Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

peace; for

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Some of the money has to be refunded in two call for the reading of the report made by Mr. troubles in Mexico preceding the Mexican war cases where the condemnation by the district Foster, which is a very able and thorough one, of 1846-47 he chose to enlist his fortunes on court has not been sustained. T'he sale took reviewing the whole case on its merits. This the side of Santa Anna and his faction. The place, but the condemnation is not sustained | amendatory act simply provides for using cer Government in possession of the country exin two cases in the Supreme Court, and there tain evidence before the Court of Claims. The pelled Santa Anna and bis adherents for resisthas to be a restitution. The residue of the case has not yet been tried before the Court of ance to law, as they claimed, and as in point money, will be paid to the captors under the Claims; and on examination it is ascertained of fact it was. They were the Government de provisions of this bill.

that a large number of the witnesses have died | facto. They expelled them as belligerents, The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered since their testimony was taken before the insurrectionists, disturbers of the to be engrossed for a third reading, read the Mexican commission.

what we should call, if we were not a little tender third time, and passed.

Mr. POMEROY. I want to ask what the now-a-days, treason. This gentleman, undoubtclaim consists of. What is the claim?

edly, in the course of that expulsion suffered
ALEXANDER J. ATOCHA.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Atocha was a citizen || injury. Most people wlio fail in treasonable
Mr. STEWART. I move that the Senate of the United States, and the Mexican Govern. attempts do. He was expelled.
proceed to the consideration of Senate bill ment expelled him from that country, whereby Then came on the Mexican war with the
No. 488.

he lost his property, and in making the treaty United States, which resulted in a victory to Mr. HOWE. I really thought the Commit of Guadalupe Hidalgo the Government of the our arms, as I hope all other wars will. In tee on Claims was going to have some chance United States provided that they would reserve the treaty of peace we received a certain strip this evening.

$3,250,000 for the payment of claims that of Mexican territory, and agreed to pay to Mr. STEWART. This bill will take but a American citizens had against Mexico. Mexico a certain sum of money that we did minute or two. It is a private bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will the Senator from pay. We also agreed that we would indemnify The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. Nevada be good enough to read that clause of Mexico against the just claims of citizens of No. 488) to amend an act entitled " An act for the treaty ?

the United States existing prior to the conclu. the relief of Alexander J. Atocha," approved Mr. SI'EWART. I do not understand that sion of this treaty of peace, with a proviso that February 14, 1865, was read the second time, the United States agreed to indemnify beyond in no event should the amount we should be and cousidered as in Committee of the Whole. a certain amount.

obliged to pay to the citizens of the United It authorizes Alexander J. Atocha, in the pros

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator will allow States exceed a certain sum-seven or eight or ecution of his claim referred to the Court of me to say this: the Committee on the Judiciary nine or ten millions; I do not remember the Claims by the act of February 14, 1865, to use did not go back to the merits of that. The amount. The treaty also provided that in such portions of the evidence taken in pursu committee simply stood upon the law of 1865, order to ascertain what citizens of the United ance of the rules and regulations of the com which said Mr. Atocha might prosecute his States had these just claims against Mexico mission established under the fifteenth section of case in the Court of Claims. Now, in support which we had thus assumed a commission the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and laid of that case, the committee say that he may use should be formed, a special tribunal, 10 hear, before the commission as consists: first, of the evidence which has accumulated before try, and determine upon the merits of these the evidence of persons since deceased ; sec the commission.

respective claims. That commission was ond, of the evidence of persons whose testi Mr. EDMUNDS. Is that any reason for formed. Notice was given and the claimants mony cannot with due diligence be obtained; not reading the treaty? (Laughter.]

appeared. Among others appeared this gen: and also the official letters of the authorities of Mr. STEWART. The United States, to the tleman with his claim. Mexico on the subject of this cleim. And such extent of $3,250,000, agreed to indemnify those Mr. POMEROY. What do I understand evidence is to be received by the court, and of its citizens who had been injured by Mexico, the Senator to say bis name is ? the court is to give it such weight as in their driven out of that country.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Atocha. This same genjudgment under all the circumstances it ought Mr. POMEROY. How does the account tleman. to have.

stand now? Is there any of that money left? Mr. POMEROY. He is no American, Mr. STEWART. If any explanation is Mr. STEWART. Yes; there is a balance judging from his name. desired I can give it.

remaining. The law provides that the amount Mr. EDMUNDS. He claims to be a natural. The bill was reported to the Senate without allowed in the settlement of this claim shall ized American. This gentleman appeared with amendment.

not exceed the amount that was thus provided, his claim. The commission decided, upon the Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to have the the amount of the guarantee in that treaty. evidence that he presented, that he was not Senator from Nevada tell us what this case is, This matter was thoroughly investigated at the one of the persons ein braced within the provision and upon what principles of law or justice it time of the passage of the bill in 1865. The of the treaty or entitled to share in this guar proceeds. I remember the investigation that additional relief now proposed is only to enable || anty payment that the United States had was had about it in the Judiciary Committee, ibe case to be tried at all. Several of the wit assumed on account of the facts and the cir. and in which it was my misfortune to differ in nesses have since died; some of them are be cumstances under which he rested in the course opinion from the Senator from Nevada, and, 1 yond the jurisdiction of the court; and the of his operations in Mexico. They therefore believe, from the majority of the committee, as evidence proposed to be used was taken in declined to go into an investigation of the to the propriety of entering upon this species pursuance of the rules and regulations of the detail, the quantum, or the intrinsic merit of of legislation, to declare that evidence which Department providing for the commission. his claim, because they decided against him is not legal evidence shall be used in trying to The evidence was taken with great particular upon this preliminary and jurisdictional fact; assert a very old claim growing out of the || ity.

and so he went his ways. Mexican war, that has been passed upon fre. Mr. EDMUNDS. How much is claimed? Heafterward appealed to Congress, his claim quently by the Senate, or once at least, and Mr. STEWART. The law provides that being, as my friend from Nevada properly states, adversely again by the Court of Claims; and the amount allowed shall not exceed a certain to come out of the balance of the $3,250,000 I should be glad to have the Senator from

that is left unexpended of this guarantee that Nevada tell us a little about the bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How much is claimed by Mr. STEWART. I do not wish to occupy

we gave. He appealed to Congress. Congress the claimant?

sent him to the Court of Claims. The Court much time; but the Senate will understand Mr. STEWART. I do not know. I did of Claims, upon a hearing of his case, decided this case in a few moments. This bill proposes not investigate that. I do not know anything it against him upon the ground that the decisto amend an act passed February 14, 1865. about the amount of the claim. I understand ion of this tribunal, to whom the matter was In order that Senators may understand what it is much larger than the amount that can pos committed, was conclusive, and therefore the that act is, as it is very short I will read it : sibly be paid.

