Mr. SHERMAN. I cannot recall a single article on which the Senate bill raises the duty above the House rates.
The PRESIDING OFFICER put the question on the amendment, and declared that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRAGUE called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 8, nays 25;–19. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENDERSON. On page 86, section 13, line 63, I move to strike out “24 cents per 100 pounds” and to insert “ 80%. advalorem;” so that the clause will read: On salt in bulk, and on all rock salt or mineral salt, 80%. advalorem. Mr. President, that is ten%. higher than the duty upon any article of silk goods imported; it is as high as the tariff upon woolen goods generally; and it really seems to me that the tax upon salt ought to be as cheap as upon the mere luxuries of life. I ask for the yeas&nays on this amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HEN DRICRS. I wish to ask of the Senfrom Missouri, as he has examined this question, what reduction his amendment will be upon the bill itself in the tax upon salt?
Mr. HENDERSON. I can state to the Senator that in 1865, we imported 270 million pounds of salt, costing us 13 cents per 100 pounds. This bill proposes to tax that article costing 13 cents, 24 cents. I. propose to put it at 80%., which will be ten and 4 10thscents on each 100 pounds.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not intend to discuss this at any length; but it seems to me that the friends of the bill ought to agree to a proposition so reasonable as this.
Mr. SHERMAN. This is the old tax. There is no change.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It is suggested to me that the report of the committee is the old tax. I am not. to see that that is an important consideration. If the old tax is what it ought not to be now, as we are in the work of revising the tariff, we ought to make it what it ought to be.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, Mr. President, that is one of the troubles. When you put a tax on an article, it is almost impossible ever to reduce it again; and here is the argument now applied to salt that everybody needs that we need in very large quantities in the western countries.to Preserve our meats. Because the tax in the midst of the war, when all the comforts and necessaries of life were taxed to the people, had to be very high, the argument now is that we ought not to reduce it.
Mr. HENDERSON. The tax under the old lTahwiswas 18 cents, not 24 cents is an increase. Taxes, like revolution H
Mr. FESSENDEN. This is what was fixed by the House and sent to us.
Mr. HENDERSON. But this is not the Present law. To suppose so is a mistake.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I understand the facts to be, that the existing law taxes it 18 cents, and the proposition of the bill now is to tax it 24 cents.
Mr. FOSTER. If the Senfrom Indiana will allow me, if the importation contin ued the same the next year as last the addition of 6 cents per 100 pounds would tax the country $355, 637 35 on salt alone.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir. Now, the answer of the chairman of the committee is that this is the tax proposed by the House. Why, sir, the committee has repudiated the House bill and has adopted another bill. Why do we insist upon having the House bill upon this article, so absolutely necessary? We cannot reduce it, it seems, although the tax was put upon salt during the war; but instead of reducing it we propose to increase it one 4th, from 18 up to 24 cents. I cannot think it is necessary to argue this question with the gentlemen that have an interest in this bill. They certainly ought to give some popular features to this bill, if it is possible to do so. “Sir, this is a monstrous bill. When a thing so reasonable and right as this is asked it ought not to be resisted by the friends of the bill. Here is a necessary of life that cannot be dispensed with, and the tax is unreasonable. If the statement of the Senfrom Connect icut is to be relied upon (and I cannot question it, for he has examined the subject) the tax is most unreasonable. It is a tax that ought not to be put hardly upon a luxury. It would be a heavy tax upon whisky; a isa, tax upon brandies or wine. Some ridicule was made of this the other day, that it did not amount to very much. It does amount to very much to us in the West. When we put up the hogs in the West we need the salt to Preserve the meat. It is a tax upon the man who puts the meat up. The Senfrom Missouri, who has examined this subject and who proposes this amendment, tells me that the tax proposed by the committee is 184%.
Mr. FOSTER. On a single cargo imported into NewYork last year it was 162%., when the tax stood at 18 cents on the 100 pounds. This bill proposes to make it 24 cents.
Mr. HENDERSON. I take the whole importations of last year.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senfrom missouri says, taking the entire importation of the year, 24 cents would be 184%. 184%..Senators know that that is a tax which will be paid, because salt must be had. If you tax salt 500%. everybody must still buy salt, because it is absolutely necessary to the comfort of the family; it is absolutely necessary to Preserve the meat that is butchered all over the country; and the committee know very well that they will collect revenue in that way. Just so on sugar. They say it is important to the revenue. Of course it is; people must have sugar, and if you tax it 3 cents a pound of course the people must pay it, because they must have sugar. You tax coffee 5 or 6 cents a pound. It will not make much difference in the amount used, for people must have coffee. Then if you put the tax very high on manufactured articles, such as woolens and cottons, and exclude importations altogether, you orevenue by your prohibitory tariff, and give the monopoly of the market of the country to the home manufacturer at high prices, and rely upon the absolute necessaries of life for the revenue. This salt duty is an illustration. I appeal to gentlemen to do what is now reasonable. Why it is less than reasonable. The duty proposed by the Senfrom Missouri is altogether too much. I do not think salt ought to be taxed at all. Wherever it can be had it ought to be obtained at the very cheapest possible rate.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope this duty will not be changed. The Senate has already passed upon the question once; and the House too. I hope the Senate will adhere to it. The obeing taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 14, nay's 20;–18. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to offer another amendment on page 65. I had some others reducing taxes, but I am satisfied nothing reducing taxes will be carried. I now propose to increase taxes. I wish now to propose an amendment on page 65, section 9, line 6nine. The clause as reported by the committee reads: On linseed or flaxseed, 16cents per bushel of 52 poundsweight. That was changed to 20 cents, I believe. I now propose to strike out “ 20, ” and to insert “ 30;” so that it will read: 15 tlwine sepeodunodr sfwlaexisgehetd., 30 cents per bushel of Now, Mr. President, I will remark that the quotations of this article show that its average gold price in the foreign market is $1 30 per bushel, and if the duty be put at 30 cents it will only be 23%. advalorem. This is an article of western growth. It is an article that my constituents have been petitioning me upon, and I believe the only article. I have offered several petitions since the pend ency of this bill on this subject, and I have put, the figure exactly as they put it in their petitions. It is only 23%. advalorem. I know of nothing that is grown or produced upon the Atlantic sea board or any where east of the Alleghany mountains that is put so low as this article. Y. a duty of 30 cents. I think that a fair average rate of duty with the other articles in the bill would justify me in placing it at 50 cents per bushel; but I propose simply 30 cents per bushel, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We had this matter all thoroughly discussed, and it was settled finally by a sort of compromise in the Senate at 20 cents, and I hope the Senate will adhere to it. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENDERSON. On page 82, section 12, line7, I propose to strike out the word “ten” and insert “ 20;” so as to read: On hides, raw or uncured, whether dry, salted, or pickled, 20%. advalorem. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENDERSON. I see now that the Senate will neither diminish nor increase. There are a great many articles of western growth, produce, and manufacture, in regard to which I might offer amendments, but I am perfectly satisfied that no article now will be increased in the rate of taxation. Every proposition that is made is laughed to scorn. I now propose to of this bill. strike out the 22nd section Mr. JOHNSON. What is Let that section? it be read.
The Secretary read it, as follows: SEC.22. Abife:, That on and after the 1stday of April, 1867t, here shall beallowed and paid a drawback equal in amount to the import duty paid on all lumber, hemp, Mauila, copper, and upon all iron not advanced in manufacture beyond rods, bars, and bolts, which shall be wrought up into the construction of rigging or equipment of sailing vessels of the U.S., or used in repairing vessels of foreign build, documented in conformitywith the provisions of the act of 23d December, 1852l, ess, 5%. on the amount of such drawback, which shall be retained for the use of the U.S. under such regulationsasthe SecyTreasury may Prescribe.
Mr. HENDERSON. With the permission of the Senator I should like to ask him a question before he concludes his remarks
Mr. HENDERSON. What justice is there in allowing a drawback upon a sloop that is built at the city of Baltimore to run between Norfolk and Baltimore, and not giving a draw back to a vessel built at StLouis.?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is not the question, Mr. President.
Mr. JOHNSON. It by no means follows that because a drawback is not given to vessels that are built on the Mississippi and on the Ohio it ought not to be given to any other vessels. you cannot get it for the West, give it to the East.
Mr. HENDERSON. I ask the Senator if he is in favor of giving it to the West.
Mr. HENDERSON. Will you vote for a proposition to that effect?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let it come before uS.
Mr. HENDERSON. I wish to call the attention of the Senator to one fact; that in this bill every stick of ship timber that goes into the vessel is free, being put on the free list.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then there will be nothing to be returned for the timber.
Mr. HENDERSON. You get the timber free, and then you get a drawback upon all the other materials in the ship: upon the iron, the hemp, the cordage, the canvas, and everything of that character.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We get it upon nothing that has gone into a state of manufacture. We get it on raw materials.
Mr. HENDERSON. You get all the timber free; but if we build a fence in the West we may have increased price, because of the increased there is anything in duties.
Mr. FESSENDEN. suppose every senator understands the matter; and if the reasons for putting in the section are not sufficient they will vote down the section; otherwise they will retain it.
Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator misun derstood me when he says I rePresent the bill as having been originally framed on this idea. The bill was a much better bill when it came from the committee. It has been made infin itely worse by a combination of interests on this floor since.
Mr. DAVIS. I am speaking of the bill as as it has come from the committee and as it has been modified by amendments accepted by the Senate.
Mr. FOWLER. I wish simply to state a few reasons why I cannot support this amendment. In the 1st place, I am in favor of the section as it stands, provided our interests are protected also. I do not see any good reason why the interest of the ship builders should be protected at the East and those of the West should not be. I am in favor of extending this protection alike to both, and I should like it amended so as to give that protection. I cannot support exactly the measure of the Senfrom Missouri, because I am in favor of extending protection to this class of interests; neither could I support a bill that would discriminate so improperly against other interests.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will say to the Senator there is nothing sectional about it. So far as steamers are concerned, we build steamers at the East as well as at the West. We build steamers all along the Atlantic line, large steamers and small. I was for including them all in the section; but the Senate decided, and not by eastern votes particularly, but on motion of the honorable Senfrom Ohio, that it was not advisable to extend it to river going steamers.
Mr. FOWLER. I do not wish to be under stood as charging anything sectional.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The section covers all sailing vessels built anywhere in the U.S.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know whether I belong to the East or the West in this tremendous controversy that is pending here between the 2 sections of the country; but there is one consideration which has not been suggested that influences my judgment in favor. ING this section of the bill as it now stands. Objection is made because it is not applicable to steamboats built upon the Mississippi river, and it is claimed that it is a provision put into this bill for the exclusive benefit of Maine or some particular section of the country or England. New
Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to know if the Senator intends to put this language in my mouth, that I said it was for the benefit of Maine or any particular State?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is aware that he did allude to Maine 2 or 3 times in the course of his remarks as particularly interested.
Mr. HENDERSON. I did. There are just as many vessels though built in the city of NewYork as in Maine, I apprehend, of late years. I alluded to Connecticut also, and to Maryland. I suppose there are a great many vessels built at Baltimore. I did allude to the western lakes, and stated that it was a discrimination against the Mississippi in favor of the StLawrence river.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not undertake to put any language in the mouth of the honorable Senator; but I say that it was a legitimate in ference from his remarks that this provision was put into this bill for the benefit of Maine; and that is the way the honorable Senfrom Maryland [Mr. JOHNson] understood it, and I Presume it was so understood by most of the Senators. He may not have, in the excitement under which he seems to have labored, exactly measured the force of his language; but that was what I understood him to imply, if he did not exPressly say it. But, sir, I was about to remark that we can build ships upon the Pacific coast as well as they can in Maine, and that, so far as I can see, this provision is just as much for the advantage of California and Oregon as it is for Maine and Massachusetts, or any other part of the U.S. But the particular reason that influenced my mind in favoring this provision was this: there can be no foreign competition in the construction of steamboats; but I believe, unless there is some provision in this bill to promote the construction of sailing vessels in the U.S., the entire business will be transferred to Europe, and there will not be a sailing vessel built in the U.S. There is a necessity, it seems to me, on that account for protecting the business of ship building in the U.S.; but there is no necessity for such protection so far as steamboats on the rivers are concerned, because none of those boats are built in Europe or can be constructed in Europe.
Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senator be kind enough to inform me what is the necessity for protecting the schooners and sloops on the lake coast?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will answer. It is impossible in any provision of law to particularize every vessel and every ship. The mass of the shipping protected by this provision is such as sails upon the ocean, as does the coasting trade; and it would be impossible, in making a provision of this kind, to specify that it should apply to ships sailing in one locality and not apply to ships sailing in another locality; but the pro: vision is general, and its benefits are attained by vessels chiefly engaged in the coasting trade or in commerce with foreign countries. such vessels are those the construction of which this provision is intended to benefit, though it may incidentally assist in the construction of vessels upon the lakes, and I am sure that no western man can complain of that. I suppose that if. the construction of sailing vessels upon the lakes is made cheap it will cheapen transportation for the West, because they transport by way of the lakes their produce to the eastern market, and the cheaper fine vessels are constructed upon the lakes the less will the cost of transportation be.
Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to ask the Senator if transportation to the East will not be much cheaper if we take off the entire duty on railroad iron and let us import it from England?
Mr. CATTELL. I concur in every word that has been said by the Senfrom Oregon, and wish to say that this was the unanimous opinion of the committee. That is not very important, nor are their opinions in the view of the Senfrom Missouri of very much weight; nevertheless, I desire to relieve the Senfrom Maine from the apparent imputation that it may have proceeded from him. The committee were entirely unanimous on this subject. It was shown to the committee that a ship could be built in Nova Scotia at very nearly 50%. less than it could be built in Maine.. was no possible wa of protecting it that could be seen in accordance with our laws and treaty regulations, save by a drawback, and it was unanimously agreed that it was one of those interests worthy to be [. in the best form we could, and I lieve the committee were entirely unanimous in the opinion that this drawback ought to be given.
Mr. GRIMES. I desire to state, as the yeas&nays are about to be taken, that on this uest.ion the Senfrom Missouri [Mr. has paired off with the Senfrom Maryland, [Mr. CREswell] The Senfrom Missouri wished me to say that if here he would vote in favor of the proposition, and the Senfrom Maryland would vote against it. The question being taken by roo yeas&nays, 11, nays 26; 15. So the motion to strike out did not prevail.
Mr. GRIMES. I have 2 or 3 amendments that I propose to offer. I do not expect, however, that the inexorable majority who are going to pass this bill will adopt them, but I want to give them an opportunity to do so. On page 91 I move to insert the words “and one half” after the word “cent” in the 67th line of the 15th section; so as to read: On beefnot cured, and on beefdried, onecent and 1/2 per pound. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRIMES. In the same line I move to strike out “two” and insert “three;” so as to read: On beef cured in barrels, 3 dollars per barrel of 200 pounds.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is none imported now. The amount, according to the tables, imported last year was 30 dollars' worth.
Mr. GRIMES. I am not so sure about that.
Mr. GRIMES. At any rate I do not know how that may be under this tariff. When they drive cattle down from Canada it may be for their interest to pack them there in consequence of the large imposition of duty on salt and saltpeter. If there are none imported, as the Senator says, it can do no harm. I think it is well enough to raise the rate a dollar a barrel.
Mr. SHERMAN. If there was any object in the world in levying a duty on meats of any kind I should be willing to vote for the amendment; but the whole amount brought into this country in 1865 of beef and pork was $921; of baconand ham $3, 150; of meats Preserved in cans and sausages, $11,538. That shows that under the old tariff, when admitted duty free, there was no importation of meats into the country. This amendment, therefore, is simply useless. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRIMES. It is pretty evident, I think, that the Senate are not disposed to interfere with the subject of meats. I will now try them on the subject of knowledge, in the ab sence of the Senfrom Massachusetts. [Laughter] I should not Presume to poach on the manor of the Senfrom Massachusetts when he was Present. On page 88, line 27 of section 14, I propose to reduce the duty on printing paper from 20 to 15%. advaloren. On this question I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN. I will simply state that the Present duty is 20%., and has been so a number of years. It produces a large revenue. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 12, nays 25; 15. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRIMES. On page I93 move to strike out all on that page after line 5 of section 16 down to the 19th line of that section, on page 94, on the subject of lumber. I am in favor of having free lumber, to the country, and I want a vote by yeas an navs. ifie yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 8, nays 23;, So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRIMES. It is very evident, I think, that the Senate is looking very closely after revenue this evening; and I therefore propose to strike from the free list on page 105, line 168 of section 18, the words “ship timber.” I ask for. yeas&nays on that amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 5, mays 30; 17. So the amendment to the amendment was rojected.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, it seems to me the votes indicate a purpose on the part of the Senate not to change this bill further, and I suggest to gentlemen it is just as well we should come to a vote on the bill. I cannot see any advantage in contesting it further.
Mr. HENDERSON. I have no amendment to offer except in reference to the day when this bill shall take effect, and that is in the 3rd line of the 1st section, on page 1. I believe the blank that was originally left in that line has been filled up with the 1st day of April. If that be adhered to it is very plain what the operation will be. The Senate has made up its mind to pass the bill; it will go to the HoRep and be passed there, and become a law, and become a law soon. Then between that time and the 1st of A pril.the large importers will bring immense of goods into the country, and in that way the object of the bill, to some extent at least, will be defeated. I Presume that during the interval between now and the 1st of April large importations will be made. There is a plenty of time to telegraph to Europe and have large stocks imported between now and the 1st of April; and the effect will be to neu tralize, to a very considerable extent, one design of the bill. If it be protective let the benefitof the protection go to the manufacturers. If the object be merely to increase the revenue, perhaps it will increase the revenue in this way, as much as in any other. Perhaps we shall get a much larger revenue in this way, for the simple reason that the importations will be at the Present rates of duty, which are less than the proposed rates. I move to strike out the words “on and after the 1st day of April, 1867, ” and to insert some reasonable time, say the 15th or 20th day after the passage of the act.
Mr. WILSON and others. Make it take effect from the passage of the act.
Mr. HENDERSON. Perhaps 15 or 20 days will be too long a time, for within that time stocks of goods could be ordered by telegraph and imported. I would propose that it shall take effect on the 10th day after the passage of the act.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is rather a loose form of exPression; you might just as well say from and after the passage of the act.
Mr. HENDERSON. I have no objection to that, and I move to amend by striking out “on and and after the 1st day of April, 1867, ” and insert “from and after the passage of this act.
Mr. CATTELL. I concur in the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, and am very glad to do so.
Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, sir., Mr. EDMUNDS. I am very glad, Mr. Pres. ident, that my friendfrom Missouri has proQsed one amendment which shows a sincere riendship to the interest of the bill, to the interest of the country, for with the telegraph as it is now anybody who has capital can flood the country with goods of every description by the 1st of April. I hope every friend of the bill will agree with the Senfrom Missouri in going for this amendment. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest now, that amendment having been agreed to by the senate, that the same change should be made in the proviso on the 5th page, by striking out the words “after the 1st. of April, 1867; and "othe passage of this act.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. That change will be made as a matter of course, to make the bill consistent with itself.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then in the 20 6th section, the section repealing prior inconsisMtenjtoaHcNts, StoheNs.ame change should be made. Let me suggest that the words “are hereby repealed” will answer the purpose, and are.to the words “ shall from and after the passage of this act be reealed.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, those words will do as well.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Thatchange of phraseology will be made if there be no objection.
Mr. STEWART. In voting for the amend.ment of the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. WILsoN] in regard to the duty on woolen cloths, I believed that the class valued at less than one dollar a pound would include all the coarser articles used by the poor people generally, and that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the duty upon the finer cloths; but from the best information I can get the dollar limit in the amendment should be raised to a dollar and a half.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think it is right as it stands.
Mr. SHERMAN, I have made inquiry since this question was up before, and I do not believe that a single pound of clothing such as is used by the common laborers, excepting the coarser satinets, which are mixed with cotton, will fall in the category under a dollar a pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The provision can be corrected in the House if it is wrong.
Mr. SHERMAN, I think the amendment is a violation of the agreement between the wool growers and manufacturers, and will be a disturbing element.
Mr. WILSON. I think the Senator ought to know that that has been violated in several places.
Mr. STEWART. I move a reconsideration of the vote adopting that amendment, so that we may have an opportunity to correct it.
Mr. SHERMAN called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 20, nays 17; 15. So the mtR agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I know nothing more unjust than I think this whole proposition. We have had tonight very earnest speeches made about the benefits of the East in this bill. I want simply
Mr. SHERMAN. In order to shorten this matter
Mr. SHERMAN. I want to submit a proposition.
Mr. WILSON. I wish to make one proposition. I move to amend the bill by striking out “ 45 ” and inserting “ 50 ” in the 11th line of the 4th section.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment having been reconsidered, the question before the Senate is what will be stated at the desk. The question now is upon the amendment as moved. It will be read.
Mr. WILSON. I wish to put this question to the Senfrom Ohio. W. you not be willing to put all under $1 50 in the 1st class, and then from $150 and 2 dollars in the 2nd class, and all over 2 dollars to be a a 3rd class?
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senate committee reduced the specific duty from 50 to 45 cents, on the ground that we had thrown off the duties on drugs and cheminals, &c. Now, I am willing to vote for the proposition of the Senate to bring it back to 50 cents, in which they agreed, and not make any difference of classification.
Mr. WILSON. I think you will get more revenue from the proposition in the way I have got it, and it if come heavier on the finer articles.
Mr. STEWART. I think there ought to be a discrimination, and I like that better.
Mr. WILSON. I will modify my amendment so as to provide that the duty on all cloths under one dollar and a half a pound shall stand as it does in the bill; those between one dollar and a half and 2 dollars shall have a duty of 50 cents a pound, and 40%. advalorem, and all above 2 dollars a pound 50 cents and 45%.
Mr. WILSON. I do not care about the agreement. We are sent here to legislate, and not the woolen manufacturers or wool growers.
Mr. SHERMAN. I admit that we are not bound by the agreement; but there is this to be said: the wool manufacturers, in a convention of their own calling, agreed that all they wanted was 50 cents a pound and 35%. advalorem. They agreed upon that asis when they were taxed on all the chemi cals used by them, when they were taxed a larger rate on the wool, when it was proposed to tax a certain portion of the wool a larger amount than we have put on it. I am willing to give them all they claim; and yet by our previous action we have given them a benefit of at least 5%. on their whole production. Let me say further, that any deviation from the agreement will give grave ground for complaint. It has already been started, and grave objection will be made, not against us particularly, but among these men who are rivals in interest and rivals in trade, whose interests have been antagonistic. One class will say they made a fair bargain with the other, but they did not live up to it. We ought to have no controversy of that kind upon a matter of this sort. I am perfectly willing to take their own arrangement in the very words they made it, give them the benefit of it, and abide by it. I think they ought to be satisfied with that.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I do not exactly understand perhaps it is owing to my ignorance what is meant by the agreement of the various interests which is here spoken of Is it a combination of persons to legislation?
Mr. WILSON. I desire to modify my amendment, if I have the power to do so, in the manner I have suggested.
The PRESIDENT protempore. done by unanimous consent.
Mr. WILSON. Instead of the classifications proposed originally I wish to make them $150, 2 dollars, and above 2 dollars.
Mr. SHERMAN. On the complaint of one man, who has been bothering us and hectoring us for nearly a month for his own particular interest, we are to violate an arrangement made by a convention rePresenting both the wool growers and wool manufacturers.
