JAN. 14, 1837.]

Mr. THOMAS moved to postpone until Monday week, with a view to give the House an opportunity to dispose of the grave and important question of the admission of Michigan into the Union.

Mr. ADAMS said he hoped the gentleman would name some other day than Monday, as that was the only day on which members had an opportunity to present their petitions.

Mr. THOMAS substituted Tuesday next.

Mr. JARVIS hoped the bill would be suffered to take the ordinary course. Let it be committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and then the House could take it up at any time they saw fit. He wanted no special orders, if they could be

avoided.

The SPEAKER said, if the House rejected the motion to postpone, the motion to commit was next in order. Mr. WARDWELL inquired if it was not necessary that the bill should be committed.

The SPEAKER reminded Mr. W. of his decision, made the other day, that the bill need not, as matter of necessity, be committed.

The question on the motion of Mr. THOMAS, to postpone the further consideration of the bill until Tuesday week, was taken, and lost.

And the question on the motion of Mr. GALBRAITH, to postpone until Tuesday next, was taken, and lost. Mr. McKAY moved to postpone until Thursday next;

which motion was also lost.

Mr. PARKER moved to commit the bill to the Committee on Manufactures.

The motion to commit to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, having precedence of Mr. PARKER'S motion to commit to the Committee on Manufactures, was taken, and decided in the affirmative. So the bill was committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. SMITH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a resolution ordering ten thousand extra copies of the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, relating to the reduction of the tariff, to be printed for the use of the House.

The resolution, under the rule, would lie over one day.

Mr. SMITH moved its consideration at that time. Mr. BELL inquired if it was in order to consider such a resolution then.

The CHAIR replied that it was, as it was a report

from a committee.

Mr. LAWRENCE really hoped that objection would be withdrawn, for it was a most important document, and ought to be extensively circulated among the people. Mr. BELL had made no objection, but only an inquiry on the point of order. No motion being made to consider, the resolution was read.

Mr. MANN, of New York, suggested a larger number, for that ordered would be inadequate to the wants of the members for their constituents. He moved that twenty thousand be printed.

Mr. DENNY. Why, that is enough to poison them! Mr. CRAIG thought the original number proposed sufficient.

Mr. MANN would meet the views of gentlemen on both sides, and he therefore proposed fifteen thousand. Lost.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, moved to strike out ten thousand, and in insert five thousand. Lost.

Mr. BRIGGS moved to include the bill with the report, which was agreed to; and, so amended, the resolution was concurred in.

The remainder of the day was spent in the consideration of reports and private bills.

[H. of R.

Mr. ADAMS rose and said that, on the third day of last June, a resolution reported from the Committee for the District of Columbia had been adopted by the House, requesting the Secretary of State to ascertain and report to the House the number of persons impris oned for debt since the year 1820, in the District of Columbia; the time during which they had been imprisoned; the amounts of their respective debts; the portions thereof which had been paid in consequence of their imprisonment; the expense to the creditors of maintaining them, &c. Mr. A. wished to inquire from the chairman of the Committee for the District of Columbia, or from some other member of it, whether there bad been any report from the Secretary in answer to the res olution.

[ft appeared, from a statement made by the Clerk of the House, and Mr. W. B. SHEPARD, that such a report had been made during the present session of Congress, that it had been placed in the hands of the official printer, but that, being very long, copies of it had not yet been furnished to the members.]

Mr. A. said his reason for making the inquiry was, that amongst the prisoners was one of his constituents. sion, at the time this resolution was adopted. He was The individual was confined there during the last sesthere still, for debt; and it was Mr. A's firm belief that he was there only for having been too zealous in the discharge of his duty as an officer of the Government, for debts vastly inferior in amount to what was due to him from the nation, if justice was done.

Mr. A. was anxious that the House should act on the resolution.

TEXAS.

