H. King; Joint resolution giving one hundred and sixty acres of land to Francis M. Gwyn, of Indiana; and

No objection being made, the bill was accordingly recommitted.

Mr. BANKS, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill "providing for a grant of land to the Vermont volunteers, for their services in the battle of Plattsburg;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. McDOUGALL, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill "for the relief of Charles W. Carroll;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. McD. also, from the same committee, reported back Senate bill (No. 299) " for the relief of Jean Baptiste Beaubien;" which received the same order and reference.

On motion by Mr. BOCOCK, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of W. P. Buckner and Pierce Casby, for their share of the prize money accruing from the sale of the schooner Oregon, she having been condemned and sold; and that the same be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. ROWE, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, made adverse reports in the following cases; which were laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed:

The petition of Robert Babcock, for a pension; The petition of Bethniah Black, of Massachusetts, for pension allowance;

The petition of Betsey A. Faulkner, for pension, or such relief as she may be entitled to as daughter and only surviving child of Ebenezer Floyd, a soldier and officer in the revolutionary

war.

Mr. R., from the same committee, also reported a bill for the relief of John Cole;" which was read a first and second time by its title.

Mr. ROWE said: I have been requested to ask the consent of the House to have this bill put upon its passage. I will state the effect of the bill.' It is for the increase of the pension of an old soldier. He has heretofore received five dollars a month, and this bill provides for increasing it to eight dollars per month. It is a very meritorious case, and I hope there will be no objection.

Mr. FAULKNER. I object until the committees have all been called for reports.

Mr. ROWE. Perhaps if the gentleman will hear my statement he will be willing to withdraw his objection.

Mr. FAULKNER. I do not withdraw it. The bill was then referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed. On motion by Mr. HENDRICKS, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Invalid Pensions be discharged from the further consideration of the petitions and papers in the following cases, and that the same be laid upon the table:

The petition of Elizabeth Wilson, widow of John Lindsley, a soldier of the war of 1812, for a pension;

The petition of Sherman McLean, praying for relief on account of an alleged erroneous construction of the pension laws;

The petition of Samuel McLelland, for a pension; The petition of Samuel Moore, of Rising Sun, Indiana, for a pension;

The petition of John Bedding, of Daneville, New York, for bounty lands on account of the services of his son, Godfrey H. Bedding, deceased, who was a soldier in the late war with Great Britain;

The petition of Martin Lownsend, for a pension; The petition of A. Chamberlain and others, of Fulton county, Indiana, soldiers of the late war with Great Britain, for pensions; and

The petition of Lewis Washburn, for a pension.

Mr. H. also, from the same committee, reported a bill" for the relief of George Lynch;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

Mr. H. also, from the same committee, reported a bill "to provide a pension for Sergeant George W. Torrance;" which was read a first and second time by its title.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the House will indulge me one minute, I wish merely to say in this case that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DENT] was so sick that he could not be here last week, and this bill lost its proper place in the business of the House. This man is here. His case is a meritorious one, and ought to be immediately acted

There was no objection.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was read a third time, and passed.

Mr. VAIL, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported adversely on the following petitions; which were laid upon the table:

Petition of James Pullen, praying for compensation for injuries received while blasting rocks on the Washington aqueduct;

Petition of Gardener Herring, for invalid pension; and

Petition of Bela Young, a soldier of the war of 1812, praying for an invalid pension.

Mr. V. also, from the same committee, reported adversely on House bill (No. 169) "concerning invalid pensions, and regulating the time of their commencement;" which was laid upon the table, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

Mr. V. also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Evelina Porter, widow of the late Commodore David Porter, United States Navy;" which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

Mr. SAGE, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported adversely on the following memorials and petitions; which were laid upon the table:

Petition of William Trumbull, for back pay or pension;

Application on behalf of Silas Chatfield, for increase of pension;

Memorial of Pressly McKellup, of Indiana county, Pennsylvania, praying for a pension; Petition of Joseph H. Bailey, heir of Henry Bailey, praying for a pension;

Application of John Henry, for a pension; Memorial for relief of Richard Oothoudt; Memorial of George Babcock, for invalid pension;

Petition of Charles Stewart, for an invalid pen.

sion;

Petition of William Pace, for a pension; Petition of Sophia Davis, for a pension; and Petition of Daniel Leshinghill, for a pension. Mr. S., from the same committee, reported the following bills; which were severally read a first and second time by their titles, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed:

A bill for the relief of Joseph Webb;
A bill for the relief of John Steen;
A bill for the relief of George Elliott;
A bill for the relief of Mary Rutherford; and
A bill for the relief of Warren Raymond.
On motion by Mr. ORR, it was

Ordered, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition and papers of J. Rutherford Wooster, and that the same be laid upon the table.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar.

