Mr. HENDERSON. That was my recol lection in reference to the damages that this amendment was intended to cover. The Senfrom Michigan says that this claim grew out of an existing law. Now, it turns out that the larger portion of the claim does not grow out of a law but grows out of the sinking of the vessel. The damages, it seems, grew out of the storm; and if there be any law for the allowance, it must be the storm itself, for surely there is none other. It is not pretended that these parties have not been paid every dollar that the law authorized to be given for building the vessel. My remembrance is that the contract was made with these parties under.an appropriation to cover the contract price, and every dollaf of that has been paid. But they say that the Government did not compl with its part of the contract, and they now as for damages that resulted from the sinking of their vessel in consequence of the failure of the Government to comply with its part of the contract. The latter part of the thirtieth rule of the Senate is' “ No amendmentshall be receivedwhoseobject is to provide for a private claim unless it be to carry out the provisionsof an existinglaw or a treaty stip “lution.” What is the meaning of that? If a contract had been entered into a number of years ago to build the Capitol, for example, and appropriations were made from year to year, as was the case, in order to pay for the work that might be done during the year, this would be an existin law under which the work would go on, an an amendment might be offered making an appropriation to cover the work that an ht afterward be done. That is to say, the wor is to be done from vear to year, and the law' is an existing law. ’erhaps, in such a case, the appropriations, running through a series of years filtecn or 20 years would amount to many millions, but only a sufficient amount is appropriated each year to meet the work that may be done in the succeeding year. When the bill for the relief of the iron clad contractors was pending I took some art in the discussion. I did not remember the precise character of this particular claim, but it turns out. as I supposed, and the facts are such as to make it unquestionably a private claim. The thirtieth rule was adopted for a good purpose. The Chair says that this proposition cannot be entertained under the rule; but senators say, submit the question to the Senate and let us take a vote upon it, and ifa majority wish to violate the rule of the Senate let them do so. Sir, that ought never to be done; and wh ‘I Are we, under a mere proposition to made an appropriation to pay a certain amount of money, to take up and consider the merits of this claim? I understand that an appropriation bill is not for the purpose of considering the merits of the claims that maybe presented. An appropriation bill is intends to carry out the existing laws imposing obligations for carrying on the Government. Hy making an appropriation for this claim we admit its justice. I am not prepared to admit the justice of this claim, and l apprehend the Senate is not prepared to admitany such thing. I know it has been repeatedly said during the short discussion we have had about it and surely that has been long enough that all the Senate concurred in this claim. I apprehend not. It is said the committees have concurred in it. Sir, if this proposition is to be received, the door will be opened to consider all this iron clad business. The Senfrom Iowa, chairman of the ComNavAffrs, did not admit the justice of this claim; but, as I understand, he only proposed to pay 12%. upon the contract price. I