The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 139
xv, 408, 421 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
iM
iRith the Post Office Department for carrying the
mail.
Mr. BREESE, on leave, introduced a bill author-
izing persons to whom reservations of land have
been made under Indian treaties, to alienate the same
in fee; which was read twice, and referred to the
Committee on Public Lands.
- NAVAL PENSIONS.
The bill for the renewal of certain naval pensions
was read the third time, and passed.
THE GENERAL ORDERS.
The rfegular calendar was called, on which the
first bill in order was the Senate bill increasing the
pay of officers of revenue cutters while temporarily
employed in the naval service, the consideration of
which, as in committee of the whole, was resumed
from last week, the pending motion being Mr.
Dayton's, to strike out the second section, which
was retrospective in its provisions.
Mr. BAYARD recapitulated the history of this
bill as he explained it on a former day, when the
subject was before under discussion in the Senate.
In brief, it was, that the bill was founded on memo-
rials of officers of the revenue cutters employed dur-
ing the Florida war in the naval service, on account
of the lightness of draft and peculiar fitness for
coast duty of these vessels; and they co-operated
with the navy on "the coasts of Florida, Mexico,
Texas, the "West India Islands, and throughout the
Gulf during the years 1836 and '37. This transfer
of vessels under the control of the Treasury Depart-
ment, to the Navy Department, was under an old
law which authorizes the President, of the United
States to make this transfer whenever he shall think
an exigency shall arise to render it necessary. For
the last forty or fifty years that power had not been
acted upon till the peculiar character of the coast
service in the navy during the Florida war, in
the opinion of the then President, warranted its
exercise. Four revenue cutters for various pe-
riods during 1836 and 1837, were thus co-operating
in that service with the navy, having been trans-
ferred from the authority of the Treasury Depart-
ment to that of the Navy Department by order of
the President; and their officers were made subject
to the orders, regulations, and duties of the navy,
with which they complied to the satisfaction of the
department. While thus serving in the navy their
duties ere more onerous and their expenses much
greater than they had been in the revenue service.
Their application to Congress was for a email addi-
tional remuneration beyond their ordinary pay as
revenue officers for the time they were in the naval
service. The bill proposed an addition of $300 a
year during such extra service to captains of rev-
enue cutters who now receive $1,200, and so in
proportion to the other officers. At the same time
that the bill was framed for the relief of the actual
applicants, it was thought advisable by the com-
mittee which reported it to make it a general law;
its operation being retrospective by the second sec-
tion in relation to the memorialists, and prospect-
ive in its first section, and general in its future ope-
ration. To strike out the second section as now
proposed by the senator from New Jersey, would
be to defeat the purpose and main object of the
whole bill.
Mr. DAYTON felt no special interest in the re-
sult of his motion. He had never been captious
about any measure perfected and recommended by
a standing committee. But, in this case, the state-
ment of the chairman of the Naval Committee had
not altered his original opinion, which was alto-
gether hostile to this retrospective clause. He con-
curred in the views taken of this subject the other day
by the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden.]
These revenue officers accepted their appointments
subieet to the duties of their office, and with a full
knowledge of the limitation of pay for the perform-
ance of these duties. They were liable, under the
law of 1797, to the order of the President, should he,
at any time, see fit to transfer their services to the
navy This was one of the conditions of their office,
and they could not possibly have any equitable
claim to the additional pay they now claimed for
what was only a portion of their duty. He objected
to the indefinite and unlimited extent to which this
retrospective clause might apply. There was no
knowing what number of applicants it might encour-
age to prefer claims on the same principle, from the
foundation of the government to the present time, or
what amount of appropriations it might lead to.
Mr. BAYARD pointed out that it could not ex-
tend beyond the very cases of the memorialists, for
the term was fixed in the bill from 1835, and could
only apply to them. There were four revenue cut-
ters employed in the Florida war—the Jefferson,
Washington, Dexter, and Madison. Captain Jones
of the Washington had already been remunerated
by a special act in his favor. The reef of the offi-
cers, not possibly exceeding sixteen in number,
justly conceiving their cases as well entitled to con-
si4eration as his, memorialized Congress on the
subject, and this bill was intended for their relief.
Mr. WOODBURY recollected that , there was
some difficulty about their pay at the time they
were in the naval service, which at last
was adjusted by giving them the same pay
they received in the revenue service. On
principle, the views of the senators from New Jer-
sey and Kentucky were probably correct; but Con-
gress had, not only in the old law, now obsolete, but
in the case of Captain Jones, decided that in this
change of service there should be additional remu-
neration; and it seemed now to be impossible to de-
ny these applicants the same consideration awarded
to him. As to the objection to the retrospective ac-
tion of the second section, it was impossible to pass
any law for the relief of claimants not retrospective
in its action. But if the objection only lies against
its indefinite extension, that can be obviated by in-
serting the names of the claimants, instead of merely
mentioning the cutters. Its operation would then be
confined to the applicants.
Mr. CRITTENDEN reiterated his objections to
the whole bill on principle. These officers accepted
their appointments with all the conditions of the ser-
vice staring them in the face; and they had no right,
because of the infrequency with which a peculiar
duty was required of them, to claim extra pay for it
as for an extra service.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE contended that, in the reg-
ulation of pay for officers in the revenue service,
their ordinary every-day duties only were taken into
account; their liability to service in the navy being
necessarily overlooked on account of the infrequen-
cy of its occurrence. Whenever that change of ser-
vice was required, as it involved additional duties
and expense, it was only just and proper that suita-
ble remuneration should be made.