Mr. HOUSTON. I desire to suggest, that if the House decline to go into a Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, we can resolve ourselves into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and dispose of the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill."

The question was then taken on Mr. GREENwood's motion; and it was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, (Mr. WALLEY in the chair.)

R. W. MEADE.

The CHAIRMAN. When the committee was last in session on the Private Calendar, bill No. 58, entitled "A bill for settling the claims of the legal representatives of Richard W. Meade, deceased," was informally passed over. The Chair supposes that it is to be now the first matter for consideration. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CHANDLER] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. THURSTON. I hope my friend from Pennsylvania will give way, as he did the other day, and let this bill go over till the next private bill day.

Mr. CHANDLER. If my friend from Rhode Island has a case that he wants to bring forward I will withhold my own bill for another day.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I prefer to take the Calendar as it comes, and dispose of the cases as we go.

Mr. HILLYER. The business first in order last Friday, when we were in committee on the Private Calendar, was a different bill from this. I hope the committee will take up the Calendar where they left off last Friday.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be true, if this were objection day; but as it is not, we are brought back to the commencement of the Calendar.

The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] objects to passing over informally the first bill, therefore it must be considered now. Debate is

closed on this bill by order of the House, but it is open for amendment under the five-minute rule. The gentleman who reported the bill is, under the rules of the House, entitled to speak for an hour in support of it.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I suppose that if the gentleman is not ready to go on with this bill now, his object can be attained by moving to lay it aside.

Mr. HIESTER. I hope the House will allow the bill of my colleague to go over. The gentle man complains that he is not well, and therefore does not like to take it up at this time. I trust the House will extend that courtesy to him.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I raise the question of order that the committee have no right to pass it over. There is a special rule which ap. plies to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, authorizing the committee to pass over one bill and take up the next bill, and to pass that over and take up the next, and so on until they reach one which they are ready to pass upon. But there is no such rule that applies to a Committee of the Whole House. I am willing that the bill should be reported to the House, with a recommendation that it do not pass.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the opinion of the Chair that the 135th rule applies exclusively to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and consequently there is no rule which permite it to be passed over, except by unanimous consent.

Mr. HIESTER. Will the gentleman from Tennessee object when my colleague tells him he is in ill health?

Mr. JONES. I want to dispose of the bill. Mr. CHANDLER. I believe the report in this case has never been read, and I desire to have it read now. It is an interesting document--although

|

I had the honor to draw it up myself-of seventyone and a half pages; and for the edification of the House, and of the gentlemen who are earnest in this case, I desire to have it read before I enter upon the remarks I wish to make. [Laughter.] I have prepared some remarks, and in order that the House may be enlightened upon the subject, they should first hear read the report. It is a report prepared from a basket full of dusky memorials brought from Spain, derived from different languages, and it cannot fail to edify the House. I therefore call for the reading of the report. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I want all the doc

uments read.

The Clerk commenced the reading of the report. Mr. HOWE, (interrupting.) I hardly think that my colleague is serious in desiring to have this report read; and I move that the further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. CHANDLER. You cannot dispense with it, and I want it read.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The majority can dispense with it.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the report. Mr. JONES, of Louisiana, (interrupting.) I would inquire of the Chair if it is in order to move to dispense with the reading of the report? If it is, I make that motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair holds that the report must be read, unless it is dispensed with by unanimous consent. If any gentleman insists upon having it read, it must be read.

Mr. SEWARD. I move that the bill be laid aside, and reported to the House.

Mr. CHANDLER. You cannot make that

The 135th rule was then read, as follows:

"In the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the bills shall be taken up and disposed of in their order on the Calendar; but when objection is made to the consideration of a bill, a majority of the committee shall decide without debate, whether it shall be taken up and disposed of, or laid on the table, provided that general appropriation bills, and in time of war, bills for raising men or money, and bills concerning a treaty of peace, shall be preferred to all other bills, at the discretion of the committee, and when demanded by any member, the question shall first be put in regard to them."