Mr. WILSON. The Senator will pardon me for saying that some of the largest manufacturers in the country, the largest men engaged in manufacturing, are in favor of something such as I propose being done; and further, they believe that this bill as it stands is deIt may be structive to 2/3rds of the woolen manufac turing interests of the country, and that they have got to suffer for it, because here is an absolute reduction from the law as it stands; certainly it is. The old law is worth more to us by7%. than this bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment as now proposed will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in section 4, line 11, to strike out all after the word “specified” to the end of the clause, and insert: Valued at $1,50 or perpound, and, less per pound, 45 cents in addition thereto, 35%.ad valoren; valued at over 81 50and lessthan 2 dollars per pound, 50 centsper pound, and, in additionthereto, 40%. advalorem, valued at 2 dollars and over per pound, 50 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 45%. advalorem.
Mr. HOWARD. I desire to ascertain whether I understood the Senfrom Ohio correctly in reference to the duties upon cloths. I understood him to say that the bill which is now before us, that is to say, the report of the ComFinance, contains in this respect substantially the result of an honorable agreement and understanding between the wool growers on the one side and the woolen manufacturers on the other. Do I understand him correctly?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes; but the ComFinance did reduce the specific rate from 50 to 45 cents, on the ground after we had put chemicals and dye stuffs on the free list, equivalent, according to their own declaration, to 2 and a half cents a pound, and also reduced the rate of duty on flocks, a portion of the wool used in the finer broadcloth, giving an advantage perhaps sufficient to make up the difference; but I said rather than have the matter opened again I would be willing to see the duty restored to 50 cents specific, instead of having these discriminating duties that in one case would raise the duty ten%. advalorem and 5 cents per pound, and in the other case 5%. advalorem and 5 cents a pound. A duty of ten%. advalorem on some cloths might amount to 50 cents or a dollar a yard on fine French broad cloths.
Mr. HOWARD. So in effect the committee carried out the agreement made between these parties as accurately and equitably as they were able to do.
Mr. HO WARD. I hope, then, there will be no alteration made in the report of the committee, and that the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts will not be accepted. Let us try the experiment according to the agreement made between these 2 rival interests, and stand by the agreement which they have made ourselves. I feel bound by that arrangement.
Mr. MCDOUGALL I do not understand how agreements can be made in committee, and how agreements can be made in conventions between wool growers' interests and manufacturers' interests, that come here to control the legislation of the Senate. I protest against anything of the kind. I say such agreements tend to public mischief. How am I to be governed by the report of a committee except as I am advised by it? A committee is a mere body of inquiry to ascertain facts and advise the Senate. Wool growers and wool manufacturers may go before them and endeavor to F.their own interests; but what right have they to commit the Senate to any such thing, or to make or indorse any compact of the fine , I object to it as being against the philosophy of true legislation here.
Skip Skip The question being put, there were, on a division ayes 17, noes.18. Mr. WILSON. I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. "
Mr., HENDRICKS. I should be much obliged if plain the Senfrom Ohio would exthe difference between the committee's report and the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts; I do not under sand it very clearly.
Mr. SHERMAN. The committee proposed upon woolen cloths, shawls, &c., a duty of 45 cents per pound and 35%. advalorem. The Senfrom Massachusetts proposes a duty of 45 cents per pound and 35%. advalorem on all worth $1 50 P. pound and less; and 50 cents per pound and 40%. advalo: rem on all between $150 and 2 dollars; and 50 cents a pound and 45%, advaloren on all above 2 dollars a pound. That is iIt believe.
Mr. GRIMES. I am in a difficulty to deter mine what I ought to do in this matter. I do not want to be put in the condition of voting for an increase of the duty on woolens, and yet I would like to do something for the assistance of the man who I understand would be benefited by the adoption of this amendment proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts. I understand that there was one large woolen manufacturer in NewEngland who had honesty, manliness, and high sense of principle sufficient to cause him to abstain entirely from all cooperation or participation in this combination of the woolen manufacturers for the purpose of coercing Congress into the passage of this bill, and I suppose it to be true from what I have heard that this man has been in consequence read out of the circle. They have put him, in a degree, under the ban, because of his manliness and independence; and there is not that protection given to him, he producing the best qualities of broadcloths, that is given to other woolen manufacturers. This is information I got long before tonight. I understand from those on whom, I rely that that is just about the condition of things: that one gentleman in Massachusetts, whose father was the man who originally introduced the man: ufacture of cotton cloths in this country and carried them up to the highest production in point of quality that there has ever been thrown upon our market from the American looms, in conjunction with one other person, a citizen of the State of Maine, are the only parties who will be specially advanced by the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts. So far as they are concerned I would like to reach them; that is to say, I do not want to do anything that would interfere with or militate against their interest, because I want to reward them for the public spirit and candor and manliness that were exhibited in remaining out of this combination that has attempted to control the action of Congress in legislation upon great public questions.
Mr. SHERMAN. A word in regard to this matter. Mr. Slater is the gentleman referred to. I have nothing to say in regard to him except this: he wanted to get wool and every thing else that he bought admitted duty free; he wanted to buy everything he had to buy as low as possible in the cheapest market in the world. That he frankly admitted was his pol icy. Then he wanted as high a duty on the article he manufactured as he could possibly get out of Congress. If this is an evidence of the highest patriotism I am mistaken. The people of Iowa and Ohio, so far as I have heard them ask for anything, simply ask that the same protection which is given to other productions of American laborers shall be extended to the article of wool. I do not know a citizen of the State of Ohio who does not ask this and demand it, not as a matter of favor, but a matter of right; and, as I said before, the very moment. show the agriculturists of this country that under similar circumstances you are not willing to give to the production of their industry the same reasonable protection by your tariff laws that you do to alfo industry, that moment they will use their power to break down the whole system, and in that I would defend them, because wool is the result of labor, and if they are not entitled to a reasonable protection against the labor of Canada and the labor of .America in the production of wool the whole system is vicious and ought to be abolished, and the sooner the better. Simply because Mr. Slater would not go into a convention which recommended a riv duty to protect the growth of wool in this country, he is therefoe said to be a patriotic and high minded admirable citizen, and is highly extolled. The simple fact is, that he wanted to get his wool duty free and everything that he has to buy free.
Mr. GRIMES. What evidence has the senator for that?
Mr. Slater frankly admits that he is in favor of free wool.
Mr. GRIMES. Did he so inform the committee?
Mr. SHERMAN. I so understood; he was in favor of the principle of free wool.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I confess I do not remember it.
Mr. SHERMAN. He is opposed to the increase of duty on wool.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What I understood him to say was that he believed the best thin for the wool growers, as well as for the woo manufacturers, was that manufactures should be protected and built up, for as they were established in this country wool growing would necessarily prosper. That was his idea. He said that was the best thing for the wool growers in his judgment, and the only way in which what was desired could be effectually accomplished. With regard to this arrangement he said that in his judgment the tariff as it stood was better.
Mr. SHERMAN. And he went on to extol in the highest terms the tariff of 1857, which admitted wool free of all duty. He thought that the most admirable system that could be devised, because it enabled him to buy his article without any tariff duty.
Mr. GRIMES. And wool was higher under it than it has been at other times except during the war.
Mr. SHERMAN. While Senators here are complaining about the duty on wool, it may be said that there is no other article of production in the U.S.A. the price of which this day in currency is no higher than the price before the war in gold. That is the case in regard to wool, and it is simply because it is without reasonable protection, having a duty of only 4 and a half cents a pound. If there is not a disposition on the part of the manufacturer to give to the wool grower the same principle of protection that is applied to his own labor, I would not vote for a tariff bill. The wool grower must be without any benefit of the principle of protection until the manufacture is so well established, according to Mr. Slater's idea, as to be able to consume all the wool of this country mixed with what he can buy cheaper abroad. While that point is being reached all our flocks and herds would be gone, turned into tallow, and as a matter of course during the process all our sheep would be used up.
Mr. WILSON. I object to turning this whole debate upon Mr. Slater. Mr. Slater is an eminent manufacturer. He has probably a large interest in the manufacturing business, but he is not alone; 2/3rds of all the woolen interests of this country are involved in this clause of the bill. I have received letters from 3 cthers recently, very large manufacturers, eminent men, and I will say to ou what they believe; and they are not alone in it. They believe that the passage of this bill will not be for the benefit of the manufac. turing interest of the country. They prefer the laws as they now exist. But if this change is made then they ought not to be reduced as they are. The distinction is this and I want the Senfrom Indiana to understand just what it means all goods valued at less than $150, which comprise nearly all the cloths that make up the dresses of the great mass of the people, especially of the laboring men of the country, will be left just as they are in the bill, 45 cents a pound and 35%. advalorem: all above $1 50 and less than 2 dollars, which embrace the finer articles, I propose to increase; and those above 2 dollars, which will take the more fine and costly broadcloths, will pay more, and they ought to pay in proportion. I believe it is sound and right ine and ought to be adopted. And I will say that in many of those cheaper articles the proportion of labor is only about 20%., while in the more costly articles it is from 45 to 50%. I speak of labor and machinery included.
Mr. HOWE. I want to say a single word, because I believe I have got to vote differently from the way my friends from my section of the country are generally going to vote. I am not going to vote with any reference to the inter. ests of Mr. Slater at all, nor with any special reference to the interests of manufacturers. I am going to vote, as I have tried to vote all through this struggle, for the interests of the agricultural class. The only way we can protect the wool growers, it seems to me, is by fix:ing duties so high as that they can raise wool here cheaper than wool can be imported. When that point is reached the wool grower, it seems to me, is satisfied. I suppose they have fixed that rate of duty in this bill, because I understand the bill fixes it at the rate agreed upon by the wool growers themselves. Now, it seems to me the wool grower has, then, the same interest in maintaining the manufacture of wool on this continent that he has in maintaining the growth of it, because who ever imports a yard of cloth competes with the wool rower just as much as the man who imports 4 pounds of wool, for I understand there are 4 pounds of wool in a yard of cloth. If it be true, then, that the increase of duty asked for by the Senfrom Massachusetts is essential to maintain the manufacture of wool here, it is for the interest of the wool grower that the manufacturer should have that protection, for we certainly cannot hope to raise wool to export, and unless we can have manufactures to work it up, I take it, our farmers will aban don the business of growing wool. I may be mistaken in this sort of reasoning, but it does seem to me that this duty is just as essential to the wool grower as the duty on The wool itself. obeing taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 19, nays 15;–18. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I ask for a vote now on horseshoe nails. I desire to amend the motion I made before in this respect. I asked for 7 cents instead of 5. The Present duty is 5 cents by the existing tariff. The increase of duty on iron is 3/4ths. I now ask for 6 cents. I move on page 31, line 153, to strike out “five “ and insert “six; ” so as to read: On horseshoe mails, all kinds, 6 centsper pound. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I think thereis one amend.ment I proposed this evening that ought to prevail. It is on page 8, section one, in refer ence to cotton goods. The committee have reduced the duties upon cotton goods 20%.; that is, where it was 5 they have placed it 4. The commissioner informs me this morning that the authority by which the reduction was made has informed him by letter that, in consequence of the increased duty upon everything that enters into the manufacture of cotton cloth, the Present duty should be rein stated. I trust the committee will agree to that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am not satisfied. I saw the letter. It was one that I did not attach any COnSequenceto.
Mr. SPRAGUE. The committee have reduced the duties on cotton goods 20%. I have statements to show to the Senate, o but I will not take up their time, that the protection upon the goods that are rePresented by this classis one and 3 8ths cents only, and I can prove it to the satisfaction of anybody. There is no agreement between the cotton manufacturers and cotton producers. [Laughter] The iron and the starch and the castings and the steel have all been increased, and all those items enter into the production of a piece of cotton cloth. I will mention the article of potato starch. The duty fixed by the committee is 4 and a half cents; the old duty was 2 and a half cents. It is so in everything, except cotton, that enters into the production of cotton cloth; and notwithstanding that, the duties have been decreased. Mr. Commissioner Wells says that the authority upon which this reduction was made has informed him that the Present duty ought to be replaced. There is no mistake about it: it is a self evident proposition.
