Mr. GRISWOLD. I will yield the floor now to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. TuMnr.isia; THAYER. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how many examinations would be necessary in order to satisfy the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Ross] with regard to the justice of a claim presented to Congress, or how many committees, in his judgment, should be required to examine a claim, or how many favorable reports should be made in order to satisfy his conse ience in voting to do justice to an officer of the U.S. It seems to me, sir, that when a report has come from a committee of this House. who have given the subject a careful examination, and when the gentleman finds it impossible to lay his finger upon any fact or any principle stated in the report of that committee with which he can take issue, the objection is of very little force that the case has not been examined by 2 committees instead of one. The person whose case is before the House is, according to the information which I have received, a gentleman of excellentcharacterin the naval service. 1 have taken the trouble to read the report of the committee upon his case; I have taken the trouble to read the evidence which was before the committee, and my judgment is that it is a perfectly clear case for the favorable action of this House. It is highly properthat extreme vigilance should be shown y the members of this House, and particularly by the committees of this House, in the examination of claims of this character and indeed of claims of every character which come before this body. But, sir, when those claims have undergone deliberate investigation, and when the evidence is of character to satisfy the judgment of any reasonable man that the claim is just, that the facts are true and the principles upon which our favorable action is invoke are correct, I know no reason why this House should refuse to do justice or why an officer of the Army or Navy of the U.S. should, in this respect, be subjected to any different rule from that which is applied to other officers or agents of the U.S., or, indeed, from that rule of law which is applied to all similar circumstances in the private relations of life. Now, if it is shown, as it is in this case, that proper care and diligence has been taken by the bailee of the money, that he has exercised in the circumstances in which he was placed all the diligence and care that a man of ru dence and caution would exercise in taing care of his own money, and he has lost it by an accident or a force against which he could not guard, and which occurred in spite of all the vigilance which he could exercise, and which could be reasonably demanded of him, then I see no reason why a rule should be supplied to him different from that which would O applied in private life to persons similarly situated. When the testimony shows that no lack of diligence has existed, that there is on the side of the officer good faith, unimpeached character, and all possible care in the protection of the property committed to him, and when that is accompanied by full proof of the loss, the conviction of the thieves and reels. mation of a portion of the money; when the case is such, in a word, as to satisfy the judgment of a reasonable man, that as between man and man it would be just that this allow once should be made, and that the bailee should he exonerated from responsibility, then I see no reason why justice should be denied h the U.S., or why the U.S.sionld refuse that justice to its own officers which persons in rivnte life would extend and would be oblige by law to extend to their own agents and bailees. I hope, sir, that the recommendation of the committee will be concurred in by this House, and the bill passed.