Court of Claims declined again to enter into "That the Court of Claims be, and the said court Mr. EDMUNDS. Precisely; you are right the detailed merits in the abstract. is hereby, directed to examine into the claims of about that.

Mr. STEWART. Oh, no; the Court of Alexander J. Atocha against the Government of Mr. STEWART. But I do not propose to Mexico for losses sustained by him by reason of his

Claims has never decided against it. expulsion from that republic in 1815; and if they

interfere with that. Congress has already Mr. EDMUNDS. Bring on the decision and shall be of opinion that the said claim was a just one passed on that question. The only question | let us see whether it has or not. The decision against Mexico, when the treaty of 1818 was ratified,

now is whether the testimony of witnesses and was embraced by said treaty, they shall then fix

of the Court of Claims was read in committee and determine the amount of the same, and that

since deceased and those who cannot be pro when we were considering the case. the loss or damage so sustained being adjudicated cured shall be used to carry out the objects of Mr. STEWART.

You are speaking of and determined by said court, the same shall be paid

the act of 1865. to the said Alexander J. Atocha out of any money

another case, the Chorpenning case. in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Pro

Mr, EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I feel it Mr. EDMUNDS. Not at all. I remem: vided, however, 'That the amount so to be paid shall in to be my duty, as one of the minority of the ber the matter distinctly, unless I am much by the fifteenth article of the treaty of Guadalupo | Judiciary Committee, although I believe there mistaken, in which the Court of Claims deHidalgo for the payment of claims of citizens of the is a lady or two in the case, and I trust the clined United States against the Government of Mexico, Senator from West Virginia will therefore sym. Mr. STEWART. Oh, no; you are entirely wbieh still remains unapplied to that object." pathize with me

mistaken. This act was passed after a very careful con Mr. WILLEY. I have no sympathy with Mr. EDMUNDS.

We can settle that ques. sideration and a report by Mr. Foster, which you now-done at all. [Laughter.)

tion of fact to-morrow when I get the report, explains the whole case. I will not go into Mr. EDMUNDS. To state what this case

in which the Court of Claims declined to the merits of that case, or review the action is. This gentleman, Mr. Atocha, I believe, was entertain his case upon the ground that it had of the Senate in passing this act in 1865. If that should become necessary I shall have to cast his lot in Mexico. During the internal || fore, that he was injured by the Court of Claims

already been determined, and he claimed, there.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

sum.

it so

pot reacbing its merits. Then he applied to claimant's witnesses have died, there is a fair it. Your committee consider the claim to have subCongress again; and, as my friend from Nevada || presumption that some of those witnesses whose

stantial merits, and they adopt as their own, with

slight alterations, the report of a former committee states, the then Senator from Connecticut, Mr. testimony would countervail that of the claim

of this body. Foster, reported a bill which directed the Court | ant are dead, too. Others, it is said, are absent. The memorialist was a citizen of the United States of Claims to proceed to consider the case upon So may be some of the witnesses on the other residing in Mexico. On the 2 th of February, 1845,

he received from that vovernment an order "to leave its merits, to retry that which the commission side.

the city of Mexico witbin the period of eight days bad once tried, waiving this question of juris Now, it is proposed to supply witnesses to this for Vera Crux, in order to depart from the republic." diction for the time being, or rather waiving || claimant in order to aid bim take $3,250,000

It appears that the memorialist at the time pro

tested, tbrough Mr. Shannon, the Anierican ministhis estoppel from the previous decision, and out of the Treasury, and that upon proof which ter, against this order as a violation

of the treaty of to retry it upon its merits; to again consider the bill says may have been filed with this com April 5, 18.1, between the United states and Mexico, the question as to his relations to the reigning mission. What is the nature of that proof? || hold it responsible for the losses he might sustain by

and notifying the latter Governinent that he would powers in Mexico; and if it turned out that he || Who are the witnesses ? Who knows their reason thereof. was one of the persons embraced within the character and credibility now? Who attended Forced by this order to retire from the Mexican provisions of the treaty upon this retrial to to their cross-examination? Who produced territory within the period of eight days, the mentoproceed to administer to him that equity which them before the commission in order that they

rialist alleges that hosustained great pecuniary loss ;

and that he filed his claim specifying such loss, with the merits of his case might entitle him to, not might be cross-examined and reëxamined in the vouchers sustaining the same, before the board exceeding the balance of the $3,250,000. I the furtherance of truth? We know not; we are

of commissioners appointed under the treaty of am not mistaken about the fact, I venture to in the dark about all that. It does seem to me,

Guadalupe Hidalgo, which he alleges was unjustis

rejected by that board, and he therefore petitions assert with a good deal of confidence.

