very much, and but for the acknowledged legal ability of the gentleman who drew this bill, I should seriously question the authority to bind future Congresses in this way. Each Congress passes bills upon its responsibility to the Constitution and to the country. This idea of forcing one Congress under a legislative edict to give credit for all that has been done in the progress of a bill at preceding Congresses, is doing what I very much question your right to do. If this Congress passes a bill, how many times must it be read? Three times in each House. If the next Congress passes a bill, it must be read three times in each House. Is the next House of Representatives the same House that now exists, or is it a new House of Representatives?

Mr. BRODHEAD. I think my friend from Mississippi misapprehends the tenor and meaning of the eighth section of the bill, and I therefore ask for its reading.

The Secretary read it as follows:

"SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That said reports, and the bills reported as aforesaid, shall, if not finally acted upon during the session of Congress to which the said reports are made, be continued from session to session, and from Congress to Congress, until the same shall be finally acted upon, and the consideration of said reports and bills shall, at the subsequent session of Congress, be resumed, and the said reports and bills be proceeded with in the same manner as though finally acted upon at the session when presented."

Mr. BROWN. Exactly, sir. Now, what is meant by continuing bills "from session to session, and from Congress to Congress," if it is not expected that all that we do in this Congress in reference to a particular bill, shall be taken into the account of its passage at the next succeeding Congress; and then, if the two do not succeed in carrying it entirely through, the third Congress shall give to the two preceding ones the credit for what has been done? If that be not the purpose, aim, and object of this provision in the bill, the language in which it is drawn is very much misapplied. So far as taking up a bill at a subsequent session of the same Congress is concerned, we do that every day. That is all right; but the point which I make is, that this measure requires that bills shall be continued from Congress to Congress, and that I maintain you have no power to do; at least, such is my judgment, and I, of course, give it with great deference. I may be mistaken, but it does strike me, with great force, that you have no right to do such a thing. At any rate, about this I am not mistaken, that this is the first time in the history of this government when there has been an attempt to do such a thing. If you can do it in reference to claims, why may you not do it in reference to all bills, and all other legislative business? If you can do it in reference to private claims, why can you not continue all business from Congress to Congress; and whatever we leave undone at the close of this Congress, hand over to the next, and they take it where we leave it? I say this is commencing a very serious innovation; and if this be not the object, the language should be so changed as to leave no doubt of it.

I have other objections, Mr. President, to this bill, which I will not detain the Senate by assigning now. The objections which I have stated, if I had none other, are insuperable with me, and I cannot, under any circumstances, vote for this bill.

Mr. Hunter of Virginia having replied to Mr. Brown, he rejoined as follows:

I wish to say a few words in reply to the senator from Virginia. He brings me to that point to which I supposed we should be brought in the discussion of this bill, and that is, that when the reports of the court are made to Congress, Congress is to pass them nem. con. Mr. HUNTER. I did not say so.

Mr. BROWN. The senator says he did not say so, but his whole argument went to prove it so, and I will undertake to show to the senator that he has come as near saying so as ninety-nine and three-quarter cents are to a dollar. He alluded to my argument against the expense of this proceeding-and how did he answer it? By saying that the discussion of one private bill now consumes more money than the whole expense of this court would be. Are we not to discuss these private bills when they come from the court? If we are, what becomes of the senator's argument about expense? for the same discussion will be had then, I apprehend, as now. What becomes of that argument unless we pass the bills without discussion, which I said in the beginning was expected of us?

Mr. HUNTER. I will correct my friend. My argument was this: I hope and believe this court will entitle itself to the confidence of Congress, and will have so much of the confidence of Congress, that in general its decisions will not require revision; that the cases requiring revision will be the exception and not the general rule.

