Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress Page: 145
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Jan. 6, 1825.]
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
[Sen. & H of R.
been sold, and there was not sufficient to meet the
claims to which they were liable. The question was,
whether they would suffer these industrious individuals,
who had fulfilled their part of the contract made with
the Commissioner, to wait till the lots were sold, out of
the proceeds of which they were to be paid, or whether
they should be paid from another quarter. They were
bound in justice to compel the sacrifice of that pro-
perty, or provide for the settlement of the claims from
some other quarter. It might be said that they were
taking money from the public Treasury to pay for a
specific transaction; but there was now in the Treasury
from 10 to 20,000 dollars, which were paid in by a
former Superintendent of the city, and he wished that
this claim of $3,080 should be settled from that fund.
The bill was then ordered to be read a third time.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—same bat.
The House then proceeded to the unfinished business
of yesterday, which was the consideration of the amend-
ment proposed to the substitute of Mr. WRIGHT, by
Mr. STORRS, to the bill for the relief of the Niagara
suff erers, viz: to strike out the words [and that such
destruction (viz : of the property,) was the consequence
of such occupation, (viz: by the United States.)]
On this question, Mr. FORSYTH called for the Yeas
and Nays, which were ordered accordingly, and were
called, resulting- as follows :
YEAS.—Messrs. Adams, Bailey, Baylies, J. S. Bar-
bour, Hartley, Brecber, Brent, Brown, Cambreleng,
Campbell, of Ohio, Collins, Cook, CrowninshieId, Cul-
pept-r, O-iV, Dwinell, Dwig-ht, Eaton, Edwards, of Penn.
Findlay, Foote, of N. Y. Forward, Frost, Fuller, Garnett,
c,:tzlay, Gurley, Harvey, Hayden, Henry, Merrick, Her-
kimer, Hogeboom, Jenkins, J. T. Johnson, Kent, Law-
rence, Lincoln, Litchfield, McArthur, McKini, McLean,
of Ohio, Mallary, Martindale, Marvin, Morgan, Neale,
S'attersoti, of Ohio, Plumer of Penn., Richards, Rose,
Ross, Scott, Miarpe, Sloane, Arthur Smith, Sterling,
Storrs, Strong, Taliaferro, Taylor, Test, Tomlinson,
Tracy, Vance, of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck,
Vinton, Webster, Whittlesey, Williams, of N. Y., James
Wilson, Wilson, of Ohio, Wood, Woods—75.
NAYS.—Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, of Va., Allison,
Archer, Barber, of Con., P. P. Barbour, Bassett, Blair,
Bri-ck, Buchanan, Buck, Buckner, Carter, Carey, Con-
dict, Conner, Crafts, Eddy, Foot, of Con., Forsyth, Gar-
rison, Gatlin, Hamilton, Harris, Hooks, Houston, Ingham,
Isacks, Johnson, of Va., Kidder, Lathrop, Leftwich,
Letcher, Little, Livermore, Long, Longfellow, McCoy,
McKean, Mangum, Mercer, Metcalfe, Mitchell, of
Pa., Moore, of Ky., Moore, of Alab., Nelson, Newton
O'Brien, Patterson, of Penn., Plumer, ofN. H., Poinsett,
Saunders, Sanford, Sibley, Wm. Smith, Standefer, A.
Stevenson, Stewart, Stoddard, Thompson, of Pewn.,
Thompson of Geo., Trimble, Tucker, of S. C., Udree,
Wayne, Whitman, Williams of Va. Williams of N. C.,
Henry Wilson, Wilson of S. Wright—71.
So the amendment of Mr. STORKS was adopted.
Mr. LITTLE moved farther to amend the substitue
of Mr. WRIGHT, by inserting' the words, "or immedi-
ately preceding,"—so as to require proof that the pro-
perty was occupied by the United States at, or
diaiety preceding, the time of its destruction.
This motion was decided in the negative.
Mr. COOK, ot Illinois, then moved to amend the bill
by adding, at the end of the substitute, the following
"And provided, also, That no payment shall be made
under the provisions of this act, where the property de-
stroyed was occupied under a contract with the owner
ami at the wish of such owner."
The amendment was in part objected to by Mr.
LIVERMORE, but, having been explained by the mover,
To remove the objection as to the difficulty of prov-
ing that the destruction was the consequence of the oc-
cupation of property, Mr ISACKS moved an amend-
ment, which forbade the Auditor to require "direct-
proof" of that fact where a strong presumption should
This amendment was negatived.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, then proposed
to add the following section to the bill:
"And be it further enacted, That the amount which
shall appear to have been paid to the owners, as rent,
for the use or occupation of the property, shall be de-
ducted from the account directed to be paid to thera
under this act."
This amendment was opposed by Mr. DWIGHT, as
being precluded by that of Mr. COOK, and by Mr.
MARVIN, as being unjust in its principle ; but it was
Mr. TEST, of Indiana, then moved an amendment, as
a substitute for that of Mr. LITTLE, which went to re-
quire that the premises should have been occupied
within two days of the time of its destruction.
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. FORSYTH again moved the amendment he of-
fered yesterday in committee of the whole, adding a
provision to make compensation for slaves lost while
employed by impressment as boatmen, wagoners, &e.
but it was negatived by a decided majority, only 48
members rising in its favor.
Mr. FORSYTH then offered a motion, making a pro.
vision (the amount being in blank) to compensate the
extra services of the Third Auditor, required by the bill,
which amendment he advocated at considerable length.
The amendment was opposed by Messrs. COCKE and
LIVERMORE, and lost.
Mr. STORKS offered the following amendment, (in
" And be it further enacted, That, in case the whole
amount of claims presented and allowed under this act,
shall exceed the sum of dolla'-s, then,and in that
case, the claimants shall, respectively, receive only
their rateable proportion of the sum of dollars, to
be liquidated by the said Auditor in the adjustment of the
amount to be received by such claimants respectively."
The amendment was carried ; and, on filling the
blank, a motion for §500,000, and another for $300,000,
having been rejected, the blank was filled with 250,000.
—Ayes 98, Noes 68.
Mr. LITTLE then moved to strike out that clause of
the bill which confines its provisions to such claims as
have already been exhibited, previous to the 10th April,
1818, before the Commissioner, and not acted upon,
and to extend it to all which may hereafter be exhibited
Mr. TRACY explained the reasons which had induced
the committee to insert this feature in the bill.
Mr. FORSYTH and Mr. McDUFFIE opposed the
amendment at considerable length, and it was lost.
The question being then on ordering the bill, as
amended, to be engrossed for a third reading,
Mr. FORSYTH rose in opposition. He said he had
been a member of the House at every session at which
the subject ot these claims had come before it, and he
might claim to be thoroughly acquainted with the his-
tory of the cases. He had opposed the original act on the
subject, in 1816, nor had he seen reason since to repent
his vote on that occasion. On the contrary, experience
had but confirmed the views he then entertained, and
satisfied him still more with the course he had pursued.
It was now proposed not to carry the act of 1816 into
effect, but to carry still further the provisions of that act,
and embrace a class of cases for which it never intended
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress, book, 1825; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30752/m1/77/: accessed March 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.