Mr. President, that when this is a question of Congress for redress. Mr. JOHNSON. I think it is Meade's case. $3,250,000 in these times it is worth while to be a Believing that it would be dangerous to go bebind Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir; it is not Meade's little careful how we go out of the ordinary and

the decision of the commissioners, unless it should

appear that they had erred in the law applied to the case. [To Mr. STEWART.] Have you got Mr. universal rules of evidence and undertake to case, your committee have examined with care tho Foster's report?

supply the absence of proof to a claimant upon grounds assigned for an adverse decision in this case, Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. the ground that we had before provided that

and are satistied that the commissioners crred in the

law upon which they predicated their decision. Mr. EDMUNDS. Let me see it, if you please. he might go to the Court of Claims, and there The commissioners assume, in their opinion, that [After an examination of the report.] It does fore upon the ground, as bis abettors say, that the loss of the memorialist, by reason of his expul

sion from Mexico, is established by the proofs filed not appear from this report whether the case we had agreed to furnish him with all the evi

by him, and decide against tho validity of his claim has been submitted to the Court of Claims or dence that would enable him to carry his case exclusively upon the assumption that the order of pot; but this does appear: through. That does not follow.

expulsion was legal and proper, because, as they Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, I regret

assume, of the complicits of the memorialist with After the board of commissioners had closed their

Santa Anna in his resistance to the Government de labors, inany citizens of the United States whose

that the Senator from Vermont should fiud it || facto in their efforts to depose him as the president claims had been rejected petitioned Congress to re necessary in opposing this bill to ma these of the republic. view the decision of that board, and the Senate of

The commissioners assume that the connection of wild statements, to tell the Senate that there the United States appointed a special committee to

the memorialist with the political movements of Santa sit during the recess of Congress, with the power to are $3,250,000 involved in it.

Anna is established-first, by the fact that he resend for persons and papers, and with instructions to Mr. EDMUNDS. That is what you read. mained there with Santa Anna until he was forced examine each case and report such as, in their judg

to abandon the Government and leave the Mexican

Mr. STEWART. Three and a quarter milment, were entitled to relief.

territory; and secondly, because Mr. Shannon, the "That committee, in discharge of the duty assigned lions involved in it!

Ainerican minister, did not reply to a communicathem, did investigate every claim which had been Mr. EDMUNDS. You say that is the sum tion of the secretary for foreign affairs of Mexico, in presented to the Senate for relief, and in every case, left.

which that otficer, in acknowledging the receipt of except this of Mr. Atocha, reported definitively. In

the protest of the memorialist against the order of biscase no report was made because of an equal divis

Mr. STEWART. No; I do not say anything | expulsion, says that Mr. Atocha - was one of the ion of that comunittee upon his title to relief, so that of the kind.

principal agents who wrought against the Governthis is tho only case which bas not received the supervision ot' the Senate, and it therefore appears to your

Mr. EDMUNDS. I understood you to read

mert, as is notorious, and as his excellency, Mr. Suan

non himself, well knows." committee that for this reason, also, the memorialist

The error of the first of these assumptions of fact is entitled to have his claim now investigated and Mr. STEWART. I read the act of 1865,

by the commissioners is now established by the ceraflàrmatively decided upon by the Goveroment."

tificate of the officer having charge of the archives the proviso to which is :

of the Mexican Government, which states tbat Mr. This report does not show; but as I said “ Provided, however, That the amount so to be

Atocha does not appear to bave had any connection before, I shall turn out, in my own estimation, paid shall not exceed the balance of the $3,250,000

with the movements of Santa Anna: and by the letto be very much mistaken if I cannot produce provided by the fifteenth article of the treaty,' &c.

ter of

Santa Anna himself, who, on the part of Mex

ico, made the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, stating tomorrow, or whenever this claim comes up I understand there is only about two bun einphatically that Mr. Atocha never had any politagain, if it is not disposed of now, a decision dred thousand dollars, or a little less, left.

ical connection with him, and that he remained with

hiin by bis invitation, because "in those times of of the Court of Claims on this question in which Three million two hundred and fifty thousand disorder and insubordination, he could not separate they have decided what I need not repeat. But dollars was the whole amount. This claim himself from him without imminent risk." it is immaterial to my present purpose to con: never has been passed upon by the Court of

The error of the second assumption of fact by tho

commissioners is established by the letter of our sider whether that is correct or not, because if Claims. I have investigated this claim and minister, Mr. Shannon, in which he expresses the the Court of Claims decided upon it, it was know something about it. There is no such conviction that the memorialist was not in any manmerely upon the ground that the case having sum as $3,250,000 involved in it. The Con ner connected with the political movements of Santa

Anna, and that he did not reply to the communicaonce been decided by the commission they did gress of the United States gave this matter a tion of the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, not not feel authorized to reopen it.

very thorough consideration three years ago, because he knew the correctness of his charge against When the act passed upon which my friend and after the speech of the Senator from Ver.

Mr. Atocha, but because the memorialist had left the

country before the receipt of that communication, &c. résts this case it was supposed by Congress, mont I do not know but it might be well to But, for the purpose of the argument, assume, conI take it, that they had passed all the relief to have the former report read. I call for the trary to the fact, that the commissioners were right which the claimant was entitled ; that is to say,

in saying that Mr. Atocha was connected with the reading of the report that was made by Mr.

political movements of Santa Anna, will it follow that they permitted him upon the same principle || Foster, as this is really an important

matter. the Government of Mexico was authorized to issue that they permit other suitors against the Gov. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report the order of expulsion against Atocha? The solution ernment to appeal to the Court of Claims, and will be read.

of this question will

depend upon

the construction

of the treaty of 1831 between the United States and try his case upon the same rules of law, upon Mr. STEWART. After that is read I shall Mexico. the same rules of evidence as to wbat should have some other testimony to present. I think The twenty-sixth article of that treaty was intended be admissible and what not, that other claim I am abundantly able to show that this is a

to provide for the protection of the citizens of the

two nations in the event of war between them, and ants against the Government are required to very meritorious case. Mr. Atocha is now the stipulation is: “That if war should break out conform to. Now, it turns out, two years or old and poor and helpless.

between the two contracting parties there should be three, whatever the length of time may be, after Mr. EDMUNDS. What has that to do with

allowed the term of six months to the merchants

residing on the coast, and one year to those residing this case has been sent to the Court of Claims, this case ?

in the interior of the States and Territories of cach that the claimant comes back here for further Mr. STEWART. The fact that he has been other, respectively, to arrange their business, dispose and additional legislation which is not implied

of their effects, or transport them wheresoever they hardly treated by the Government of the United

may please, giving them a safe conduct to protect in, or which does not follow as a consequence States has something to do with this case. them to the port they may designate. Those citizens from that which the Senate did three years ago. Mr. EDMUNDS. The fact that he is help- who may be established in the States and territories

aforesaid, exercising any other occupation or trado, They only decided then that he had a sufficient less, if he is, does not help it.