Mr. BROWN. Then that is one step further in the same direction which I was pointing out-that this court is to have the confidence of Congress, as the senator expresses it, and we are to register what it tells. us without discussion. I dare say there will be an attempt to stifle discussion here and in the other House of Congress, and to force the decision of the court upon us, whether we will or not. I protest, in advance, against any such thing. I dare say it will be done; but I have no doubt that after two or three years shall have elapsed, its proceedings will be discussed. I know they ought to be discussed from the commencement, because I know that the obligation of appropriating money belongs not to a court, but to Congress. That member of Congress who fails to discuss or understand thoroughly a bill appropriating money before he votes on it, is not discharging his duty to the Constitution. Why was Congress required to appropriate money? Why was this responsibility riveted upon us, which we are now endeavoring to shake off? It was that the people's representatives--those who are amenable to the people and to the states-should give an account of the disposition which they make of the people's money. Here, sir, we have a proceeding which is to relieve us of this responsibility. We are to have so much confidence in this court, that we are not to discuss its proceedings, except now and then, I suppose, simply to keep up a show of discharging our duties. This is precisely what I apprehended in the beginning, because I saw, from the commencement, that unless we did that, we should have made by this movement as I have already stated-not one step in advance of the position which we at present occupy. Unless you pass, without discussion, the bills sent by the proposed court, you will have accomplished nothing by its organization; and if you do discuss them, the court is a nullity, not worth a sixpence.

On the same day Mr. Brown again spoke as follows:

Mr. President, I should not again trouble the Senate-and I only mean now to speak a few minutes--if senators had not stated my position entirely as though I were averse to these private claims. I must have labored to little purpose, if I have not convinced every one who pays the least attention to my course, that I have always sympathized deeply and earnestly with claimants, and, perhaps, said as much, and endeavored to do as much, as any other senator, or any other member of the other House of Congress, to relieve this branch of the government, and, at the same time, relieve the wants of private claimants. It is, as I undertook to demonstrate this morning, because this bill does not accomplish either of those objects, that I am opposed to it. I do not wonder that claimants should be in favor of this proposition. A man in a frying pan would be very apt to jump into the fire-anything for a change. Claimants have suffered, I know, for years and years, under the inaction of Congress. I have always been ready and anxious to act in their favor; but when you make a change at all, I want it to be a beneficial change; and the point which I undertook to make this morning was, that, before senators should insist upon the passage of this bill, they should show that the bills coming from the court would be more readily acted upon than bills coming from a committee; for I insist that, until that is shown, you have not shown that this bill will give relief either to Congress or to claimants.

I want to show, while I am up, that so far from this bill giving relief to the claimants, it will be a total denial of justice to all small claimants. Why? It involves an amount of expense to them which they will never be enabled to pay, unless they have a claim for some thousands of dollars. Suppose there should be a claimant in one of the remote states, as Florida, or California, or in one of the remote territories, as Oregon, or Washington, for $500. Now, he presents his claim to his representative or delegate, and he brings it here before Congress, and gets some sort of investigation--it does not amount to a great deal, it is true, but it does not cost him anything. Establish the court, and what will you require of him? He must, in the beginning, employ an attorney to present his claim to it, according to form; for here you are prescribing that petitions shall be drawn up in form, and then you are authorizing the court to lay down the rules which are to govern it. What will a poor fellow away off in Florida, or California, or in one of the remote territories, know of the forms and rules of this court? How is he to get his case fairly before the court, otherwise than by employing an attorney? What next? The court is to send out a commission -a commission from Washington City to Florida, or Oregon, or some other remote point, to take testimony; and if testimony is to be taken in favor of the claimant, he is to pay the expense of it. What private claimant can afford to pay the attorney's fees and expenses of this commission simply to get justice from his government? I stand up here, and in the name of those claimants, protest against the iniquity of this thing. It is our business to give justice to our creditors, and not impose upon them expenses which will amount to a total denial of justice. You have it in your power to do it without encumbering them with those expenses. You ought to do it; and if you are faithful to yourselves and to the Constitution, you will do it.

I want some one to show me how these enormous expenses are to be avoided. What attorney will take a claim from a remote state without his fee? The court will have its own rules, and will not consider a case without testimony. Ex parte testimony will not be considered. A commission will be sent out to take testimony anew. The claimant must pay the expense, so far as his side of the case is concerned. That expense must necessarily swallow up all the profits of the claim; and then, when he has paid the expenses, where does he stand? Precisely where he stands to-day, with a bill before Congress, which would be no more likely to pass on account of the expenses incurred and paid, than it is likely to pass now, unless you do as my friend from Delaware has said, pass it because of your confidence in the court. Sir, confidence is a plant of sickly growth; the very moment that you breathe suspicion upon it, it will be like the Exchange Bank of Washington. When confidence was destroyed, the bank went down. When confidence is destroyed in the court, the court will go down. Members will not be apt, after once being imposed upon by a decision from the court, to pass other bills without consideration; and when you come to discuss them as you discuss bills now, this discussion will occur upon every proposition as it comes up, as I will now proceed to demonstrate.