Mr. SPRAGUE. The question before the Senate is to place the duties on cotton goods the same as d. are at Present, not to increase them. The proposition of the committee is to decrease them. My proposition is to permit them to remain as at Present.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There has been no amendment submitted.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Will the Senfrom RhdIsland state his motion?
Mr. SPRAGUE. My motion is, on page 8, line 14 of section two, to. Out “4” and insert “five;” in line 15 to strike out “4 and one half” and insert “five and one half;” in line 16 to strike out “4 and one half” and insert “five and one half.” Those are the figures in the Present tariff bill. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I offer the following amendment to come in at the end of the bill? It shall be lawful to any goods import into the U.S. not prohibited, and to warehouse such as are subject to duties of customs in duly approved ewnatrreyh;ouseswithout paymentof duties on their 1st but the duties on goodsimported from GreatBritain or from Europe shall be paidonimportation. The object of that is to offset a similar law now on the statute books of GreatBritain, and I will read it. It will be all I shall say upon the subject. The law is as follows: “It shall be lawful to import into the U.S. Kingdom any goods not prohibited, and to warehouse such as are subject to duties of customs in duly aprotveendtrwya; rehouseswithout paymentof dutyon their but the duties on the following goods shall be paid on importation: on corn, grain, meal, flour, woodgoods.” Every article which this country can furnish is subject to this restriction.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is changing the warehouse system as at Present established. I hope it will not be voted at this time of night. he amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DAVIS. I rise merely to ask the senate to decide upon an amendment which I offered a day or 2 since in relation to hemp. I ask the Clerk to read it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair is not aware of any pending amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. I Presented it some days ago for the consideration of the Senate, but neglected to ask for the yeas&nays. I offered it in ComWhole but not in the Senate. On page 22, line ten of section 6, I. to strike out “ 25 “ and to insert
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator tried that in the Senate. It was after we took the bill out of committee. I told him he could offer it after we got into the Senate. He agreed to it. When we got into the Senate it was tried and rejected.
Mr. HENDERSON. No; he withdrew it. There was lio vote.
Mr. DAVIS. I grouped several amendments together. I move now to strike out “ 25” in line ten and to insert “ 50.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Jour nal shows that the amendment was moved after the bill was reported to the Senate and a vote taken upon it, declaring it not to be agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That was my recollection. If it was rejected it cannot be again. moved Mr. DAVIS. If that is the state of the case I have nothing more to say.
Mr. HENDERSON. am satisfied the record is wrong.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is right. actly according to my recollection.
Mr. HENDERSON. I do not make this statement for the purpose of affecting the vote, because the bill would be voted down if Presented; but the Senfrom Kentucky, instead of Pressing a vote upon his amendment, withdrew it, and made a motion to recommit the bill. That is the state of the case.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No: we took a vote on it, but he did not call for a division.
Mr. HENDERSON. I stated merely what my recollection is. The Senfrom Kentucky made no such proposition as this is in the 1st place. He moved to amend in various lines, not upon this point alone, but upon various others, and hence this amendment is now in order.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment made as in ComWhole as it has been amended.
Mr. GRIMES. Upon one question that was submitted to the Senate the other day upon which there was a vote, I am pretty well satisfied on more mature reflection that I cast an injudicious vote, and I should like to correct it. I refer to the vote adopting the amendment of the Senfrom Michigan in regard to scrap iron. I move to reconsider that vote. d
Mr. CHANDLER. I hope that will not be One.
Mr. CHANDLER. If the Senate will vote it down I shall not inflict a speech upon them. The motion to reconsider was rejected.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment made It is as in ComWhole as it has been and as amended has been concurred in. amended. The amendment, as amended, was concurred in.
Mr. HENDERSON. On page 21, line 20 of section 5, I move to strike out “ 60 ” and insert “ 70.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion is not in order. The amendment made as in ComWhole has been amended, It is not now susceptible of amendment.
Mr. HENDERSON. Is not the bill susceptible of amendment?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment, as amended, is not. New sections can be added; but the text of the amendment, as amended, having been agreed to in the Senate, is not now amendable.
Skip Skip The amendment was orderengross and the bill to be read a 3rd time. The bill was read a 3rd time. Mr. HENDRICKS. On the passage of the bill I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll. Mr. GRIMES, (when Mr. Brown's name was called.) I have received a message from the Senfrom Missouri, telling me that he is confined to his room by sickness, and desiring me to announce when his name was called that if he were here he would vote against the passage of the bill. Mr. BUCKALEW, (when his name was called.) I have paired off upon this question with the Senfrom Maryland who is absent, [Mr. CREswell] The result was announced yeas 27, nays 10; 10. So the bill was passed.
Mr. WILSON. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate (at. ” minutes past 12 o'clock,) adjourned..
HoRep. FRIDAY, February 1, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. Boynton. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.
Mr. PATTERSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill authorizing the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury, the residuary legacy of James Smithson, to authorize the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to apply the income of the said legacy, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, The bill authorizes and directs the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury, on the same terms as the original bequest, the residuary legacy of James Smithson, now in U.S. bonds in the hands of said Secretary, namely, $26, 210 63, together with such other sums as the Regents may from time to time see fit to deposit, not exceeding, with the original bequest, the sum of $1,000,000. It further provides that the income which has accrued, or which may hereafter accrue, from said residuary legacy shall be applied by the Board of Regents in the same manner as the interest on the original bequest, in accordance with the provisions of the act of August 10, 1846, establishing said Institution.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. PATTERSON mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. JOHN A. WEBSTER.
Mr. ELIOT, by unanimous consent, from the ComCommerce, reported a JtResolution to permit John A. Webster, jr., of the steamer Mahoning, to receive from the Government of GreatBritain a gold chronom eter; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution provides that John A. Webster, jr., of the revenue cutter service, captain of the steamer Mahoning, shall be permitted to receive from the Government of GreatBritain a gold chronometer which that Government is desirous to award to him in token of its appreciation of valuable services rendered by Captain Webster to several British vessels in distress on our coast.
Mr. ELIOT. I have a letter from the Sec of the Treasury on this subject, as foloWs: TREASURY DEPT, January 29, 1867. SIR: Her Britannic Majesty's minister at Washington, Sir Frederick W. A. Bruce, having commu nicated to the Dept of State the fact that, the Government of GreatBritain desires to award to Captain John A. Webster, jr., of of the revenue steamer a chronometerfor valuable servicesrendered by him to several British vessels in distresson the coast; that Dept has communicated to this Deptthe request of Sir Frederick that an applicaation be madeby Congressfor permission to enable Captain Webster to acceptsuch testimonial. in conformity with theintentions of the British government. I have, therefore, the honor to submit the subject to the consideration of the ComCommerce for such action on the part of Congress, as will givo Captain Webster, a highlymeritoriousofficer, authority to receivethe testimonial referredto. I am, very respectfully, HUGH McCULLOCH, SecyTreasury. Hon. T. D. Eliot, Acting Chairman of the comCommerceH, HoRep.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the thir time, and passed. Mr. LEFTWICH mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. PENTWATER AND PIERRE MARQUETTE.
Mr. FERRY, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved.That the SecyWar be directed to transmit to this House the reports and estimates preparedunder the surveys of improvement the past year for the of the harbors of Marquette, Pentwaterand Pierre on Lake Michigan. SALES OF CONFISCATED COPPER STILLS.
Mr. DARLING, by unanimous consent. submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That the ComWays&Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the internalrevenue law as to require the destruction of all copperstills which may be confis cated to the U.S., and the sale of the same as old copperonly. ENROLLED BILL AND RESOLUTION SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill and JtResolution of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: An act (H.R.No. 819), for the relief of Richard A. Vervalen and others; andJtResolution (H.R.No. 126) for the relief of certain settlers on the Sioux reservation, in the State of Minnesota. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. When House bill No. 859, to declare valid and conclusive certain proclamations of the President and acts done in pursuance thereof, &c., was recom: mitted to the ComJudiciary, some days ago, leave was granted to that committee to report it back at any time on giving one day's notice. I desire to state now, in order that it may go before the House as a notice, that I will upon Monday, after the merning hour, report that bill back from the ComJudiciary.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that there are now before the House 2 bills which committees have been authorized to report at any time, and they will have to be disposed of before any other business can come before the House. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: An act (S.No.218) exempting the property of debtors in the DistCol from levy, attachment, or sale on execution; and An act (S.No.479) to punish illegal voting in the DistCol, and for other purposes. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER. When the House adjourned on yesterday the tenure of office bill was under consideration; but today being private bill day, the consideration of that bill is suspended, unless the House shall otherwise order.
Mr. HALE. Will the tenure of office bill come up for consideration after the expiration of the morning hour?
The SPEAKER. It will, subject of course to the order of the House.
Mr. HALE. I must insist upon my call for the regular order. heirs OF THOMAS W. H.ARVEY.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has now commenced, and the House resumes the consideration of the bill pending at the expiration of the morning hour on last private bill day, being House bill No. 1060, extending certain letters patent for the benefit of the heirs of Thomas W. Harvey. bill and accompanying report were again read. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. BROMWELL. I yield now 15 minutes to the Gentfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. BROMWELL. I now yield to the Gentfrom Iowa 5 minutes.
Mr. ALLISON. After what my friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. WASHBURN) has said, it is too. unnecessary for me to add anything. but there are one or 2 facts in connection with this patent that I think the House ought to understand. This patent either has a value or it has not. If it has a value it is to be of benefit either to the parties who receive this extension or to the public. Now, I am told that there are 7 or 8 new companies in process of organization for the manufacture of this class of screws, which enter into the consumption of the entire country, and as the Gentfrom Illinois himself says, it requires a large amount of capital to organize these cor o to manufacture these screws, the eirs of Harvey can only be benefited by selling this patent to some one of these companies. Now, I want to ask the chairman of the committee who introduced this bill, whether he proposes, if this invention has a value, to transfer that value to one of these 7 or 8 companies; or whether the community is not entitled to the benefit of it by having all these companies compete in the manufacture? Now, I do know that the American Screw Company, that has had the benefit of this pat ent for the last 2 years, absolutely bought off an English screw company from bringing their products to this market. It paid them a roy alty of some 30 or 40,000 dollars annually, if they would not throw their articles into competition in the American market. Now are we to have that same thing perpetu ated in this country so as to increase the price of these articles to the consumers all over the country? For myself I shall rever consent to it. If this patent has a value let it be given to the community; if it has no value it cannot inure to the benefit of anybody. If some gentleman does not move to lay this bill on the table, I shall do so at the propertime.
Mr. BROMWELL. I will now yield to fo the from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] or 2 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. 2 minutes is all I ask. I remember that for the last 5 or 6 years, and perhaps longer, while I was a member of the ComWays&Means, this screw question was before. on the question of im: posing additional duties. A very adroit and able man, a Senfrom the State of RhdIsland, generally gave it his particular attention. During that investigation my recollection is that it was shown, and was hardly denied, that this company have semi annually declared large dividends. And it was shown most conclusively that not another screw of this character was made in America, and that whenever other companies got up machines approaching to this, this company bought out those machines, and the English companies who had the right to use it were bought off by a sum of money in gross every year. I look upon this as one of the most profitable companies that ever existed, and I should think it a strange thing if we should extend this patent for. benefit of the assignees of the original patentees. I thought it proper to state this because I recollect the circumstances of the case.