shall be permitted to remain in the uninterrupted case to entitle him upon the ordinary principles Mr. STEWART. I call for the reading of enjoyment of their liberty aud property so long as of proof, to try his cause in the ordinary way the report:

they conduct themselves peaceably, and do not comin the Court of Claims. Now he asks us to The Chief Clerk read the following report effects, of whatever

class and condition thoy may be,

mit any offense against the laws; and their goods and provide that the Court of Claims shall decide submitted by Mr. Foster on the 19th of May, shall not be subject to any embargo or sequestration it upon a new and different principle of evi. 1864, from the Committee on Foreign Rela whatever, nor to any charge nor tax other than may dence, upon different proofs from those which tions :

be established upon similar goods and etfects belong

ing to the citizens of the State in wbich they reside, other claimants are obliged to produce; and The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was respectively; nor shall the debts between individwhat is the fact upon which he claims that equity referred the inemorial of Alexander J. Atocha, pray uals, por moneys in the public funds, or in pubiic or over and above everybody else? He says some

ing that his claims avainst Mexico, disallowed by the private banks, nor shares in companies beconfiscated, of bis witnesses are dead.

commissioners under the treaty of Guadalupe Hi- l embargoed, or detained.” That is a mistor

dalgo, may be investigated, and, if found just, paid During the late war with Mexico many citizens of tune of the claimant. Who knows but what || by the United States, have considered the subject, the United States, who were residing as merchants some of the witnesses on the other side are and now report:

in the territory of that republic

at the time war was dead? The course of nature, I take it, operates

That said claim has been pending before this body declared to exist between the two countries, were

for some ten years past, and has always been regarded summarily expelled in disregard of this stipulation upon all witnesses alike; and if some of the with favor by the committees who have aoted upon of the treaty of 1831, and most of thoclaims presented

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

upon it.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

to and allowed by the board of commissioners, ap Mr. HOWE. I appeal to the Senator to Mr. NYE. I do not so understand, pointed under the treaty of 1848, were for damages allow this case to go over.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire by my amend. consequent upon such violation of the treaty of 1831. The fourieentli article of the trenty of 1831 was

Mr. STEWARI. Let us hear something | ment to relax them only in cases of witnesses who designed to secure to the citizens of the two ropab about the case first.

are now dead and who caunot be called, and in lies, respectively, protection to their persons and Mr. CON KLING. Let us adjourn.

case of official documents having sanction by property in time of peace; and, after stipulating for such protection, thoiwo Governments contract and

Mr. STEWART. I will not give way to an having been before that commission; but I agree **that the citizens of cither party shall enjoy, adjournment until those letters are read. I ask think it is a shocking proposition to allow 8 in every respect, the same rights and privileges, to have them read as a part of my speech. either in prosecuting or defending their rights of

party to read papers informally taken before person or of property, as the citizens of the country Mr. HOWE. I really supposed that this a consul or before any other authority where where tbe cause of action may be tried.”

evening session was voted for the purpose of the witnesses are now living. At the date of the order of expulsion of Mr. Atocha, Mexico and the United States were at peace with

passing upon some claims from the Committee The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The queseach other, and it necessarily follows, in the opinion on Claims, and my table is covered with them ; tion is on the amendment of the Senator from of your committee, that for any offense with which cases which will lead to no debate and afford Penosylvania he may have been charged, Mr. Atocha was entitled, under this article of the treaty, to be tried, and to

a great deal of relief; but this case will evi Mr. BUCKALEW, I want to strike out the have afforded to him all the means of a fair trial dently occupy the evening, and not be settled second clanse, and ending before the reference which are provided for in that article.

then. I wish the Senator would allow it to go to the public documents. It seeins to your comunittee to be also very clear

over. that the Mexican Governinent, under this treaty

Mr. STEWART. I should like to have it stipulation, possessed no other or greater power to

Mr. STEWART. Let us have a few min

reported, so that I can'understand what the punish a citizen of the United States domiciled within utes longer. Let us have those letters read.

amendment is. her territory than she possessed to punish one of her I ask Senators to listen to them. own citizens for a similar offense; and they are

The CHEF CLERK. It is proposed to amend advised that the Mexican Government did not pos

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The paper

the bill by striking ont the word "first" in sess, under the constitution and laws of that republic. will be read if there be no objection. the power to expel a Mexican citizen without trial

line nine, and also by striking out in lines tep for any offense. Indeed, the minister for foreign

The Cuer CLERK. This paper is headed :

and eleven the words “second, of the eviaffairs who issued the order of expulsion against Mr. * Connection of Mr. A.J. Atocha with the treaty of dence of persons whose testimony cannot, with Atocha, in response to the letter of the American Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which California and New minister which had inclosed the protest of Mr. Atocha Mexico were acquired. Letters of Ilon. Thomas l.

due diligence, be obtained ;" so that the bill against the legality of the order, and his notice of Benton, James Buchanan, and Robert J. Walker" will read : intention to claim damages for the losses which it

Several SEYATORS. We do not want those That Alexander J. Atocha shall be, and is beroby, Would occasion him, says, "that liis Government is authorized by the laws and constitution of the republetters read,

authorized, in the prosecution of bis claim roferred lic to expel from its limits non-naturalized foreigners Mr. STEWART.

to the Court of Claims by the net to which this is an If we can have a vote on

amendment, to use such portions of the evidence perpicious to the country.".

the bill I do not wish to debate it further.

any For the reasons assigned, your committee are of

taken in pursuance of the rules and regulations of opinion that the expulsion of Mr. Atocha from the

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have something to say

the commission established under the fifteenth see Mexican territory was a violation of the stipulations

tion of the treaty of Guadalupe Ilidalgo and loid

before said commission as consists of the evidence of of the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1831, and Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to propose an persons since deceased, and also the official letters consequently that he should have been awarded by the board of the commissioners organized under the amendment. I move to strike out the second

of the authorities of Mexico on the subject of this

claim, &c. treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo such damages as he division. I ask the Clerk to read it. could show were sustained by him in consequence The CucF CLERK. It is proposed to strike

The amendment was agreed to. of that expulsion.