Mr. PICKENS was desirous of some information from the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to the subject of Texas. He wished to inquire of the honorable chairman of that committee (whom he saw in his seat) if he could give the House some information when a report on the subject of the President's special message in relation to Texas might be expected from that commitee, or if any report at all was to be made. He hoped the chairman would respond to his inquiry.

Mr. HOWARD (chairman of the committee) said he had no objection at all, and would reply cheerfully, so far as he knew, to the question propounded by the gentleman from South Carolina. The committee had been very industriously engaged in the consideration of that subject, and had held repeated meetings upon it. As yet, they had come to no conclusion. He could only repeat that the committee had lost no time in the investigation, for it had occupied their almost undivided attention since it had been referred to them, almost to the exclu sion of every thing else.

Mr. PICKENS. Was he to understand that the committee had come to no conclusion whether they would report or not?

Mr. HOWARD. They had come to no conclusion whatever.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. HARLAN asked the consent of the House at this time to submit a resolution that on Monday next the States should be called for petitions in reverse order. [This resolution, if adopted, would entitle the new States to be first called upon.]

Objection having been made,

Mr. DAVIS moved a suspension of the rule.

Mr. ADAMS said he hoped that the rule would not be suspended. He hoped the House would understand

And the question on the motion to suspend the rule was taken, and decided in the negative: Ayes 88, noes 46-two thirds not voting in the affirmative.

So the rule was not suspended.

Mr. LEWIS said the question had certainly not been understood in that part of the House, or the rule would have been suspended. He called for tellers.

The CHAIR said it was too late; the decision of the House having been announced.

Mr. BELL gave notice that he would renew his motion for leave to bring in a bill to secure the freedom of election. He had forborne to urge this subject on the consideration of the House, because he had expected that the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. C. ALLAN,] in relation to grants of the public lands to such States as had not heretofore received them, would be disposed of this morning. But if the House would persist in these abortive motions to suspend the rule for partial purposes, he should be compelled to press his motion. He would waive it now, if the House would resume the consideration of that resolution.

THE PUBLIC LANDS.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution heretofore offered by Mr. ALLAN, of Kentucky, providing for grants of public lands to such States as had not heretofore received them, together with the amendments thereto pending.

Mr. LANE, who held the floor when the subject was last under consideration, resumed and concluded his remarks.

Mr. BELL said he rose more for the purpose of submitting a few remarks on the propriety of bringing this discussion to a close, than for any other purpose, although the subject was of great interest, and though he had himself been perfectly willing it should be sent to a committee. He thought, however, that the proposition was too narrow for the time at which it was brought forward; and he thought that the necessity of broader action must have become apparent to every man. If there was one question, above all others, on which prompt action was required, it was that of disposing permanently of the various questions which had arisen in relation to the public lands. If they were to be distributed in any degree, to any extent, let it be done. If it was not the sense of the country that this should be done, let Congress declare that sentiment by a vote which would give proof of its permanence.

The question of graduation, for instance, was intimately connected with this subject; but he did not consider even that of so much importance as that the question should be settled one way or another. He would give his vote at once in favor of the graduating system, provided the question could be settled permanently. Mr. B. then alluded to the question of pre-emption rights. Justice required that the inhabitants of the country should know what was to be our established policy; and that, if it was not intended to give these pre-emption rights, Congress should at once declare so. He regard ed the permanent settlement of these questions, however, as of far less importance than the mode by which they should be settled. He was ready to reduce the price of public lands, if such should be the sense of the House. He believed it to be for the interest of the country that it should be done; and he should hereafter, at a proper season, have something to say on this topic. He would

[JAN. 14, 1837.

move to postpone the further consideration of the subject until this day fortnight, in order that the States might be called in their turns for resolutions; or, if any member would suggest it, he would move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. BOND moved that the same be laid on the table. Mr. C. ALLAN called for the yeas and nays on that motion; which were ordered.

Mr. HUNTSMAN inquired of the Chair whether, if the motion to lay on the table prevailed, the effect of that vote would be the final rejection of the resolution.

The SPEAKER said it would be in order to move to take up the subject at any time, when motions of similar import were in order.

Mr. C. ALLAN moved that the House proceed to the private orders of the day.

Mr. BELL hoped the subject would be disposed of

now.

Mr. C. ALLAN objected; and the Speaker thereupon announced the private orders of the day, when several engrossed bills were taken up and passed.

N. AND L. DANA.

The bill to refund certain duties paid by Messrs. N. & L. Dana & Co., on salt destroyed by flood, coming up-

Mr. SMITH said he commended most sincerely the vigilance with which the honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. C. JOHNSON] watched over the Treas ury of the Government. He was sure, nevertheless, that the gentleman was no less ready than others to refund to individual claimants their honest dues, in cases where, upon full investigation, the Government is shown to be possessed of moneys that rightfully belong to individuals. I am most sensible, said Mr. S., of the impossibility that every member upon this floor should examine with a just scrutiny every claim that comes before us, so as to enable him to discriminate justly between their merits, and the principles which they respectively involve. If the honorable gentleman from Tennessee had thus scrutinized the claim now before the House, and ascertained carefully the distinction that exists between the principles it involves and the principles of the "fire bill" reported in favor of the New York city merchants, he would not have assimilated this bill to that, as being of precisely the same character, and as establishing a precedent by which millions of dollars would be drawn from the Treasury. Sir, said Mr. S., this bill, however it may be of a kindred character with the New York fire bill, is not dependent upon the same principles with that bill; and the passage of this bill will furnish no precedent for the passage of the other bill, of which the gentleman from Tennessee expresses so much apprehension. Whether there be in the other bill sufficient merit to justify its passage or not, it is not now the time to decide; nor do I now feel myself called upon to say whether I shall or shall not give that bill my support.

What, sir, is the character of the bill now before the House? It is to refund the duties paid upon a certain amount of salt imported by the claimants, and destroyed by a most extraordinary flood, on the night of the same day when it was landed upon the wharf. I beg leave to call the attention of the House to a candid consideration of the principles involved in this bill; for they are, as the gentleman from Tennessee has supposed, of much mag. nitude, and certainly of great interest to the mercantile interests of the country, as well as of interest to the Government; they merit the deliberate consideration of the House.

The principles adopted by the Committee of Ways and Means, in reporting this bill, are specifically stated in the report which I had the honor to make to the House upon it, and are as follows:

"That relief for the remission of duties upon goods destroyed by inevitable accident can be safely granted in those cases, and in those cases only-

"Where the goods were still in their original state as imported, and had not entered into the mass of commodities destined for the immediate consumption of the country.

"Where the circumstances of the loss are such as not only to excite no suspicion of fraud, but as expressly and directly to exclude the possibility of it.

"Where the loss could not have been covered by or dinary insurance, or guarded against by the caution and diligence of a vigilant and prudent man of business.

"Where the evidence to all these points is full, direct, unquestionable, and of the highest nature the case will permit."

Now, sir, I appeal to the deliberate judgment of this House to determine whether these principles are not founded in sound policy and substantial justice, both as they affect the Government and the mercantile community. Both are deeply interested in the judgment of Congress upon this subject, and justice towards the one must be measured by what is also justice towards the other. The case now before us, sir, comes pointedly and indisputably within both the letter and equity of these principles. The salt was destroyed while in its original state. The circumstances of its destruction are such as to exclude the possibility of fraud; it was landed under the inspection of the custom-house officers, and its destruction is testified by them, as also its amount. It was a loss that could not have been covered by ordinary insurance. No companies exist to take insurances of property against risks by flood upon the land; and no merchant or other person ever dreamed of seeking such an insurance. Such an insurance, against flood upon the land, would indeed imply of itself great negligence in regard to the place of storing the property, and be proof of its being an insecure and improper place. Sir, this property, as the proof in this case abundantly shows, was stored where no flood had ever been known to reach in fifty years past. It was a place of supposed security, and no vigilance would have anticipated the event which destroyed it. To all these points the proof is plenary, indisputable, and above the suspicion of fraud. Then, sir, I ask, is there a gentleman upon this floor who will controvert the justice of this claim, or contend that the duties thus paid ought not to be refunded?

Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who feel themselves tied down to any set of principles, from mere regard for precedents. I, for one, care not whether a case has precedent in its support or not. I look at the principles believed to be involved in each case as it arises; and if these are such as commend themselves to my judgment, I will support the case, though a thousand precedents be arrayed against it; and so, on the contrary, if a case that exhibits precedents without number in its support comes not within my notions of just reasoning and sound principles, I will oppose and repudiate it. But, sir, I know there are gentlemen upon this floor who do place reliance on precedent, and who ask, for every new case that arises, if precedent exists to justify it. To such I will say, I have precedents enough in support of every principle involved by this claim to sustain and justify its allowance; and one precedent, in particular, will I furnish the House, where not only the abstract principle of this case, but every incidental circumstance of it, finds an astonishing similitude. History scarcely records two accidental and distant events so strangely alike as the one now before us and the one I will cite directly.

But, sir, I will begin with the carliest legislation of Congress upon this subject of remitting duties on imports destroyed. The principle recognised by Congress

[H. OF R.

in many of them was that of remitting duties upon such articles as had been accidentally destroyed while in the shape of their original importation; in other words, on articles that had been destroyed before entering into the consumption of the country. This is substantially one of the principles adopted by the Committee of Ways and Means, in the report of the case now before us. This is founded on the supposition that the destruction of the article thus remitted upon will give place to a new importation into the country of a corresponding amount, upon which the Government will receive its quota of duties anew, and thus be indemnified for the remission. This is an equitable and an honest supposition. Surely it can never be the policy of the Government to speculate upon the misfortunes of its merchants or citizens. Sir, this principle alone is broad enough to cover the case, and to authorize the remission now proposed by

the bill before the House.

But, sir, I go to the precedents of Congress. The first case I will cite is the first case definitively acted on by Congress-the case of Thomas Jenkins & Co., contained in ch. 47, art. 2, Laws of the United States, p. 110. The act provides:

"That the duties, amounting to $167 50, be remitted on a parcel of hemp, duck, ticklenburg, and molasses, the property of Thomas Jenkins & Co., merchants of the city of Hudson, in the State of New York, which were lost by fire in the brig Minerva, on her passage from New York to the city of Hudson, her port of delivery; and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to allow a credit on the bond or bonds executed by the said Thomas Jenkins & Co. for payment of the duties on the said goods. Approved June 14, 1790."

It is observable, Mr. Speaker, that this case embraces a principle of much broader extent than is recognised in either the circumstances of the case, or in the report of the case, now before the House. The property released from duty in Jenkins's case had made its port of entry, and was proceeding to its port of delivery, when the loss occurred; and the loss occurred from an exposure of the property, by the owners, to new risks, and to a risk that the property might and would have been protected against by ordinary care and vigilance on the part of the owners. It was an insurable risk-one that could have been foreseen, and calculated upon, and insured against. In the Dana case, before the committee, the loss arose from entirely different causes-from a flood of unexampled severity; from a cause which could not have been reasonably anticipated, nor calculated upon, nor insured against; from a risk which human foresight and experience could not have regarded as possible, and from a risk not ordinarily insurable. The evidence in the case is, that, "A little after midnight, a violent gale of wind commenced, which continued to blow until high water at noon next day, driving into the harbor an immense sea, and raising the tides higher than had been known for many years, covering the wharves and overflowing the lower stories of many buildings. By this tide, the store in which the salt was stored was moved from its foundation, and the whole of the salt washed away. The salt was landed under the inspection of the officers of the customs, who were witnesses to the loss, and certify to the facts."