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. The rule proceedings in the Committee of the Whole on which has just been read is the one referring to the state of the Union. I now ask for the reading of the rule which applies to the proceedings in a Committee of the Whole House, and which directs that business shall be taken up in regular order as it stands on the Calendar, and that it cannot be set aside by a majority vote.

The CHAIRMAN. What rule does the gentleman refer to?

Mr. STANTON. I do not know that there is such a rule.

Mr. COBB. There is no such rule. The CHAIRMAN. The resolution closing debate is in these words:

Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the bill for settling the claims of the legal representatives of Richard W. Meade, deceased, shall cease at o'clock, on -(if the committee shall not sooner come to a conclusion upon the same;) and the committee shall then proceed to vote on such amendments as may be pending, or offered to the same, and shall then report it to the House, with such amendments as may have been agreed to by the committee.

The Clerk again resumed the reading of the report.

Mr. MILLSON. My impression is, that the report has already been read."

Mr. CHANDLER. It has never been read. Mr. MILLSON. My recollection is, that it was read some months ago.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that it has not been read at length at all. Some extracts, however, were read upon the occasion to which the gentleman refers. The Chair decides that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has a right to have the report read as a part of his speech, but not otherwise, except by the unanimous consent of the committee.

Mr. BRIDGES. I would suggest to my honorable colleague from Pennsylvania, that he have the letter of John Quincy Adams to Mr. Salmon read. It occupies only thirteen pages, and I would suggest that it may not be necessary to read the whole report. That comprises a pretty full statement of the case, and I think, if read alone, it will of itself settle the question that this is a most unjust claim, and never ought to be passed.

Mr. CHANDLER. I should be sorry to curtail the committee in the gratification which I know they will derive, and the instruction that will be afforded by the reading of the whole report. [Laughter.] I ask the Chair whether he considers the decision which he has made, that it is not in order to move to lay aside this bill, as definitive?

The CHAIRMAN. The debate has been closed upon the pending bill, by order of the House, and it is not in order to take up any other bill.

Mr. CHANDLER. And does the Chair de

cide that I have not the right to have the report

read?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that the gentleman has the right to have the report read as a part of his speech, and in no other way.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I ask that the 135th rule may be read, and then I shall appeal from the decision of the Chair ruling that it is not in order to move to lay aside the bill and take up another.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already stated that the 135th rule only applies to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STANTON. It then does not apply to this committee, and, therefore, there is no rule to prevent us from laying aside any bill.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The rule requires that the bills shall be taken up in their regular order.

The Chair knows of no way in which the comthe resolution of the House, under which the committee is acting.

Mr. STANTON. That order of the House relates to general debate. General debate has ceased. We do not propose to have any more debate. We desire to postpone one bill and to take up another.

The CHAIRMAN. What authority is there for the committee to postpone this bill?

Mr. STANTON. There is no rule forbidding it. The resolution does not forbid it.

Mr. WALSH. Inasmuch as this is the only possible opportunity by which the contents of this invaluable document can become known to a dozen persons, I hope the reading will go on without further interruption. [Laughter.]

Mr. FLORENCE. I submit a point of order. My colleague, under the rules, has the privilege of addressing the committee one hour. Instead of making a speech, he asks the reading of the committee's report, and I think he has the right to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already sustained that point of order.

Mr. STANTON. I take an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky moves to lay this bill aside. The Chair decides that the motion is not in order under the rules. From that decision the gentleman from Kentucky takes an appeal. The question now is, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?"

The question was taken, and the decision of the Chair was sustained.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that he is indisposed, and unable to proceed with his argument to-day. That being so, I withdraw my objection to the bill being passed over.

Mr. WALSH. I renew the objection. Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I move that the committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to the motion that the commit

tee do now rise?

Mr. CHANDLER. With pleasure.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I wish to make an inquiry before I vote. Do I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania to say that he is indisposed, and unable to proceed with his argument to-day?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEPHENS. I hope, then, by unanimous consent, the bill may be passed over for the present. If the gentleman is unable to proceed with his argument-