Your committee are advised that of the $250,000 out all of the bill after the word “ deceased," Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amend further stipulated by the fifteenth article of the treaty of in line ten, in the following words :

by inserting after the word “ Mexico," in the Guadalupe Hidalgo to be appropriated to the pay. ment of claims of citizens of the United States against

Second. Of the evidence of persons whose testimony twelfth line, the words " wbich shall bave been

cannot with due diligence be obtainerl, and also the Mexico, the sum of about a quarter of a million dolofficial letters of the authorities of Moxico on the

obtained pursuant to the said treaty and the lars still remains in the Treasury, and consequently

subject of this claim. And such evidenco sball be rules and regulations of said commission;" so to that extent the fund set apart for that purpose

received by the court, and the court shall give it such still exists to indemnify Mr. Atocba, if he can estab

that it will read: weight as in their judgment, under all the circumlish his claim by satisfactory proof. stances, it ought to have.

And also the official letters of the authorities of Your committee have not deemed it their duty to

Mexico which shall have been obtained pursuant to investigate the quantum of indemnity to which Mr. Mr. BUCKALEW. What I desire is to so

the said treaty and the rules and regulations of snid Aloeba may be entitled. And it being conceded tbat

amend the bill as to permit the use of this evi commission on the subject of this claim. he was and is a civizen of the United States, they have confined themselves to the inquiry whetber

dence where the witnesses are dead, and in the The treaty provides that application may be his claim was intended to be provided for by the next place to permit the official documents made to the Mexican Government for these treaty of Guadalupe Eidalgo, and the aflirmative of

before that commission to be used; but as to this question is, in their opinion, clearly demon

official documents first. Then comes a proviso: strated by the papers and proofs in the case.

living witnesses I would not break down the Among the papers filed by Mr. Atocha your com rules of evidence, and in this case I think there

"Proviled. That no such application shall be made

by or at the instance of any claimant unless the facts mittee find the instructions of Santa Ana, then the

is a particular reason. I do not know how the president of the republic of Mexico, to the minister

which it is expected to prove by such books, records, of his Government, charged with the negotiation of fact may be, but I suspect that those papers

or documents shall have been stated under oath or

affirmation." the treaty, directing him to have the name of Mr. were ex parte ; they were mere affidavits not Atocha inserted in the treaty as one whose claim was taken with cross-examination ; no representa The object of that was, as the Senate will at to be paid under its provisions, and they find other

tive of the Government of the United States or and repeated recognitions of its justico as against

once perceive, to enable the commission and Mexico, from the obligations of which that Govern of the Government of Mexico being there.

the authorities of the United States who had ment claims to be released, solely because of the Mr. STEWART. Yes, they were. They got to pay this money to know the class of release by the United States, in that treaty, of all claims of its citizens against Mexico. We find that were taken under the rules which I hold in my documentary evidence that was to be obtained, Mr. Almonte, the accredited minister of that repub hand, which requires the American cousul to

so that they could send outand get correspondlic to this Government, was instructed to see that act for the United States, and they were to be

ing documentary evidence which might rebut this ciaim, "the most just of any which bad been presented," should be paid from the fund which taken before him, and he was to require evidence it, or explain it, and so have notice of the Mexico had provided by the sale of a part of her of the character and standing of the parties.

nature of the evidence that was to be obtained. territory for the liquidation of claims of citizens of They were taken in pursuance of the rules of

Now, then, if this man has obtained any offithe United States against her. With the presentation of another view of this sub the Department.

cial letters from Santa Anna, who wade this ject, your comunittee will close this report.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I do not know how that

very treaty, you understand, and was his friend After the board of cominissioners had closed their

fact may be. They may have been taken before labors, inany citizens of the United States whose

-he was expelled with Santa Anna-which claims had been rejected petitioned Congress to re

the American consul, and yet there may have were not obtained upon notice such as the view the decision of that board, and the Senate of been no cross-examination, no legal examina treaty provided, he ought not to be permitted the United States appointed a special committee to

tion of witnesses; but, at all events, in a claim sit during the recess of Congress, with the power to

to use them; but if he wants them now he send for persons and papers, and with instructions of such magnitude as this I think we ought to

should give notice in some way, so that the to examine each case and report such as, in their require the claimant, where witnesses are not solicitor of the United States could send out judgment, were entitled to relief.

living, to examine them as all other parties in That committee, in discharge of the duty assigned

and see that a full copy was obtained, and them, did investigate every claim which had been courts of justice are required to examine wit copies of any other documents which would presented to the Senate for relief, and in every case, nesses, whether in our own or foreign countries. throw light on it. I am sure my friend from exoept this of Mr. Atocha, reported definitively. In

Mr. NYE. I should like to ask the Senator his case no report was made because of an equal divis

Nevada will not object to that. ion of that comunittes upon his title to relief, so that from Pennsylvania whether, after all, when this Mr. STEWART, I do not know about that. this is the only case which has not received the super evidence is submitted, the court is not the

Mr. JOHNSON. Let it go. vision of the Senate, and it therefore appears to your committee that for this reason, also, the memorialist proper judge of its proper weight? I do not

The amendment was agreed to. is entitled to have his claim now investigated, and understand this will as authorizing it to be eviaffirmatively decided upon by the Government. dence.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, I wish to say & Your committee, in accordance with these views,

word or two more on the subject of the merits have prepared, and submit herewith, a bill for the

Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly it does. relief of the memorialist, which directs that his claim Mr. BUCKALEW. If you remove all the

of this case. I want to ask Senators to reflect shall be investigated by the Court of Claims, and pro rules of evidence and allow the court to admit tbat if what is contained in this present bill

for a moment upon this, whether they believe viding for the payment of such amount as shall be found due bim, proviųed that the amount so paid

the parties to go before them and make their own had been attached to the bill that was reported shall not exceed the balance of the fund provided statements, they might judge what they were by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which remains worth.

in 1865 it would have passed then. It apunapplied to the objects of that treaty.

Mr. NYE. Not at all. I understand the

peared that previous committees of the Senate Mr. STEWART. I desire to have the scope of this bill to be very different.

had been divided about it; and the ground printed letters which I send to the desk read.