The next case on record is a case exactly in point, so exactly that all the circumstances of the loss are identically the same with the one now before us. The article destroyed was salt; it was destroyed by flood, after being landed; it was destroyed by a flood of uncommon magnitude, and destroyed, too, on the night of the day when it was landed. The case of Dana & Co. is the same case throughout. It is wonderful how two occur. rences of such exact similitude should take place. The

report of the committee in this former case was made to the House of Representatives, July 24, 1790. It was duly considered by the House, and a bill moved accordingly. The report was as follows:

"Report on the petition of John Stewart and John Davidson, referred on the 5th instant:

"It appears, in proof, that the said Stewart and Davidson, in the month of April last, imported at the port of Annapolis eighteen hundred bushels of salt, which was taken account of by the collector at the port aforesaid; and that, the night after the same was landed, an uncommon storm and flood raised the water at the port aforesaid, so that the cellar in which the salt was stored, though usually dry, was flowed with water to the depth of two feet, and thereby destroyed thirteen hundred and twenty-five bushels of the salt. The petitioners pray a remission of the duties on the last-mentioned quantity of

salt.

"The committee are of opinion that the prayer of the petition be granted, and that a law pass for that purpose."

This record is to be found on page 69 of the manuscript reports of committees of the House of Representatives. A bill for the remission of the duties was accordingly passed by the House, and concurrently passed by the Senate, (which may be found in volume 2, Laws of the United States, page 174, chapter 64, approved August 4, 1790,) and is as follows:

"That so much of the duties accruing on eighteen hundred bushels of salt, imported, in the ship Mercury, into the port of Annapolis, in the State of Maryland, some time in the month of April last, on account of Messrs. John Stewart and John Davidson, as relates to thirteen hundred and twenty-five bushels thereof which were casually destroyed by flood, on the night of the same day on which the said salt was landed and stored, shall be, and the same is hereby, remitted."

Sir, the honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] says there is no precedent for a case like the one now before the House; but he has said this only because he could not have known of the existence of this case of Davidson. He knew not this, probably, from want of that critical examination which I have already said it is impossible for every gentleman of this House to give to every case that is presented to the House. But, says the gentleman, if there be precedent, it is only of a casual case, that passed without the observation of lawvers and a full knowledge of the facts. Sir, I admit that some precedents do find a place upon our statute books from oversight, and precedents that are wrong in principle, and that deserve not to weigh as authority. But, sir, the honorable gentleman will observe that this ene now cited cannot have been and cannot now be considered as of this accidental and unworthy character; for the law itself imbodies the fact that it is a remission of duties on salt" casually destroyed by flood on the night of the same day on which the said salt was landed and stored"-precisely the case now before the House.

Sir, what was just in 1790 is just at this day, if found. ed in principle. The case of Davidson was allowed, not upon mere policy or expediency, in 1790, but upon principle; upon principle founded in equity as well as sound policy. It was allowed upon the same principle now recognised by the Committee of Ways and Means in the report of the case now before the House.

* On April 20, 1792, Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, reported to the House on the petition of Eliphalet Ladd, which had been referred to his consideration by the House, in favor of remitting entirely the duties on goods which have been shipwrecked, and which escape either with or without damage, or to vest the power somewhere either to remit or abate, ac

[JAN. 14, 1837.

Congress conceded that the article destroyed was in its original state; that it had not gone into the market, nor entered into the consumption of the country; that its destruction would probably give place to a new importation of a corresponding amount, upon which the Government would get its duty; that it was destroyed without any lack of ordinary prudence and vigilance on the part of the importer; that the destruction could not have been covered by an ordinary insurance, and that all the facts were so proved as to negative the possibility of fraud in the case. Such is precisely the case now before the House; and upon what principle, I ask, can the one case be allowed, and the other disallowed?