Mr. BUCHANAN had entertained the same
views expressed by the senator from Kentucky,
ever since this bill had come before the Senate. But
he feared it was in vain to attempt arresting this
species of legislation for increase of salaries. He
would not deduct one farthing from the compensation
of our military or naval officers, yet every one
knew they were paid double—almost treble the sal-
aries allowed officers of the same grade in other
countries. He was willing it should be so: our
officers deserve it, and let them be well paid. If
these revenue officers who co-operated with the navy
in the Florida war have claims for special extra
duty, let them come before Congress individually
on the merits of their claims, and they will have
justice rendered to them. He objected to this bill
establishing a generalizing~princip'le as a precedent
on the statute-book to be referred to for every future
claim of this nature. The gentlemen can present their
claims in some form of a private bill for individual
relief, rot obnoxious to the objection of establishing
a precedent. He fully concurred in what the sen-
ator from Kentucky had said as to the conditions
on which these revenue officers accepted their ap-
pointments They knew, or should have known, that
one of those conditions was that they should be r2ady
to co-operate with the navy when ordered to do so.
If they thought this duty too much for their pay,
they could have resigned; and he would venture to
say there would in one day be fifty, nay—he might
say one hundred, applicants ready to fill the vacan-
cies for the salaries allowed in the revenue service.
The question was then put on Mr. Diytos's mo-
tion to strike out the second section, and decided in
the negative.
The bill was reported back to the Senate, and the
amendments previously adopted were concurred in.
On the question of engrossment, Mr. BUCHAN-
AN called for the yeas and nays; which were order-
ed.
The question was then taken, and the Senate re-
fused to order the bill to be engrossed and read a
third time—yeas 17, nays 26, as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Choate, Evans
Foster of New York. Francis, Huntington, Johnson, Man-
gum, Merrick, Pearce, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Woodbridge
and Woodbury—17. '
NAYS—Messrs. Allen, Archer, Ashley, Atchison, Ather-
' ton, Bagby, Barrow, Benton, Breese,- Buchanaii, Clay ton,
Crittenden, Dayton, Dickinson, Fairfield, Foster of Ten.
nessee.Hannegan, Henderson, Hugar, Miller, Nilee, Sevier,
Simmons, Sturgeon, Tappan, and l/pham—26.
The next bill on the calendar was the Senate bill
for the relief of Asa Andrews, (involving the same
principle a3 the bill for the relief of Miles King, op-
posed by Mr. Haiwood on the ground of found-
ing a claim against the government on the verdict oT
a jury in one of the circuit courts of the 'United
States.)
The bill was considered as in committee of the
whole, and reported back without amendment; and,
on the question of engrossment, Mr. TAPPAN de-
manded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.
It was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time—yeas 24, nays 15, as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien,
Buchanan; Choate, Clayton, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans,
Francis, Huger, Huntington, Johnson, Mangum, Miller,
Pearce, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Simmons, Upham, and Wood-
bridge—24.
NAYS—Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bag*
by, Benton, Breese, Dickinson, Fairfield, Foster of New
York, Merrick, Niles, Sevier, Tappan, and Woodbury—15.
The next bill on the calendar was the Senate bill
for the adjustment of claims growing out of French
spoliations prior to 1§00.
On motion of Mr. CHOATE, (who gave notice
that he would call up the bill on Tuesday next,) ita
consideration was postponed.
On motion of Mr. BREESE, the previous orders
were postponed, and the private bill reported by the
Committee on Public Lands for the relief of Wil-
liam Elliott, of Fulton county, Illinois, was taken
up, considered, and ordered to be engrossed and
read a third time.
On motion of Mr. PEARCE, the previous orders
were postponed, and the Senate bill confirming and
assenting to an act of the legislature of Virginia, en-
titled "an act to amend an act incorporating the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal company," was taken
up,-considered, amended, and ordered to be en-
grossed and read a third time.
The Senate bill for the relief of Wm. Fisher was
next taken up, considered, s amended, and ordered to
be engrossed and read a third time.
The next bill in order—and which was called up
bp Mr. Tappan—was the House bill providing for
the election of electors of President on the'Same day
throughout the United States; but,
On motion of Mr. BERRIEN, the Senate pro-
ceeded to the consideration of executive business.
And soon after adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Wednesday, January 15, 1845.
Mr. NORRIS asked and obtained leave to pre-
sent resolutions of the legislature of New Hamp-
shire, on the subject of the tariff; which, on his mo-
tion, were committed to the Committee of Ways
and Means, and ordered to be printed.
CUMBERLAND ROAD.
Mr. C. B. SMITH asked leave to offer a resolu-
tion making the bill appropriating for the continua-
tion of the Cumberland road through the States of
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the special order for
Monday, 20th instant, and to continue so until dis-
posed of.
Objections being made in various quarters,
Mr. S. moved to suspended the rules for this pur-
pose, and on this motion, he called for the yeas and
nays; which were ordered.
The question was taken and decided in the neg-
ative—(two-thirds not voting therefor''—yeas 79
nays 53. / / >
So the rules were not suspended.
GEORGIA OI.AIMS.
Mr. CHAPPELL asked and obtained leave to
offer the following; which was agreed to:
Recalled, That the Secrataries of War and of the Treas-
ury report to this House the amount of the claim of the
State ot Georgia against this government,transmitted by the
executive of Geoigja, between the 1st of November, 1S37,
and the 1st of November 1843; and that the Secretary of the
Treasury report what amount of the appropriation of
Sjl'io.OOO for the payment of said claims has beenpaid to the
State of Georgia, and at what times the payments were
made.
5. And be it further resolved. That the Secretaries of War
and of the Treasury, and the Third Auditor of the Treasury,
transmit to this House all the correspondence between the
executive of Georgia, and their respective departments in
relation to said claims.
Mr. VANCE, on leave, reported, from the Com-
mittee of Claims,a bill for the relief of the president,
directors, and company of the Dismal Swamp Ca-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
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 Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/155/: accessed May 4, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.