Mr. BUCKALLW. This bill is to relax the

upon which the bill of 1865 passed at all was I have the originals here. laws of evidence.

that the very tribunal that all parties had agreed npon to try this cause bad merely made

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

an erroroflaw,and had decided the cause wrong, particularity. It is following the principle by My friend from Nevada says that this genbecause the law was different from what they which you use the testimony of witnesses since

tleman is poor.

I do not know but that he is; supposed it to be. Would the Senate, if the deceased in legal proceedings in many instances I take it for granted. He says he is a cripple. language of this bill had been used, have where you would not use it if they were living. I dare say he is. There are many poor men revived this cause twenty years after the com It is following the well-known analogies of the and many cripples in the country, Mr. Presimissioners, fairly selected, having no interest, law, and it is carrying out the idea of the act | dent, who have to pay taxes, and whose hardhearing this party upon his own proof, ex parte of 1865. That act is worth nothing without earned dollars have got to pay just such claims as papers and arguments, had decided that he did

this. Several of the important witnesses, whose this. I am in favor of leaving the money, til not come within the treaty? I wish to ask this depositions have been carefully taken, are dead; a case is made out on the ordinary proofs, in Senate if they would have passed this bill of and I think, as the bill is now amended, the the hands of the poor men whose sweat has to 1865 with such an amendment as this, or de chances are ninety-nine in a hundred that it produce it, rather than to have them pay it claring that he might try that question over will be impossible, in the revolutions in Mexico, out for the benefit of this claim. again and every other question, and that they to find the other witnesses who are living in Mr. HENDRICKS. On investigation of would permit him to use such testimony as he order to obtain their testimony. Mr. Atocha this case before the Committee on the Judibad taken ex parte before that commission is a cripple. He is sick and poor, and very ciary I agreed with the Senator from Vermont who had decided against him, when no such likely it will be out of his power at this time to that the report of the committee in 1865 did privilege was extended to the United States ? get the testimony of the witnesses whose testi not establish a case.

I was not satis' ed that I understand my friend from Indiana [Mr. mony has been once taken. The amendment there was a claim due this man Atocha; but I HENDRICKS] to agree with me that in his judg. of the Senator from Pennsylvania has prob- ll think that question was settled by Congress in ment the decision of the commission, under | ably placed it out of his power, if the bill 1865, that it was such a claim as ought to be the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and that the passes; but certainly allowing the testimony | heard in the Court of Claims. committee of 1865 were wrong in deciding of wituesses since deceased to be used is fol The only question now presented to Conthat that commission made a mistake; but he lowing nothing but the analogies of the law. gress is, whether we will allow some evidence holds himself bound by the act of 1865 as It is perfectly in harmony with the spirit of already produced to be read which cannot be foreclosing that question, so that by the law the act of 1865 when it was passed.

read under the existing law. This evidence, of 1865 it is to be taken that the decision of Mr. DRAKE. So far as the remarks of the as it is now guarded in the bill, it seems to me that commission was wrong.

The act of 1866 honorable Senator from Vermont would influ will not endanger the interests and rights of does not declare that the decision of that com ence the mind of the Senate, when he declares the Government. I am willing to vote for the mission was wrong by any means. It merely that this evidence which it is sought to be bill as it is now framed, although I think, as sends the case to the Court of Claims, after allowed to be used is such as no court would the case now stands, the Court of Claims will twenty years, to try it over again. Evidently, allow to be used, perfectly ex parte in its char decide against the claim unless a different case the act of 1865 passed as strong as it could be acter, I beg leave very respectfully to correct is made out from that which was made before made for the benefit of this claimant consist him. The law of the United States as it has the committee when Senator Foster made his ent with the sense of Congress; and the same stood on the statute-book, I think ever since report. facts existed two years ago that exist now. 1789, authorizes depositions in every civil case I do not exactly feel as the Senator from Having therefore got this relief, so to speak, pending in any United States court to be taken Vermont does on this subject. I do not feel piecemeal, having got Congress to consent without notice to the opposite party where the that this is paying money out by the Government that upon the regular provision of proof he place at which the depositions are to be taken of the United States. We agreed with Mexico might go to the Court of Claims, he then turns is more than one hundred miles distant from in the treaty for the payment of certain moneys around two years afterward, after that is partly the place where he resides.

and reserved three million dollars and more forgotten, and says, "Now permit me to use Mr. EDMUNDS. If this evidence is admis to pay the clains of citizens of the United the proof that the law does not permit any sible now, what is the use of this bill?

States against the Government of Mexico. We claimant in any court in the world to use, Mr. DRAKE. The simple ground of its retained the money in our own hands. The upon a claim, I beg Senators to understand inadmissibility is, that it was not taken in the question is whether we will pay this claim, if that in the judgment of my friend from Indi pending case. But, sir, in a United States the Court of Claims should so lind, not out of ana, and with proper modesty I may say my court to-day, if the United States sues an indi money due the United States exactly, but out own, and I do not know but all the members vidual, that individual may go to the furthest of moneys retained by the Government accordof the committee agreed as to that

end of the nation and take the deposition of ing to the terms of the treaty. Mr. STEWART. No1

a witness there, without giving notice to the Mr. EDMUNDS. Do you contend that if Mr. EDMUNDS. In the judgment of my United States at all, and have that deposition, we do not pay this to the clainant we shall honorable friend from Indiana and of myself, taken ex parte, and having no higher character have to pay it to Mexico? the decision made twenty years ago was rightly than a mere affidavit, read on the trial of the Mr. HENDRICKS. That is a question that made. If we are to review all the decisions case in virtue of the law of the United States need not be settled now, which have been made against claimants by regulating the matter; and that is just the Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask my friend for his commissions that the Government has ap character of the testimony which it is sought | opinion, because we considered that in the pointed to decide their cases, after twenty to give this man the benefit of in the case of committee, I remember, in connection with years, upon the ground that you can get a witnesses who have died or whose testimony || the treaty. majority one day upon a hasty argument in the cannot bow be procured ; and yet the honor Mr. HENDRICKS. It stands just thus: evening to decide that they had made a mis able Senator from Vermont says that that is to the Government of the United States agreed take in law, when the same persons might the let in testimony in this case such as no court to pay Mexico $10,000,000, as I now recollect, next day decide otherwise, and then, in addi. in the land would let in in any case. I beg for certain considerations; but in the treaty tion to that, declare that evidence which no leave to state that the Senator is mistaken in the Government of the United States retained court in the world receives shall be suthicient his facts.