The expense of the discussion of bills coming from the court will be equal to the expense of the discussion of bills coming from a committee; therefore, my friend's argument all falls to the ground. How will the discussion arise? There will be outside parties, ready to complain that justice has not been done to the government, or to other parties; or the claimant will say that he got but some fifteen, or twenty, or fifty per centum of what he claims. He will say to his friends: "Injustice has been done to me; I want you to investigate this case; I want a discussion before the Senate about it." In every case where a claimant has not got all he asked for, he will demand discussion; when he has got all he has demanded, some ill-natured friend of his will be very apt to prompt discussion. One single member rises and attacks a bill on the ground. of the insufficiency of the testimony; then you will have all the discussion on a bill coming from the court that you have on a bill coming from a committee.

You cannot keep down these discussions; and above all, Mr. President, you cannot prevent the utterance of those two potential words in the House of Representatives, "I object." "I object" has destroyed more bills in that House than the most eloquent arguments have ever carried through it. That same potent "I object" will be there to meet your bills from this court, as they have met your bills from committees ; not because there is any reason in it, not because there is justice in it, but because members think proper to say "I object." I ask those who have served in the other House of Congress, if this is not true, and to the letter, according to their experience?

Mr. HUNTER. The senator from Mississippi seems to think that this bill will entail a great deal of expense on the petitioner. I think not. It requires him to do in the court what our rules require him to do here, file a petition, state the persons interested, and the action of Congress and the department upon it-a thing that he can do without an attorney, if he can draw up a petition at all.

Mr. BROWN. We all know that the representatives of the people do

not take note of the want of form. We do not care whether the petition is precisely addressed according to the forms of law, whether it opens and concludes properly, or not. We look to the substance of the thing; but what will the court do? What do we authorize them to do? Why, to make their own rules. What do courts do? Where is the private citizen in this country who can get his case fairly into court, and fairly out of it, without the aid of an attorney? Are not attorneys required in all courts? Has not the ingenuity of legislators in the several states been racked for years, seeking to dispense with attorneys before a court? And what has it all resulted in? Why, in imposing additional burdens upon the claimant. Where a private party goes into court, he must go with the aid of legal counsel, and so this court will require the same thing, whatever may be the pretensions or honest convictions of gentlemen.

PRIVATEER BRIG GENERAL ARMSTRONG.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26, 1855, ON THE CLAIM OF THE OWNERS OF THE PRIVATEER BRIG GENERAL ARMSTRONG, DESTROYED IN THE PORT OF FAYAL, PORTUGAL, IN VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRALITY OF THAT PORT.

MR. PRESIDENT: As I voted for this claim before, and intend to do so again, I desire in a few words, to assign the reasons which govern that

vote.

The facts in the early history of this case seem to be well understood, and about them there is little or no controversy, here or anywhere else. That the brig General Armstrong was attacked by a greatly superior force, in a neutral port, where she made a most signal defence; one which reflected high honor upon the nation, and upon all the parties engaged on our side of the controversy, seems to be everywhere admitted. That she was attacked in violation of the law of nations, seems never to have been disputed at any time. Through all the changes of administration, there has not been found a Secretary of State, or a President who has not insisted that the attack was in violation of law, and that an obligation was thereby imposed upon Portugal to indemnify the claimants. Portugal resisted, and our government continued to insist upon satisfaction until we were brought, under the administration of the late General Taylor, almost to the very verge of a conflict with that government, growing out of this claim.

Portugal has been discharged; and the question arises, by whose agency? It is admitted that the Secretary of State of the United States agreed to an arbitration of the case; and it is nowhere insisted that he consulted the clients of the government-for I shall so treat them-as to whether the case should be thus submitted or not. Assuming that he had the right to do so, he exercised it, and submitted the case to arbitration without their consent. The submission was to the late President of the Republic of France; but before he rendered his decision he became the Emperor of that country.