Mr. HOTCHKISS. would like to understand the principle upon which gentlemen propose to vote away the public money in this way. O my mind some very starth ng propositions have been made here. I will conce e that if parties bargaiutogether with the full knowledge of the fact, although the law may not warrant their bargain, may not require it, then the party is bound by what he agrees to. But does that apply to an official agent of the Government? I understand gentlemen here to say that this railroad company was bound to perform this service by law, by contract; that with this contract existing the SecyWar made another contract, by which the road was to receive payment from the Government for this same service. Is there any lawyer in this House who will say that the Government is bound by that; or that after the money has been paid over the Government shall not have the right to go into court and litigate with the other party, and have the question determined whether that money was awfully or unlawfullypaid? I think it is a very starth ng proposition to say that that shall not be done and furthermore, is it to be tolerated here that an Officer of the Government shall make a bargain that is unlawful in itself, in contra vention of law, or in the absence of law, when the Government is under no legal obligation to pay the money that an officer of the Government shall make a bargain to pay money out of our Treasury, and then when we are asked to make an appropriation for it we are to be told that is equitable and should be paid; that equity overrides law I I would like to know where it is laid down inany book that equity ever authorizes Congress or the Government or any officer of the Government to override contracts. If the money in our Treasury is to be paid out in violation oflaw, or in absence of law, how long will we be able to keep it replenished by taxing the people, and have them contentc, and we be permitted to retain our places here? If a railroad company is to be permitted to come into this House and plead equity in its favor I would like to know upon what ground we could justify this when we eny com)cnsation to citizens whom the Government ins deprived of their property during the war, simply because we have not the money to pay them.