$3,250,000, and became herself the paymaster proof for him, it seems to me it is making a Mr. EDMUNDS. My friend from Missouri to her own citizens of claims against the Gov. raid upon the Treasury that is a little too confesses that this testimony would not be ernment of Mexico. The money she retained strong,

admissible in any court. He admits that; and was not her own, but money that she had agreed Mr. STEWART. The Senator from Ver yet he turns with the air of Paul to one of the in other provisions of the treaty to pay to Mexmont asks whether the Senate would have youngest of the disciples, and tells me that I ico. She was the trustee to both Governments passed the bill in the form now suggested at am mistaken in saying that no court in the for the payment of the claimants who were the time they passed the original bill. I sup worid would admit this testimony: It is the citizens of the United States against the Govpose the Senate intended at that time that the very fact that no court in the world will admit ernment of Mexico. Suppose there had been case should be heard before the court. I sup it that makes it necessary for this claimant not no claims presented against the Government pose they expected that this claimant would be only to carry a law through that gives this of Mexico at all, and no portion of that heard; and if they had known that there was court jurisdiction, but to require it to decide | $3,250,000 had been paid out by the United a technical obstacle in the way to prevent the without evidence, or upon such evidence as States upon claims against Mexico, I ask the case being heard I sappose they would have the claimant pleases to produce. That is the Senator from Vermont would we have retained removed it at that time.

fact about it; while it does not give any such that? The Senator talks about legal proof. The privilege to the United States. The United Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes; we should have testimony proposed to be admitted was taken States is to find its evidence the best way it retained it, clearly. according to the rules of the commission and can. If the United States has taken any testi

Mr. HENDRIČKS, I am not sure that we with great particularity. The American con mony that is on file anywhere, the Judiciary ought. sul in Mexico appeared for the United States. Committee, in its supreme wisdom, inasmuch Mr. EDMUNDS. Let me read the treaty, The parties were required to furnish evidence as this man is a cripple, I suppose, as it is and you will agree with me. of their character and standing before him; said, concluded it was best to debar the United Mr. HENDRICKS. In -a moment. I do but the testimony was not taken in a litigated States from having the same privilege that the not care much if Atocha gets something out

If it had been taken in a litigated case claimant had. They only provided that this of that money. I think it is really a question under the rules of evidence, if the parties have new wrinkle" of law that my friend from between him and Mexico, whether we, as since deceased, the evidence might be used. Missouri is so foud of should be used for the trustee under that treaty, shall pay this claim It has been taken in this case by depositions, benefit of the claimant and nobody else. If that to Atocha for a wrong which he claims the Govand where the parties have died it might be is the kind of legislation to pay away the people's || ernment of Mexico did him, he being a citizen used. It has been taken with about equal || money, then I am opposed to it; that is all. of the United States. I do not care if the

[ocr errors]

case.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Court of Claims shall take a liberal view of floor after the close of the remarks of the Sen the man have the benefit of the evidence he the case.

If Santa Anna, in the exercise of ator from Vermont than I was, and, by his has taken in the former phase of the case, when powers as a dictator, banished Atocha from

courtesy, I am permitted to say a few words in the witnesses are now dead and their testimony the City of Mexico upon charges not tried by reply to the remarks of the Senator from Ver cannot be obtained ? aby court, but heard by himself, and thus mont. The Senator from Vermont seemed to Mr. EDMUNDS. Why not let the United destroyed his estate and his interests, I do not think that he had settled that matter very con States have the same privilege ? care if Atocha does get some advantage, so far clusively; but I take leave to differ from bin Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, by the treaty as the law will give it to him, and does get on that point. It seems that the United States of Guadalupe Hidalgo the United States ao some portion of this money. I do not think is here a mere trustee, and when the evidence quired a vast mineral country from Mexico. the United States are so much interested in it. was taken before that commission the United It has resulted in almost untold millions of dolHe was banished; banished without the decis. States was represented, and the depositions | lars to our country. A part of the considersion of a court; banished under the command were taken there with a representative of the tion, indeed most of the consideration of that of a dictator. He was a citizen of the United United States present.

vast purchase, was $15,000,000. Citizens of States when he was bạnished. He said he had Mr. EDMUNDS. Where is the evidence of the United States had claims against the Gor. done no wrong. Still, I do not think that the that?

ernment of Mexico, and it was stipulated in report of the committee made out a case under Mr. DRAKE. You stated it, or the Senator one of the articles of the treaty that of that the treaty. It did not at the time I investi from Nevada.

$15,000,000, $3,250,000 should be reserved in gated it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. You misunderstood him. the hands of the United States to satisfy the Mr, COLE. Will the Senator from Indiana Mr. DRAKE. I understood that the consul claims which the citizens of the United States give way for a motion to adjourn?

there represented the Government of the United had against Mexico. Those claims might have Mr. HENDRICKS. No, no; my speech is States.

amounted to five or ten millions, or any sum not of that sort.

Mr. EDMUNDS. No; he was the magis- || above $3,250,000 ; but the effect of that treaty Mr. COLE. We cannot get through with trate before whom depositions were to be was that those claims, whatever they amounted this bill to-night. taken.

to, should be satisfied by $3,250,000. Many Mr. HENDRICKS. I am just through. Mr. STEWART. By the rules established of the claims had been presented against the

Mr. CORBETT. I should like to know how by the United States, the United State required | Mexican Government and liquidated and paid. long was this man a citizen of the United the evidence to be taken before its consul. It has left a balance yet unappropriated of States?