The next kindred case of remission that is on record is the case of two French citizens, which reads as follows: "An act for the remission of the duties on eleven hogsheads of coffee, which have been destroyed by fire. "Whereas eleven hogsheads of coffee were imported in the brig Jason, from Cape François, by two French citizens, to the port of Norfolk and Portsmouth, in November last, and the duties thereon secured to be paid by Messieurs Elliot and Purviance, of the same port: And whereas the said eleven hogsheads of coffee were afterwards, on account of the same importers, shipped to the port of Baltimore, and there, in the night of the seventh day of January last, destroyed by fire:

"Be it therefore enacted, &c., That the duties paid or payable to the United States, on the same eleven hogsheads of coffee, be, and the same are hereby, remitted; and it shall be the duty of the collector of the port of Norfolk and Portsmouth to refund the same duties, if they have been received. Approved May 9th, 1794."

This act is found in the United States Laws, vol. 2, page 404. This case again covers a principle of much broader extent than the case of Dana & Co., and exhibits, comparatively, no merit, when contrasted with the latter. The claimants were foreigners; the goods had been imported to one market, and thence to a second market, and were, after this, destroyed by fire, by an exposure of the property to a new and ordinary risk, against which an insurance might have been effected, and against which ordinary prudence would have effected an insurance. Nevertheless, as they were destroyed cording to the circumstances of the case. He added: "From the rareness of the casualty, this loss to the revenue, from either arrangement, could not be very mate. rial." See State Papers, volume 1, on Finance, page 162.

In the case of Paul Chase, praying a remission of duties on goods imported into St. Mary's, Georgia, during the last war, and subsequently captured by the enemy, the committee said: "The object of the Government in laying duties on foreign merchandise imported into the United States is to raise a revenue, for the support of Government, on foreign merchandise actually consumed within the United States." See House Reports, No. 27, Session 1824-'5.

So in the case of J. F. Ohl, where seventy-five boxes of sugar were imported into Philadelphia in November, 1826, and destroyed by fire on the 7th of December, 1827, (three months thereafter,) the committee say: "The committee consider the precedents in which relief has been given to be confined to cases where the goods have been burnt or destroyed in the form in which they were originally imported; and believing, as they do, that the spirit of the revenue laws requires the collection of duties only upon those goods which are consumed in the country, and that every loss of this kind must necessarily call for an additional and equivalent importation, upon which duties will be paid, have reported a bill,” See Report 170, vol. 3, 1827-'8.

&c.

before entering into the consumption of the country, the duties were refunded.

And here again I beg the attention of the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, and of the House generally, to the fact that this case of the French citizens is not one where the facts could have escaped the notice of Congress, while the law in its favor was on its passage. It is not a precedent that was established through the negligence of Congress. So well did Congress understand what the measure and the case was, and so careful were they in the recognition of the principle it in. volved, that the facts of the case were especially set forth in the preamble of the bill, as I have read it from the statute book.

Congress herein recognised the principle, that inasmuch as the property destroyed had not actually entered into the consumption of the country, and had not gone into the market, but was held on account of the same importers"-in other words, had never changed hands and owners-it was but just, and honest, and politic, to refund the duties paid upon it, though it had been several months in the country.

Sir, I do not press the principle in this broad extent now. I do not say I would recognise it to such an extent now. I cite the case only to show how much broader is the principle upon which Congress has heretofore acted in the remission of duties, than in the one now involved by the case before us. Surely, sir, if the case of the French citizens be admissible in half its extent, the case of Messrs. Dana & Co., now before us, is beyond question.

The case of Jabcz Rogers is another case founded on the same policy of the Government. It is entitled "An act for the remission of the duties on certain distilled spirits destroyed by fire." It was approved June 7, 1794, and reads as follows-(see United States Laws, vol. 2, page 485:)

"Whereas Jabez Rogers, junior, who had erected large works at Middlebury, in the State of Vermont, for distilling spirits from the produce of the country, has had the same twice destroyed by fire, with a quantity of spirits therein, on which by law duties had become pay. able to the United States:

"And whereas, considering the equity of the case, said duties ought to be remitted; therefore,

"Be it enacted, &c., That the duties payable to the United States on all such distilled spirits as shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the supervisor of the district of Vermon', to have been destroyed by fire in the distilleries lately burnt at Middlebury, in the State of Vermont, be and are hereby remitted."

Here, again, the principle adopted is altogether more broad and liberal than is asked or contemplated in the case of Dana & Co., now before the House. It not only adopts the principle of refunding the duties that had accrued to the Government, because the dutiable article was destroyed before entering into the ordinary consumption of the country, but, also, in a case where the loss incurred was from a risk against which ordinary prudence would have protected the owner; where an insurance of the property, against the very loss incurred, was possible. The case before the committee imbodies all the merit of the first principle, without being exposed to the derogation of the last-mentioned circumstance.

The principle of refunding duties imposed by Govern. ment, in cases where the purpose of both the Govern ment in imposing such duties, and of the individual in paying them, has been defeated by inevitable and unforeseen accident, which is precisely the principle of the case of the Danas, was fully recognised and adopted by Government in the act of June 1, 1796, entitled "An act providing relief to the owners of stills within the United States, for a limited time, in certain cases." That act VOL. XIII-88

[H. of R.

provided (see 2d vol. United States Laws, p. 571) that where a distiller had been "really and truly prevented from employing or working his still or stills, during any part of the term for which he had rendered it liable to pay a duty upon its or their capacity, by the destruction or failure of fruit and grain, or any other unavoidable cause, within the district in which he resides," &c., he might pay upon its capacity a pro rata duty for the time his still or stills were actually employed.

The same principle was adopted by the act of March 3, 1797, relating to duties laid upon mills employed in the manufacture of snuff. The second section of that act provides as follows, (see 2d vol. United States Laws, p. 590:) "That in all cases of licenses granted under the said act, where, by failure of water or other casualty, occurring to the mill or mills, or to the implements, or to the proprietor or other person licensed, the use and benefit of such license has been lost, or considerably interrupted, and the duties thereon required, or paid, may be considered peculiarly unequal and injurious, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon due representation and proof of such case, shall be, and hereby is, authorized to cause to be refunded or remitted such part of duties paid or secured on such license as shall appear just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the loss, injury, or peculiar hardship, sustained as aforesaid."

I may cite the case of the Providence merchants, found in vol. 3, p. 433, of the Laws of the United States. The collector of the district of Providence, in the State of Rhode Island, was authorized and directed, by the law of their case, to remit the duties on such parts of two certain cargoes of teas as were imported on the 29th of July, 1800, by Thomas Lloyd & Co., and on the 22d of August, 1800, by John J. Clark, "as remained deposited to secure the payment of duties, under the care of the officers of the customs, on the 21st day of January last, in the aforesaid town of Providence, and shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the said collector, to have been burned and destroyed." This was approved March 3, 1801.

The committee who reported this last case for relief say:

"Your committee are of opinion that, as the goods were under the care of the officers of the customs at the time they were consumed by fire, and not subject to the control of the owners; and that, as granting relief in this case cannot establish a precedent dangerous to the revenue, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted." American State Papers, vol. 1, on Finance, p. 698.

Here the principle of not exacting duties on goods destroyed before entering into the ordinary consumption of the country is distinctly and undeniably recognised, and is the great leading principle of the case. Here, also, the principle of remission is extended far beyond the nature of the case presented by the Messrs. Danas & Co., because it is made to cover a loss arising from a risk against which an ordinary insurance and ordinary vigilance would have protected the owners. The fact that the property was still in possession of the Government does not alter the case, only so far as it may presume to shut out the possibility of fraud on the part of the importers, because this fact did not take the case out of the principle of ordinary insurances, nor release the owners from exercising ordinary vigilance to secure themselves against loss from such a risk.

Mr. Speaker, I might go on and cite, in detail, each of the several cases that have come before Congress for remission, but for consuming too much of the time of the House. Suffice it to say that, after careful and vigilant search, I find no case conflicting with the principle of the case now presented, and when the fact that the property destroyed was so situated as not to be inşura