Mr. WILLIAMS. This bill proposes simply to refund the money in excess of the amount of tax, costs, and expenses of sale. There is an arrangement between the man who purchased the property and Mrs. Dixon in consideration of her circumstances and misfor tunes to allow her to redeem it in case she can obtain these funds from the U.S., which I think she is entitled to. I will say before I sit down that I think this is not the case that was before the ComJudiciary. I know that there have been 2 or 3 simi lar cases before different committees. One I know was before the ComJudiciary; one was referred to the ComFinance; but I believe they have now all been referred to the ComClaims. I do not regard this case as a dangerous precedent for this reason, and the relief is put expressly upon this ground: that Mrs. Dixon started from Charlottesville with an intention to redeem her property in ample time to arrive there for that purpose, but the roads were almost impassable, the bridges broken down, and she was taken ill upon the road, and so was unavoidably detained, and did not reach Alexandria until ten days after the time when the 2 years allowed by law for redemption had expired. This reliefisput upon the ground, which is frequently recognized in the court of equity, that she did all she could to redeem her property, but was prevented by, unavoidable accident from doing so. The bill simply provides that, after deducting the amount of the direct tax, the amount of the costs, and the expenses of the sale, the SecyTreas: ury shall refund back to her the amount of money actually received into the Treasury from the sale. The property sold was worth $5,000. It sold for a little over 2,000 dollars. It sold at a great sacrifice. Mrs. Dixon is a widow lady. Her loyalty is put, entirely be: yond question by the evidence in the case; and she is left by the death of her husband and by the loss of this property in destitute circumstances. It was the opinion of the committee that these facts relative to her attempted return for the purpose of redeeming her property made this an exceptional case, and that it would not be a precedent that would authorize any interference by Congress in other cases where property had been sold.