Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly would not object to the reference to any committee of a subject about which we needed the advice of a committee; but each Senator is perfectly able to decide for himself the 2 questions which this proposition involves: 1st, whether we have the power to pass it; and 2nd ly, if we have the power, whether it would be ex)e dient to pass it. Beside the 2 casesto which I referred, I forgot to refer to the case of the earthquake that occurred and destroyed the lands in the New Madrid grant, as it was termed. Congress passed a law giving the sufferers lands of an equal amount and of equal value. Several instances of similar appropriations have occurred. When by a calamitynot an earthquake in the sense in which my friendfrom Illinois refers to the case at Ca raceas, but when there was an explosion at the arsenal here and some 20 or 30 persons were killed or maimed, we passed an not making a contribution for the benefit of those who survived and were suffering, and for the benefit of the children and representatives of those who were killed. Now, as to the question of power, there may be something in it, but for the soul of me I do not exactly see it. I cannot imagine how the question of power can in any measure depend upon the fact whether the occasion which calls for a charitable appropriation of this description has been caused by an earthquake or bya fire. We grant it, if we grant it at all, because of the result, not because of the cause of the result; because of the ruin in which the people have been involved, the distress in which they have been placed, and their inability to provide for their actual wants; and whether that calamity or distress arises from some element ary strife or arises from a fire, which may or may not be owing to the carelessness of man as to the nrpose of man, is perfectly imma terial. e movethe money, and if we have the right to appropriate money for any purpose of this description, it is because of the purpose, because it is an occasion invoking the charitable aid of the Government; and no matter how the occasion has been brought about, whether by the aid of man in any way, directly or indirectly, or whether by the direct interposition of Heaven, is immaterial. We come to their relief. provided it be true that the parties are in a situation which calls upon us to relieve them if we can. Mr.TltUMBULL. Thingsunlikeeachother are often noted as precedents. Now, the Senfrom Maryland, astute as he is, and seeing a distinction at a glance, quotes as a precedent for this bill an appropnation made by Congress for the relief of tiiose who were injured by the blowing up of the arsenal. Is there any analogy between them? Those parties at the arsenal were in the Government employ. He might as well say that the granting of a pension to a soldier furnished a precedent for an appropriation. to be given to persons who had suffered from fire in no way connected with the Government. There is no analogy between them. The Senator says he does not know why the bill should be referred. It should be referred to know, if an appropriation is to be made at all, something about the circumstances. Can the Senfrom Maryland in form me what the loss at Portland is? I understand that in the city of NewYork alone there is more than amillion ofinsurancc. How relieve the suffering of these people. much of this property was insured in other cities I do not now. It seems to me that before we vote mone out of the Treasury of the nation we should now something about the extent to which this suffering goes. Again, sir, I understand that private contri butions have been made all over the country in aid of these sufferers. I am glad to see it. It exhibits a proper disposition on the part of the people. I am as much for it a the Senfrom Msland, and will contribute as liberally. accor ng to my means, as others to I would much prefer doing it in that way rather than voting money out of the Treasury.