Mr. DRAKE. Very well. Now the mat about five hundred thousand dollars. It is Nr. HENDRICKS. I do not care if he was ter stands just in this way: under this treaty said that this claim of Atocha amounts to two only a citizen for five minutes and a quarter. the evidence was taken in the manner stated. or three million dollarg. If it should amount He was as much a citizen as it was possible The presentation of that claim before that to the whole of that sum, $3,000,000, by the for him to be.

commission was in effect a suit against this terms of the treaty, he cannot receive more Mr. CORBETT. I should like to know trust fund in the hands of the United States. than the residue of the $3,250,000 that is now whether there is any evidence to substantiate Mr. EDMUNDS. It was no trust fund. in the possession of the Government of the that he was a citizen of the United States, and Mr. DRAKE. If it was not a trust fund, I United States for the satisfaction of such claimg. whether atter he left the United States he did think it was a suit against the United States The Government of the United States pre. pot become a citizen of Mexico? for claims against Mexico.

sents itself in this position to its own citizens Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand that all Mr, EDMUNDS. That is it.

and to Mexico: whatever be the amount of the evidence the Committee on the Judiciary Mr. DRAKE. Now, sir, what is the claim the valid claims which the people of the United bad on the subject was the report made by Mr. ll of Atocha in the Court of Claims but just a States bave against Mexico they are to be Foster to the Senate in 1865, which goes upon reproduction of that same suit against the satisfied, so far as Mexico is bound to pay the ground that Atocha being a citizen of the United States in the Court of Claims after it them, by $3,250,000. This claim, it is said, United States, but transacting commercial bad been before another forum? So that it is amounts to two or three millions. If it does business in the city of Mexico, aecording to in effect just exactly what the Senator from amount to that, the uttermost cent that Atocha the comity between the two countries and ac Vermont specified as if it were in this suit, can have of claim against the Treasury of the cording to treaty stipulations, he was banished for it is about the same subject matter, though United States or Mexico is the residue of that by the decree of the dictator and his estates it is in a different forum and the parties are fund of $3,250,000, after deducting the amount destroyed.

different. It is Atocha against the United that has been paid to other claimants; and Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, shall I read the States. In the other it was Atocha against || that is stated to be about $500,000. treaty ?

this money that the Mexican Government put I was on the Committee on Foreign Rela. Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir.

there to have paid to citizens of the United tions, three or four years ago, when this subMr. EDMUNDS. I will read that part of States.

ject was considered. I examined tbe claim the treaty just to show whether this $3,250,000

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will the Senator permit iwice, and I came deliberately to the conclusion is money retained which otherwise would be me to ask him a question ?

that it was a claim founded in jastice. Mr. due to Mexico, or whether it is money of the

Mr. DRAKE. Certainly.

Atocha was a Spaniard by birth. He came to. United States :

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish he would tell the the United States and resided a while in New "ART. XII. In consideration of the extension ac

Senate what he thinks of that clause of the Orleans, and was there naturalized. He then quired by the boundaries of the United States, as

treaty under wbich this man filed his claim went to Mexico for the purposes of trade and defined in the fifth article of the present treaty, the which declares that the decision of that tribunal Guvernment of the United States engages to pay to

commerce. While he was there he was charged shall be final and conclusive upon him. that of the Mexican republic the sum of $15,000,000."

with being complicated with some faction, and Mr. DRAKE. That is a totally different was banished by the ruling authorities of Nex: ART. XIV. The United States do furthermore dis question from that upon which I am at issue ico summarily and immediately from the terricharge the Mexican republic from all claims of citi with the Senator from Vermont. I am not tory of Mexico. The Committee on Foreign zens of the United States not beretofore decided against the Mexican Government which may have

going into the merits of the case. The Sen. | Relations, of which Mr. Foster was then & arisen previously to tbe date of the signature of this

ator from Vermont affirmed before the Senate member, examined the subject, and I exam. treaty; which discharge shall be final and perpetual, squarely that we were going to let in by this whether the said claims be rejected or be allowed by

ined the case twice afterward as carefully as the board of commissioners provided for in the fol

bill such evidence as no court in the country I could, and concurred with him in all of his lowing article, and whatever shall be the total

would let in. I take issue with him. I say conclusions in the report that he made as to amount of those allowed.

that it is a litigation here about the same sub"ART. XV. The United States, exonerating Mex

the facts and the law. The committee became ico from all demands on account of the claims of

ject-matter concerning which the depositions thoroughly satisfied that Mr. Atocha bad not their citizens mentioned in the preceding article, and considering them entirely and forever canceled, Mr. EDMUNDS. Then what is the use of l which he was banished, but was entirely inno

been complicated in the political intrigues for whatever their apiount may be, undertake to make satisfao ion for the same. to an amount not exceed

this bill? ing $3,250,000. To ascertain the validity and amount

Mr. DRAKE. Because, under the rules of

cent of such a charge. The committee also of those claims a board of commissioners shall be established by the Government of the United States, evidence that they have, it cannot be admitted

examined the treaty of 1831 between Mexico

and the United States, which stipulated mutuwhose awards shall be final and conclusive." without legislation.

ally that the citizens of the respective cout Then it goes on further as to what priuciples admissible.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Then by law it is not tries should not be banished from the other the board shall be guided by. Mr. HENDRICKS. I think there is some

Mr. DRAKE.

until they were allowed six months for the pur

By the present law it is not Olher provision of the treaty which bears on admissible; but we want to make a law by

pose of prosecuting and winding up their busi

;

ness and leaving the country without loss. I this subject, which I do not at present recollect? which it shall be admissible.

am satisfied that this claim is one of merit, that Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir; here is the law, would a court admit it; and if a court I saw here repeatedly for three or four yearin Mr. EDMUNDS. If it is not admissible by Atocha, a citizen of the United States

, whom treaty. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN,

would not admit it, is not my assertion corWe held this | rect?

was not implicated in any political intrigue in money for that purpose.

Mexico, and that the pretext upon which he

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. DRAKE. Will the honorable Senator

It is an extremely ingenious resort which the Senator from Vermont makes.

was banished was assumed and had no foundfrom Indiana allow me a word?

ation in fact. I am perfectly satisfied, Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly.

My position is that the evidence was taken Mr. Foster, who was one of the most accurate about the subject matter, and in a case in lawyers and one of the most careful committee: not in , the same parties ;

men that I ever served with in this body, that

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

as was

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »