Mr. BUCKALEW. I wish to make one remark before this bill passes. I do not intend to oppose its passage. I do not assent to the bill upon the ground upon which it was mainly Pressed in the House and before the ComClaims. That ground was that the U.S. had another security arising from the default of the marshal; and, inasmuch as they discharged the marshal from the payment of the debt, these sureties ought to stand, either in law or in equity, discharged; at all events, that arising from that fact, there was some obligation upon the U.S. to discharge the original debtor or his sureties. Now, sir, I think that is bad law and bad reason; that there is no ground whatever for the passage of this bill arising from the fact which I have mentioned. I think that if the U.S. have 2 securities for the enforcement of a pecuniary obligation, their failure to pursue one of their remedies can have no effect whatever upon their right to pursue the other; and that the original debtor and his sureties, being utter strangers to the case as between the U.S and her own officer, cannot plead any action or any lenity exercised by the government in regard to its own officer in discharge of their obligation; that it will stand unaffected altogether, either in law or in reason, by any indulgence which the U.S. may show in Pressing against a defaulting officer the obligation which he may have incurred. I vote for this claim upon a sort of equitable principle of limitation. I think that where the Government has stood by for a period of 30 years, and has not enforced or attempted to enforce its demand against the original debtors for the period of 30 years, and when most of the sureties are dead or have removed from the place or have become insolvent, it would be most unreasonable, perhaps inequitable and unjust, to enforce the whole of the original demand against the few sureties who remain alive; and not only to enforce the original demand, but the accumulations of interest, making the debt 3 times what it was originally. In a case of this kind, after the lapse of a quarter of a century, when the Government has not pursued its remedy, when it has not enforced its demands, when the circumstances of the parties have changed, and when the obligation of the few sureties who are still responsible is increased 15 or 20 fold by the delay of the Government, it would be inequitable and improper for the Government to enforce the demand. I speak on this subject because I apprehend that in other cases hereafter before the Commoittee on Claims and before the Senate the of this bill may be quoted as a precedent, and it may be insisted that inasmuch as we have discharged these sureties, and one of the grounds for such discharge alleged before us and Pressed upon our attention was that we had discharged the officer, therefore in other cases we are to pass bills upon similar princi: les. I vote for the bill on the other ground have stated. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. DEMPSEY REECre.