Mr. BROMWELL. I will now yield for 2 minutes to the Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. MoftRILL]
Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the extension of patents at any time beyond 21 years, and 14 years I think is long enough. If the parties cannot in that time make money the company ought to close its affairs and attend to some other business. In regard to this case, if there is a single patent that ought to be extinguished at the end of 21 years, it is this patent for the manufacture of screws, because it is conceded, and is a matter of public notoriety, that the stock of this company is 2 or 300%. above parand has been for years. This matter has already been considered in relation to the internal taxes and the tariff. I am opposed to all such measures.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I ask one minute from the Gentfrom Illinois.
Mr. BROMWELL. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I want to say that only the poor widow and orphans are put forward in this case. I will send to the d.o. desk to be read what will show that they assigned all their interest in the patent to other parties. It is the report of the referees appointed to settle this matter with certain companies.
The Clerk read as follows: “In thematter of the claims.the American Screw Counpany of Providence, RhdIsland, made by the owners of Harvey's patents of May 30, 1846, for threading wood screwsoAugust 18, 1846, for a machinefor dressingthe heads of crew blanks, both of owhich patents haye been extended, for the of 7years: said patents and extensions have been extended to pany, the American Screw Comand the referees are to which the claimants are entitleddetermine the sum to receive from the American Screw Companyfor the rights so assigned from the formation of the companyto the expiration the tended term and for any further renewals ereof.”
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. The House will understand that in case of this renewal it will go to the company and not to these parties.
Mr. HILL. I desire to know whether, as this bill was framed for the purpose of extending this patent solely for the benefit of the heirs of the original patentee, it will obviate this clause which seems to be in this contract, which comes before the House in the paper Presented by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. WASHBURN,) that any extension shall be for the benefit of the assignees? That is a matter I want light upon.
Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand, what is rePresented award of the arbitrators bettwoeebne the sesolheemirns and the assignees, which contains these words: “Said patentsand extension have been assigned to the American Screw $oand the referees aernetittloeddetoterremceinive thfoerstuhmeriwghhticshsotahsesicglnaeimd, and that they are the propertyof the American Screw Company from the time of the formation of the company to the expiration of the extendedterm, and for any further renewalsthereof.” Now, the question I wish to put is this: if it be true that by a contract between Mr. Harvey and the American Screw Company the right in his patents has been vested absolutely in the company, including the right to all further renewals to him or to his heirs, and if that contract has been confirmed by a solemn award between the parties, can any action of this House take away the rights arising out of that award, and will this bill prevent the benefits to be derived under it from inuring to the assignees of these parties?
Mr. HILL. I desire to know whether, in the opinion of the Gentfrom NewYork, Mr. HALE] this paper can prohibit Congress OIn ofsuch laws as it may deem necessary for the benefit of the heirs without the ons the benefit of it?
Mr. HALE. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say that it is a very Yankee way of answering my question for another question to be asked me by the Gentfrom Indiana, [Mr. HILL] I do not pretend that any contract between the parties can prevent Congress from adopting any legislation they may see fit; but I do say that if there has been a vested right passed to the American Screw Company, by a contract confirmed by an award of arbi. trators, no action of Congress can interfere with that right.
Mr. BROMWELL. In answer to the question I will state that some, at least, of these heirs are mine rs, and the gentleman will not contend that any contract or arbitration like this will bind them. The ComPatents took all this into consideration, and they were satisfied that there was an equity in the claim of this widow and these heirs, and they are all that we have to deal with. The ComrPatents has the same question before him every time he extends a patent which has run 14 years; and the evidence in this case showed that Mr. Harvey, owing to certain circumstances which Pressed him down, stood precisely where he did after the expiration of the 7 years' extension. It has been the usage of the Government to do this thing, and if it had not been, where would have been the use of a ComPatents at all? If these gentlemen are right there should never be any extension of patents by the House. Again, gentlemen o: that this patent will inure by virtue of law, notwithstanding what this House may do, to the benefit of the American Screw Company. I do not so understand it, and the committee did not so understand it. Moreover, the bill does not extend the patent. It merely authorizes the ComrPatents, a man who is selected and placed there for the exPress purpose of determining these matters according to the principles of justice and sound public policy, in case after due notice and on full examination he shall find it proper, to authorize the extension of the patent. I now move the previous question.
Mr. MYERS. Will the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. BRoxwell] withdraw his call for the previous question and yield to me for 5 minutes?
Mr. HALE. I desire simply to repeat the question I propounded when I was on the oor a few minutes ago. Is it not conceded that the grantees of this man Harvey have made enormous fortunes out of these very patents, 2 of which are now before us?
Mr. BROMWELL. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I left?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has 6 and a half minutes yet remaining.
Mr. BROMWELL. I will answer the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HALE] I suppose the assignees of these patents have made money out of them, and would like to make more. And I understand there is not a great monopoly in this country that does not resist the application of these poor heirs and this widow for this congressional extension; for they hold the tenure of their monopoly, not by the patents, but by the immense amount of capital necessary to wield a factory to carry on the business. A factory in which 400 of these machines could play would fill an area equal to that occupied by one wing of this Capitol. This is the answer to the objec tiens urged against the extension now proposed. It is the heirs who are to be benefited; and the question is, shall they go away with neither thanks nor money nor recognition at the hands of this Congress? Mr. Speaker, I now call the previous question.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, called for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative yeas 71, nays 75, not voting 44;. So the bill was not laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired and the bill goes over until the next private bill day. CAPTAIN DANIEL C. TitoWHITT.
Mr. STOKES. I ask unanimous consent tointroduce a JtResolution for the relief of Captain Daniel C. Trewhitt. It is the same which I desired to introduce a few days ago, when the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr.: suggestedthat the case was covered by genera law, and therefore I did not Press the measure at that time. I find that the general law does not cover the case. There being no objection, the JtResolution was read a 1st and 2nd time. It pro. to direct the PayMGen to pay to ptain Daniel C. Trewhitt, of Tennessee, full for 4 Ine nths' service in the U.S. Army as captain and adjutant general on the staff of Brigadier General James G. Spear, Tennessee volunteers.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. STOKES mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. Straw WRAPPING PAPER.
Mr. KETCHAM, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved.That the ComWays&Means be instructed to inquire into the propriety of removing the internalrevenue tax from straw wrapping; Paper, and of placing, thesame on the free list, and t theybe permitted to report by bill or otherwise. LEAVE OF Absence. On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, leave of absence was granted to Mr. CHANLER for one week. Messa GE FROM THE PRESIDENT. A message in writing was received from the President, by Mr. WILLIAM G. Moore, one of his Secretaries. schooner ALPHA.
Mr. HUMPHREY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to grant an American register to the schooner Alpha; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCommerce. Milton WelzY.
Mr. HUMPHREY also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Milton Velzy; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. ArtSENAI, AT StLouis.
Mr. HOGAN, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to enlarge the U.S. arsenal at StLouis, Missouri; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and ordered to be printed.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed bills, in which the concurrence of the House was requested, of the following titles: An act (S.No.302) for the relief of the Mer cantile Mutual Insurance Company of NewYork; An act (S.No.537) to amend an act entitled “An act to extend the time for the reversion to the U.S. of the lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad from Amboy, by Hillsdale and Lansing, to some point on or near Traverse bay, in the State of Michigan, and for the comroom of said road, ” approved July 3, 1866; all An act (S.No.272) to authorize the corporation of Washington to reduce the width and improve the avenues and streets of that city. The message further informed the House that the Senate had postponed indefinitely a bill (H.R.No. 819) for the relief of Richard A. Vervalen and others. The message further informed the House that the Senate had passed without amendment a JtResolution (H.R.No. 126) for the relief of certain settlers on the Sioux reservation in the State of Kanzas. The message further informed the House that the Senate had passed a bill (H.R.No. 874) to regulate the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other purposes, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House was requested. ENROLLED bills SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the Committee on En: rolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles, when the Speaker signed the same: An act (H.R.[.605) to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the U.S., approved September 24, 1789; An act (H.R.No. 719) to punish certain crimes in relation to the public securities and currency, and for other purposes; and An act (H.R.No. 388) to authorize the extension, construction, and use of a lateral branch of the Baltimore and Potomac railroad into and within the DistCol. IOWA CLAIMS.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a message from the President, transmitting_information in response to resolution of the House respecting the execution of an act providing for the appointment of a commission to examine and report on certain claims of the State of Iowa, approved July 25, 1866; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. MExico.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a message from the President, transmitting, in answer to resolutions of the House requesting information of the Present condition of affairs in Mexico and desiring copies of correspondence on the subject of the evacuation of Mexico by French troops not before officially published, a report from the SecyState; which was referred to the ComForAffrs, and ordered to be printed. APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a message from the President, transmitting reports from the heads of the several Executive Depts containing information asked for by resolution of the House in respect to so to office, &c.; which, on motion of Mr. MYERs, was referred to the select Committee on the Civil Service, and ordered to be printed. TENURE OF CIVIL OFFICES. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order after the morning hour the bill (S.No.453) entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices;” on which Mr. HALE was entitled to the floor.
Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak now on this bill; but I have a proposition to submit to the House. This is a very important bill both as regards questions of principle and policy. Its subject has already been lood in this House at very considerable length upon the bill introduced by the gentfrom Pennsylvania, Mr. WILLIAMs] In view of this fact. not eem it necessary that the same time be af. forded for discussion on the bill as if it were entirely a new measure. Several gentlemen are desirous to speak upon it; and the proposition I have to make is that by universal consent debate be limited to 30 minutes instead of an hour for each speaker. I am anxious to othe measure to a vote, if possible, to aW.
The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, it will be understood that no member sluall be entitled to speak more than 30 minutes on this bill. There was no objection.
Mr. HALE. I now yield to the Gentfrom Ohio. [Mr. FINck]
Mr. HALE. I hope the gentleman will infer nothing from my silence. It is important that this bill should be brought to a vote this afternoon.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I give notice then to the Gentfrom NewYork that if my amendment to the 1st section prevails, a corresponding amendment will be needed and offered by me for the 2nd one. The 3rd section also I shall ask to change, because it reenacts a constitutional provision in very terms, while it omits to provide that it shall be the duty of the President to nominate at the next session when he has filled a vacancy during the recess. I shall ask leave also to renew the insertion of the 2nd section of the bill, now pending in the House, providing that in no case where a party has been once rejected by the Senate, shall he be renomi nated or replaced or allowed to perform any of the functions of the office for which he has been refused. And with these remarks, as promised, I submit my pending proposition to the House.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the Gentfrom Kentucky allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. HISE. It will interrupt me very much indeed.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It is but a single question, which the gentleman can answer in a word. I wish the gentleman to say whether a marshal is not an executive officer, and whether, under the law which has existed almost from the foundation of this Government, the power to appoint deputy marshals has not been lodged with the courts.
Mr. HISE. I look upon the office of mar shal as similar to the office of sheriff. The marshal is the officer whose duty it is to execute the processes, mesne and final, of the courts, to carry their sentences into execution and to enforce and collect their judgments.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Then he is an executive officer.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask leave to move the following amendment:. o, And in no case shall any person whohasbeen nom inated by the President, for any officebelow that of embassadorand rejected by the Senate, or on whose nominationthat body has failed or declined to act in the way of consent or refusal, be appointed for anyoffice of the U.S. for the space of i. one eenamftaedresauncdhwrheijcehcthioanv.e bWeheenn nominations have or shall be rejected. all actsdone in making such nominations, or o which bedone by the nominee, so far as an appointment the removal of subordinates is concerned, shall AI e considered null and void.
Mr. STEVENS. I give notice, then, I shall offer the amendment when it is in order, and I hope the previous question will not be 2nded until I have that opportunity.
The SPEAKER. The amendment then will be regarded as pending.
Mr. HALE. I will endeavor to answer the very fully, and I trust to the satis action of the gentleman, when I take the floor. will then show upon what ground I put it.
Mr. STEVENS. I have no doubt the gentleman will put it on the most plausible ground, as he always does, and with eminent ability. I cannot see how this act is possibly constitutional unless we have a right to declare that the President in making these appointments was acting outside of the Constitution. If we say to the President, “You have no right to make these removals without the consent of the Senate, ” why do we say it? Because the Constitution says it. So we construe it. suppose the construction has been erroneous for the last 70 years, that does not change the Constitution. There has been no legislative construction of it in this respect. We are now for the 1st time putting a legislative construction upon it. We therefore have a clear right to say that everything done between the time of the removal of these men and the Present, or the time of their reinstatement, was void, being done in violation of the Constitution, and that these men shall be considered as still in office precisely as they were before, instead of being sacrificed for their fidelity and their places being filled by the most filthy rep tiles that ever crawled into office. I trust that the amendment will prevail. I shall also vote for the amendment of my colleague, [Mr. WILLIAMs] If they prevail then I can vote for the bill on constitutional grounds; if they fail I should deem myself violating my oath to support the Constitution if I voted for the bill, and shall therefore certainly vote against it. But I have not risen to occupy much time, only to state as distinctly as I could my views of the question, and I now yield the remainder of my time to the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. BAKER]
Mr. HALE. I now move the previous question on the bill and the pending amendments; but before Pressing that motion I will yield for a moment to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. WILLIAMs] to offer the amendment of which he has given notice.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I offer the amendment, which is to come in after line 5 of section 3.
The SPEAKER. By unanimous consent the amendment can be entertained at this time, to be voted on in its order. The Chair"bears no objection.
Mr. GARFIELD. If the 1st amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania prevails, a similar amendment will be needed in the 2nd section. I offer that amendment if there be no objection. No objection was made, and the amendment was entertained.
Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavor to be very brief in what I have to say upon this bill; but before I proceed I desire to ask leave of absence after today in consequence of illness in my family. No objection was made, and the leave of absence was granted.
Mr. DONNELLY. I desire to ask the gentleman a single question: whether it will not be well for Congress by such a declaration as this to prevent the practice which has grown up from being continued? I have been informed by one of the members from Kentucky, that in his district he knows a case where the party was confirmed on the 16th of the Present month, on a commission dated back to the middle of November.
Mr. HALE. Let me say to the gentleman that in my judgment if such a case exists it is a gross and papable infraction of the Constitution, and I do not see that this bill can remedy it in the least. The thing itself is utterly void, for no power certainly exists in the President to make an appointment to office merely by dating back the time of the appointment.% is simply an attempted fraud on the Constitution, and one which certainly cannot exist when the fact is brought to light. A MEMBER. Is it not ground for impeach ment?
Mr. HALE. Yes, possible ground for im eachment. I am very happy if any of m riends have found a tangible ground whi may seem to justify such a measure. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the House once more: if we desire in good faith to pass a bill which shall stand the test of the courts, which shall be within the limits of the Constitution, and do it during this session, I am persuaded that our only way is to pass this bill as it comes from the Senate. Just as surely as it is sent back there for the discussion of amendments, especially those which that body has already rejected
Mr. WILLIAMS. I rise to a question of order: whether it is in order for the gentleman to refer to the probable action of the Senate and say this should be passed, and we should defer to their will.
The SPEAKER. He could not refer specific ally to the past action of the Senate; that would not be within the rule. Each House must act independently.
Mr. HALE. I understand the rule, and I am very confident I have not transgressed it.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is not aware that the gentleman has transgressed it; he was in conversation at the time, and did not quite hear what the gentleman said.
Mr. HALE. I was stating the probable result of a difference of opinion between the 2 Houses and the executive branch.
The SPEAKER. That is within the legit imate province of debate.
Mr. HALE. I have no words of menace or anything that any fair construction can possibly determine in that direction. I have appealed to the House to take a practical course, one that will probably tend toward attaining the end which we all on this side of the House claim and seem to desire. I trust this bill may be passed and without amendment. will only add that this is precisely the bill reported by the JtCom on Reconstruction, with the addition of certain penal sections made in the Senate, to which no objection has been made there or here, which were suggested in this House on the pendency of the bill introduced by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, and finally withdrawn or passed over with the idea that they might perhaps be made the subject of an independent bill. are now attached to this bill, and I hope the whole will be adopted.
The SPEAKER. Debate upon this bill and the pending amendments is exhausted, and the House will proceed to act upon them under the operation of the previous question. The question being upon Mr. WILLIAMs' 1st amendment, it was read as follows: On lines 3, 4, and 5, of section one, strike out the following: Excepting the Secretaries of State, of ury, the Treas: of War, of the Navy, and of the interior, and the PostMGenl, and AttyGen, Mr. WILLIAMS. Upon that amendment I demand the yeas&nays; and I call for tellers upon the yeas&nays. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. WILLIAMs and HALE were appointed,
Skip Skip The House divided; and the tellers reported 26 in the affirmative. So the yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative yeas 76, nays 78, not voting 86;. So the amendment was disagreed to. During the roll call, Mr. NIBLACK stated that Mr. KERR was detained from the House by indisposition..Mr. O'NEILL stated that Mr. THAYER was still absent from the House in consequence of indisposition in his family. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. HALE. mtRtv the amendment was disagreed to; and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Mr. HILL. I demand the yeas&nays upon that motion. Mr. HALE. I withdraw the motion.
Mr. GARFIELD. Since that amendment has failed I withdraw the similar amendment which I offered to the 2nd section. The next amendment was Mr. WILLIAMs' amendmant, to insert in 6, the 3rd section, line after the word “thereafter, ” the following: That whenever a yacancy in any office happening during a recess of the Senate may have been filled .the President in accordancewith the provisions of the Constitution, by granting a commission to expire at the end of their next session, it shall be duty of the President the to make a nomination for said office before the end of the next ensuingsession of that body.
Mr. INGERSOLL. That is already provided for in the bill.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were ayes 26; noes not counted. So the amendment was disagreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment offered by Mr. DonNELLY, to add to section 3 the following proviso: Propided, however, That no vacancy shall be held to have happened during the recessof the Senate if e incumbent of the officewas in the exercise of uties of the officeupon the day on which Congrtehses convened, but, in such case, the person holding such officeocontinue to retain and, exercisethe same until his successor is confirmed by the Senate, or until, he, is suspended in accordance with the provisions of this act.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were “ayes 44, noes 79. So the amendment was disagreed to. The question recurred on the last amendment, offered by Mr. STEvens, to insert the following at the end of section 8: And in no nominated byctahseePsrheasildl, eanntyfoprearnsyon ofwficheobehlaoswbteheant of embassadorand been rejected by the Senate, or on whosenomination that body has failed or to act declined in the way of consentor refusal, be nippointed for anyoffice of the U.S. for thespace of one. after, such, rejection. When nominations have been made, below the grade, of foreign, minister, and which have been, or shall be rejected, all, acts done in making such nomination or which may be odoneby the nominee, so far as the removal and appointment of subordinates is concerned, shall be considered null and void.
Mr. GRINNELL. that amendment. I call for a division of
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not see how the gentleman can demand a division of the amendment. The gentleman who offered it, has a right to a vote upon it in the form in which he offered it. The gentleman would have a right to ask for a division of a resolution, but to ask for a division of this amendment would be in the nature of moving an amendment, to the amendment, which is not in order under the operation of the previous question.
Mr. GRINNELL. I ask the consent of the mover of the amendment to have it divided.
The SPEAKER. That cannot be done now, as the House is acting under the operation of the F.question. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. STEvens.
Mr. STEVENS. Upon that question I ask for the yeas&nays.. " The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative yeas 37, nays 118, not voting 35;. So the amendment was not agreed to. The question was upon ordering the bill to be read a 3rd time.
Mr. FARQUHAR. I rise to a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER. The House is now acting under the previous question upon this bill.
Mr. FA Is it not in order to move to reconsider a vote taken upon an amendment offered to this bill?
Mr. FARQUELAR. Then I move to reconsider the vote by which the House rejected the amendment proposed to this bill by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. WILLIAMS] The amendment of Mr. WILLIAMs was to strike out of the 1st section of the bill the following words: Excepting the Secretaries of State, of the treasury. of War, of the Navy, and of the interior, the PostMGenl, an the AttyGen. The effect of the amendment, if adopted, would be to take from the President the power to remove any head of a Dept without the consent of the Senate, The question was upon reconsidering the Vote o which the amendment had been rejected:
Mr. HALE. I move to lay, the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. GARFIELD. Upon that motion I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. Mr. BLOND. I move that the House now adjourn. The motion to adjourn was not agre; to. The question was then taken upon laying the to reconsider upon the table, and it was decided in the negative yeas 69, nays 74, not voting 47; So the motion to reconsider was not laid on the table. The joio recurred upon the mtRtv the amendment of Mr. WILLIAMs was rejected.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Upon I call for the previous questionf. o:
The SPEAKER. The House is now acting under the operation of the previous question; which does not exhaust itself until the 3rd reading of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the House do now adjourn. a one is. The motion was agreed to; and acco y. 4 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.) the house adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. FRIDAY, February 1, 1867. Prayer by the Cholains Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unan imous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
Mr. HOWE, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the memorial of James Monroe Manning, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComMilAffrs ; which was agreed to. AMBOY AND TRAVERSE BAY RAILROAD.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The ComPubLands, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.547) to amend an act entitled “An act to extend the time for the reversion to the U.S. of the lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad from Amboy, by Hillsdale and Lansing, to some point on or near Traverse Bay, in the State of Michigan, and for the completion of said road, ” approved July 3, 1866, have directed me to report it back to the Senate with a recommendation that it pass; and as, while it is a trifling matter, it is of very great importance to the enterprise in Michigan that it should be adopted at this session, I ask that it be put upon its passage. There being no objection, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to amend the 1st section of the act of July 3, 1866, by striking out the word “February, ” where it occurs in that section, and inserting the word “July.”
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will explain in one word what this bill is. At the last session Congress extended the time for the completion of this road 7 years, according to the uniform practice in such cases; but there was a condition that the road between 2 points for a distance of about 20 miles should be graded by the 1stday of February; that is today. If it was not graded to that extent the branch was to be forfeited to the U.S. I thought at the time that that condition could not be comlied with and opposed it; and it is now found. impossible for the company having charge of this work to comply with that condition of the law of the last session. This bill proposes to extend the time for the completion of the grading between those points up to the 1st day of J tly next. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read a 3rd time, and passed. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. PATTERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.558) for the relief of Mary A. Smith, of Johnson county, Tennessee, widow of Alexander D. Smith, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPensions.
Mr. POLAND asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.559) in relation to guardians of mine rs in the DistCol, their appoint ment, powers, and duties; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComJudiciary. He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.560) to create the office of surrogate of the DistCol, provide for the appointment of a surrogate, and define his powers and duties; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComJudiciary. also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.561) to provide for the appointment of a marshal for the DistCol, and to change the mode of appointing that officer; which was read twice its title, and referred to the ComJudiciary. BILLS BECOME I.AWS. A message from the POTUS, by Mr. W. G. MooRE, his Secretary, announced that on the 29th of January he had approved and signed a JtResolution (S.R.No. 112) for the relief of Mrs. Abb Green, and a JtResolution (S.R.No. 156) to provide for the removal of the wreck of the steamship Scotland.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a little bill on the table which has come in from the House that I should like very much to take up and have passed if no Senator has any objection to it, because it is rather that it should be passed at once, if at all. It relates to the funds of the Smithsonian Institution, and the Regents of that institution are now in session in this city and would like probably to take some action under the bill. It is veryshort, and if there be no objection I should like to have it taken up and acted upon. I have examined it, and do not see any objection to it. By unanimous consent, the bill (S.No.1090) authorizing the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury the residuary legacy of James Smithson, to authorize the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to apply the income of the said legacy, and for.pur poses, was read twice by its title, and considered as in ComWhole. It directs the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury, on the same terms as the original bequest, the residuary legacy of James Smith son, now in U.S. bonds in the hands of the Secretary, namely, $26, 210 63, together with such other sums as the regents may, from time to time, see fit to deposit, not exceeding, with the original bequest, i. sum of $1,000,000. The interest which has accrued, or which may hereafter accrue, from the residuary legacy is to be applied by the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution in the same manner as the interest on the original bequest, in accordance with the provisions of the act of August 10, 1846, establishing the Institution.
Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to inquire where that fund has been heretofore. Has it been in the Treasury?
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir; it has been in the hands of the Secretary. Under the bequest of Smithson there was a sum that was to come to the Institution upon the death of a certain person, and that person died just about the time I happened to be in the Treasury, and jknow the facts. This bill simply R. that this money shall be paid into the Treasury and disposed of precisely in accord.ance with the original act with regard to the disposal of Smithson's bequest. SHERMAN. I have no objection to it at all. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. HOUSE BILL REFERRED. The bill (H.R.No. 904) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1868, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance. The JtResolution (H.R.No. 252) to permit Captain John A. Webster, jr., of the steamer Mahoning, to receive from the government of GreatBritain a gold chronometer, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComCommerce. The JtResolution (H.R.No. 253) for the relief of Captain Daniel C. Trewhitt, of the U.S. Army, of Hamilton county, Tennessee, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComClaims. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to take up House bill No. 874. The Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. DAVIs] called for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill last evening, and as there was not a quorum Present at the moment it was laid over. I ask that it be now taken up with a view of disposing of it.
The PRESIDENT, protempore. The Senfrom Illinois moves to take up the bill (H.R.No. 874) to regulate the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other purposes.
Mr. DAVIS., I am opposed to the passage of that bill. I do not think it is competent for Congress to pass it at all. The 1st section reacts
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will stiggest that the bill is not yet before the Senate. The question is, Will the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill? The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is, shall the bill pass” and upon that question the yeas&nays have been ordered.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am really sorry that this little bill from the HoRep, by no means novel legislation, should hove excited the denunciations of the Senfrom Kentucky; that he should have gone into a passion over it and supposed that it was some party measure, and that it would not be voted for at all if the Republican party was tot in a majority. He seems to suppose that it is a measure brought into the Senate by the Republican majority of the Senate. Why, sir, it is a bill from the HoRep, voted for by all parties, having nothing of a party character in it, and would as readily receive the assent of Congress at one time as another a bill that met the unanimous assent of the ComJudiciary of the Sen. ate after the amendment was adopted which struck out the penalty. And what is this bill that has excited such a storm of indignation? Why, sir, it is a bill Prescribing the duty of the Clerk of the HoRep. because the Clerk of the HoRep is elected by the House does anybody suppose that it is not competent for Congress by law to Prescribe the duties of the Clerk? Does the Senfrom Kentucky deny the authority of Congress by law to Prescribe the duties of the Secretary of this . of the Sergeant at Arms, of any officer of this body? Is this novel legislation? If the Senfrom Kentucky had looked into the statute book he would have found that the 1st section of the bill under consideration is but a transcript of the law as it already exists, which declares “That beforethe 1st meeting of the next Congress and of everysubsequentCongressthe Clerk of the next precedingHoRep shall make a roll of the RePresentatives electand place thereon the names of all persons, and of such personsonly, whose credentials show that they were regularly elected in respectivelayccordancewith the laws of their States or the laws of the U.S. ” That is the law of the land today, passed years ago.
Mr. DAVIS. Will the Senator give me the date of that law? "
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I desire to ask the Senfrom Illinois if any occasion has arisen in the history of this Republic that demands such legislation?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly it has, and the legislation took place 4 years ago.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I do not know the occasion, and I should like to be informed what occasion necessitated such legislation.
Mr. TRUMBULL. There has been confusion frequently in the organization of the House. It is not my business to post the Senfrom California, who is much better in formed than I am in the history of the country. I have no doubt that a gentleman of so many years and of such venerable appearance will recollect the difficulty that arose years ago in the HoRep when Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, by a sort of common consent, was called to the chair when there was a dispute as to who had a right to reside at all. I know that from his age and ine wledge of public affairs at that time and many years before, the Senfrom California remembers those things better than I do.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, the Senfrom Illinois does not answer any of the objections which I have made to this bill, as I understand his answer. On the contrary, he concedes the main objection which I have made, and that is that the bill devolves the organization of the House from the House itself, where the Constitution places it, to an officer, who is now proposed to be appointed by this act for the House. The honorable Senator says truly that in 1863 a similar measure was passed. We all know that; but the principle was just as object. ionable then as it is now, and the manner in which that law has operated, by clothing the clerk of a former House with the power to exclude RePresentatives from 11 States, is the strongest objection that could be made to the law. The honorable Senator asks me if I want disorder and confusion to reign in the organization of the House. Certainly not. From 1789 up to 1863 was there any such disorder How were the Houses then organized? It is true, that the Clerk of the former House informally, and without any authority, by sufferance, was permitted to make out a roll of the members elect; he was indulged by the sufferance of each House, by its will, by its permission, to read over that roll and call out the names of the members of the House. When I was 1st a member of the HoRep, in 1839, that process was being in operation.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Not at all. The law says he shall put on the name of every man i is regularly returned. That is the Present W.
Mr. DAVIS. I understand the law. This bill is that he shall put on the roll the names of members “whose credentials show that they were regularly elected in accordance with the laws of their States respectively, or the laws of the U.S. ” Suppose it becomes a question upon the credentials of anyone of the ePresentatives, whether he has been elected in accordance with the laws of his State or the laws of the U.S.? Is not the decision of that question a quasi judicial one? Is it not a legal question? Who is to decide that question? Who but this Clerk? And in deciding the question, does not the Clerk act as an officer, and the most potential officer of the new HoRep? o Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senfrom Kentucky allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. TRUMBULL. How would he have it decided? There is no House; there is nobody to vote upon it. Is a crowd to come in from the street? The Senator says he was Present in 1839; let me ask him Ho: he want that scene reenacted?
Mr. DAVIS. No, sir, and for that reason I do not want a law passed authorizing a Clerk to do what a Clerk then did by usage and suf. ferance.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I ask the Senator whether that is not a mere matter of adminis tration and not judicial at all?
Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. I ask the honorable Senfrom California if to judge of the returns of a RePresentative according to the laws of the State and of the U.S. is not a quasi judicial act?
Mr. MCDOUGALL. There are a few acts that are called quasi judicial, and those acts are never judicial finally, but only admitted to be quasi judicial because there is no other term that exactly defines them. No judgment vests in the Clerk; he is merely to take the returns and make a record, and when the record is made it is Presented to the body.
Mr. DAVIS., Mr. President, suppose the act be not judicial or quasi judicial, suppose it be simply ministerial, is it not the act of a ministerial officer of the House? That does not obviate the objection; it only changes the form of it. Congress has no more power to pass a law establishing a ministerial officer for the HoRep than it has to pass a law establishing a judicial officer or a quasi judicial officer for that House. The exception I take is that you undertake by act of Congress to appoint an officer for the House in the important matter of the organization of that House when the Constitution declares that all officers of the House, whether for that or any other function or purpose, shall be chosen by the House itself. Another objection which I take is
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senfrom Kentucky give way to the Senfrom Vermont?
Mr. POLAND. I do not desire to say anything in reference to this matter, but I wish to interpose at this time a call for the regular order of the day. If it is deemed advisable to go on and complete the bill now under consid. eration I shall not object to that, for my expe. rience has been that it is generally better to finish a job while you are about it; but the bankrupt bill is the special order of the day. I am willing that it should be laid aside inform ally to allow the bill under discussion to be completed. I shall not object to that.
Mr. TRUMBULL. All I wish is to go on with the bill under consideration. I think there will be no objection to that course.
Mr. JOHNSON, (when his name was ealled.) I concurred in the report of the chairman of the committee in favor of this bill; 1st, because I had no doubt of the right of Congress to pass it; and 2nd, because I thought it was a subject that should be provided for by legislation. I vote “yea.” The result was announced yeas 31, nays 6; 15. So the bill was passed." ORDER OF BUSINESS,
Mr. WILSON. I move to take up Senate bill No. 543, to abolish and forever prohibit the system of peonage in the Territory of NewMexico and other parts of the U.S. I think that it will take but a moment to pass the bill:
Mr. POLAND. If it be true that that bill is going to take but a moment or a few moments, as the Senfrom Massachusetts supposes, I have no objection to its being taken up and the bankrupt bill being laid aside informally for that purpose.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The bankrupt bill is not now before the Senate.
Mr.POLAND. Some ten days ago the bankrupt bill was before the Senate.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It was before the Senate inf was made a special order, and it is now on the Calendar as a special order. The time for which it was assigned has passed, so that it does not now come up, of course, and any other motion is in order. That bill will only come up when there is no other business before the Senate, and then it will have priority on the Calendar.
Mr. POLAND. My recollection in relation to the condition of it is different from that stated by the Chair. The bankrupt bill was taken up for consideration on a Saturday, and the consideration of the bill was continued until the adjournment on that Saturday. On the succeeding Monday morning it was laid aside informally for the purpose of taking up the tariff bill, and was not made a special order at all, according to my recollection.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Ireally hope the bankrupt bill will be taken up. I.the circumstances under which it was laid aside which, I feel bound to state, were as the Senfrom Vermont has detailed them, though I do not know whether by the rules of the Senate it now retains its place or not; that is a question for the to decide. I only say that I think, in fairness to the Senfrom Vermont, it ought now to resume its place and be taken up. As we have finished the matter which displaced it and which has been before the Senate for so long a time, I hope the Senate will consent to oup the bankrupt bill and act upon it. I think that is due to the Senfrom Vermont from the circumstances under which he was obliged to consent to its post ponement.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion before the Senate is the motion of the Senfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. WILSON. I concur with the Senfrom Maine in regard to the bankrupt bill, and I do not wish to be in the way of it; but the bill which I have moved to take up is a very brief bill, that can be passed in a If, few minutes. however, it should lead to debate and the consumption of time I shall be willing to give way.
Mr. CHANDLER. I have a small bill, a House bill, that I do not think will occupy much time, which I desire to call up this morning. I gave notice some time ago that I would antagonize it against any other measure exeept an appropriation bill. bill to which I allude is. to provide for the building of a ship canal othe Falls of Niagara, a measure in which every man East and West has an interest. I hope the Senate will consent to take it up and pass it. It was discussed at great iength during last session, and I presume that every Senator who desires to speak upon it has given his views. If the Senate will consent to take it up and let me have a vote on iIt will submit it without discussion. I think every member has made up his mind precisely how he will vote on that bill, and I therefore ask the Senate to take it up this morning and put it on its passage; and if it be in order to make such a motion now I move that it be taken up. [“No; no.”]
Mr. WILSON. As the Senfrom Vermont seems to be Pressing his bill, and nobody ows to give way, i am very willing to
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senfrom Massachusetts withdraw his motion?
Mr. POLAND. I o move that the Senate to the consideration of House bill O. 598.
Mr. CHANDLER. I dislike exceedingly to antagonize the measure of which I have spoken with any other. I am in favor of the Senator's bankrupt bill, and shall vote for it, but really we all know that it will lead to a long discussion. I hope the ship canal bill will not. Of course it is in the power of the Senate to settle the order of its business; but I give no tice that if the bankrupt bill is not taken Up I shall ask the Senate to take up House bill No. 344. Indeed, if it is in order, I will now submit the motion that the Senate lay aside the Present and all prior orders and proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 344.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There is another motion pending, the motion of the Senfrom Vermont.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senate will vote to take up the bankrupt bill. I have been watching for several days for an opportunity to get a quarter of an hour, but have not been able to obtain it. I rise now only to object to this system of trying to establish a lien, by tommon consent of the House, for other business after this bill shall have been disposed of. I have been inclined to take up the bill referred to by the Senfrom Michigan, but if he undertakes in this manner to saddle it upon the Senate I shall vote against his motion when the time comes.
Mr. LANE. I think I am rather disinter ested about this controversy; I am opposed to both bills, but I believe there is less danger in the ship canal than the bankrupt bill, and I shall vote to take up the former in preference to the latter, though I am opposed to both.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the motion of the Senfrom Ver mont. The motion was agreed to. The BANKRUPT BILL. The Senate, as in ComWhole, accordingly resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 598) to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the U.S., the pending question being on the amendment proposed by the ComJudiciary, to strike out the following words in section ofrom line 27 to line 33: And such other property not included in the fore going exceptions as is exemptedfrom levy and sale upon execution by the laws of the State in bankrupt has his domicile which the at the time of the commencementof the proceedingsin sto an aemxeomunpttionnot exceeding that allowed by such State laws in force in the year 1864. So as to make the proviso read: Provided, however, That there shall be excepted from the operation of the provisions of this section the necessaryHousehold and kitchen furniture, and such other articles and necessariesof such bankrupt as the said assignce shall designateand set apart, having reference in the amount to the family, condition, and circumstances of the bankrupt, but altogether not to exceed in value, in any case, the sum of $500; and also the wearing apparel of such bankrupt, and that of his wife and children, and the uniform, arms, and equipments of any person who is or has been a soldier in the militia or in States; the service of the U.S and such other property as now is, or hero after shall be, exemptedfrom attachmentor, scizure or levy on executionby the laws of the U.S.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. If my friend will allow me on that point to state to him briefly my answer to him, I will do so.
Mr. POLAND. I beg to correct the Senfrom Illinois. I understand him to say that this is made subject to such exemption laws as may be passed hereafter by the States.
Mr. POLAND. If the Senator will only take the trouble to read this portion of the section he will see his mistake without being corrected. The language is: And such other property not included in going exceptions the fore as is exemptedfrom levy and sale upon executionby the laws of the State in bankrupt which the has his domicile at the time of the commencementof the proceedings in bankruptcy, to an aemxeomupnttionnot exceeding that allowed by such State laws in force in the year 1864.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senfrom Wer mont is correct; it is limited by a subsequent clause of the section to such property as was exempted by the State laws in force in the year 1864. I did not read the whole sentence through. I find I was in error in supposing that it adopted as a part of this law the State laws that may be enacted hereafter; but I do not think that alters the principle. The section, it will be noticed, adopts as part of this bankrupt act the exemption laws of the States in force in the year 1864; or rather, as I see on looking at it, allows fonot exceeding the amount exempted by the State laws in force at that time to be retained by the bankrupt. I am still right, then; it does adopt, not only the State laws in force in 1864, but those laws which shall hereafter be in force in any State when the proceeding in bankruptcy is commenced, provided the exemption allowed by those future laws, shall not be greater than that allowed by the laws in force in 1864. Is that so? Let us read it and see if it is not. This is merely a limitation upon the amount of property that may be exempted; but the laws o the States may vary, as they do, from time to time. Take the case of a proceeding in bankruptcy commenced against a bankrupt in the State of Vermont in the year 1867. I do not know what the exemption law of Ver mont is. $
Mr. WADE. Mr. President, my own inclinations have been to go in favor of a bankrupt law, my opinion being that it is impolitic for the country to keep omen who have been unfortunate involved so that they cannot at any time enter into business again. But, however this may be, my convictions are not strong upon that subject; and the Ohio Legislature at the last session, I believe unanimously, or very nearly so, instructed the Senators from the State to go against a bankrupt law.
Mr. WADE. I thought it was at their last session. At any rate, their last action on the subject was to instruct us against such a bill, by a vote unanimous, or nearly so. Perhaps my colleague knows how that was.
Mr. WADE. Although I have never held so rigidly as some to the right of a State Legislature to instruct the Senators from the State, yet I think great deference is due to the opinions of the Legislature whose rePresentatives in a measure we are, or at any rate rePresentatives of the people behind them, whose opinions they know as well as we do. I think we ought under such circumstances to defer to their judgment, and I shall therefore feel compelled to vote against the bill.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I suppose the Senfrom Indiana does not.; that under the laws of the States property may be settled upon the wife or the children of the debtor discharged of his debts, so as not to be subject to be taken for his debts.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Property owned by the wife and the children under circumstances that justify it, of course, is exempted from execution for the debts of the husband and father.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Or property which the husband may have given to the wife, and settled upon the wife before the debt was contrac
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir, if conveyed before the debt was contracted and the property was suitable to their condition, and the transaction was under circumstances that did not raise the question of fraud.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. If a man has $50,000 worth of property and he is free from debt, can he not settle the whole $50,000 upon his wife under the laws of the States and have it retained by her, so as to be free and discharged. future debts or liabilities incurred by im?
Mr. HENDRICKS. That would depend much on the intent of the party. If he intended to contract debts in the future and be the apparent owner of property which he had transferred to his wife, such an arrangement in my judgment would not stand.,
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Of course a fraudulent intent may avoid all contracts and may set When all aside; but if in good faith a man set Wes property on his wife and children when he not in debt they may hold that property free from his subsequent debts, and if he afterwards went into bankruptcy you could not reach that property thus settled upon the wife and children by virtue of the laws of the States. There are some States perhaps that go so far as to forbid the settling of property upon the wife and children in this way, but most of them certainly allow it. Now, the States allow the husband to hold exempt from execution a homestead, not for himself, but for the family, as being essential to the existence and the independence of the family, in order to carry out the obligation which he contracts by virtue of his being the head of a family, an obligation higher than, supe rior to, and more sacred than, any other he can contract. The laws of the several States allow him to invest in a homestead, which is to be held as long as it is occupied as a homestead, independent and discharged of his debts. Some States allow to a given amount, some allow more, some allow less; but when this person goes into bankruptcy the rule of the court of bankruptcy should be to reach just that property which is liable under the laws of the State to be reached, and not reach that property which constitutes this trust fund, this fund which is not to be reached by creditors, this fund which is necessary to the family and its independence. Mr. President, I regard the State laws defending the homestead of the family, allowing it to be retained, as important; and my judgment is that it would be impossible to pass a bankrupt law through this House and the HoRep which would require the debtor to surrender the homestead which under the laws of the States has been sacredly set apart for his family.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Allow me to interrupt the Senator for a moment. If the property in fact belongs to the wife and the children, of course neither by Federal nor State laws can it be reached for the debts of the husband and father. So that question does not arise. If the homestead be protected as against credit ors in the State of Wisconsin this bill, if it passesand becomes a law, will not place the ebtor in any worse condition than he was before. "
Mr. HENDRICKS. Because he does not have to strip himself of his homestead unless he applies to be a discharged bankrupt. If he remains under the law of the State, allows the creditors to seek their remedy against him under that law, he is protected by the law of the State that exempts a certain amount of property from execution.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. But the creditors can proceed under this law to put the debtor in . toy,
Mr. HENDRICKs. If he has been guilty of fraud.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. If it is necessary to carry out this doctrine that the law must be uniform, then the creditor proceeding under this bill in bankruptcy has a right to deprive the debtor of his homestead in any State if in any of the States the State law does not give the debtor a homestead; otherwise it is not uniform according to this argument.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator is discussing one part of this bill and I was referring to another. I was speaking of the voluntary portion of the bill.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The uniformity of a bankrupt law is all the point at issue, because I understood the honorable Senfrom Illinois to admit that he would not be disposed to disturb the homestead exemption laws of the several States provided he could constitution ally support a bankrupt law without that clause which is now in this bill and which is moved to be stricken out.
Mr. TRUMBULL. What I said, I think, was that I had no disposition to interfere with the exemption laws of the States, but that I did not think Congress had any authority when passing a uniform system of bankruptcy to; adopt them; and if the Senfrom Wisconsin had remained in his seat and listened to me he would have seen that I answered his argument about the family. The family has nothing to do with it. This bill does not propose to take property that belongs to the family. It proposes to take the property that belongs to the bankrupt himself; and the hank rupt may have no family., Property is exempted in favor of the debtor in my State whether he has a family or not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, a homestead. Suppose a woman is a bankrupt. A woman may be a bankrupt.
Mr.?ojoir. But she may be the head of a family.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, and she may be a bankrupt without having a family.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The homestead is exempted if occupied by a family.
Mr. TRUMBULL. A woman in my State is entitled to occupy a homestead from her debtors, whether she has children or not, and though her husband be dead.
Mr. HOWARD. In the midst of this colloquy, I want to ask my friendfrom Illinois one question.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Wait until I get through. The point of the Senfrom Illinois is. under the Constitution this law must be uniform in its operation. Now, a creditor in the State of NewYork proceeds in bankruptcy against a debtor, takes his property, disposes of his property under this bill. What is rule the ” disposition? In the State of NewYork by the State laws a homestead to the amount of $1,000 is exempted. In the State of Connecticut perhaps there is no homestead exempted, but only a certain amount of personal property. If you proceed in bankruptcy in Connecticut you i. not leave any homestead to the debtor. Therefore, there is no uniformity in this proceeding, according to the argument of the Senfrom Indiana and the Senfrom Illinois. The Senfrom Indiana claims that it need only be uniform as to the amount of property which is held by the debtor when the debtor himself proceeds in bankruptcy and asks for his discharge. I put the case of the creditor proceeding against the debtor, and that argument of the Senfrom Indiana answers the other. The truth is, the law passed by Congress is uniform if it adopts a uniform rule, and that rule is to property reach the which under the law of the State is iable for the payment of debts, and not to undertake to reach any other.
Mr. GRIMES. I do not propose to enter into the discussion of this question, but it is a very important one, and I suppose one upon the decision of which the votes of a good many senators on the bill itself will depend. I should like to know of the Senfrom Vermont whether or not, if this bill shall be enacted into a law, as he desires that it shall be, it will be possible for any of the States to change their exemption laws. For example, suppose that in the State of Iowa there is an exemption of $1,0in the State of Illinois of $5,000; we have a community of interests; our population are embarked in about the same character of business; and there is about a uniform amount of wealth probably distributed among the population. If the interests of Iowa, in the opinion of our General Assembly, required that our exemption law should be made to correspond with that of the State of Illinois, would it be possible for us to increase the exemption from $1,000 to $5,000, so as to correspond with that of Illinois? Then I should like to have him answer me whether or not, if this bill shall pass, it will be possible for the State of Nebraska, for example, that will come into the Union a week after the approval of this law without any exemption law, to establish a homestead exemption law, and exclude from the operation of the Federal bankrupt law such descriptions of property as, in the opinion of the General Assembly of that State, the welfare of the State may require, but which is not provided for in the bankrupt law? And I should like to know whether or not it will be possible for any of the States that have not now upon their statute books provisions for homestead exemptions, and do not place them there before the enactment of this bank bill into a law, to do so afterward?
Mr. RAMSEY. Mr. President, I have ever been in favor of a bankrupt law. I simply rise to state that if this amendment be adopted, and this provision securing the exemptions provided for by the States be stricken out, I certainly cannot vote for the bill. We have in our State a very moderate exemption, consisting, I think, of 80 acres of land in the country or a town lot in a city or town, and upon these little sanctuaries families have enshrined themselves. Driven out by the exactions and persecutions of heartless creditors in the East, they have sought an asylum in the West, and by these liberal laws of our States have been protected. The purpose of the committee now is to destroy this protection. For myself, I shall vote against the amendment, and if it shall be adopted I shall vote against the whole bill on its passage.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator says he is going to vote for this proposition so that the courts may decide upon the question; and if they decide that it is unconstitutional no great harm will be done. Why, sir, if they decide it to be unconstitutional the effect will be, as I understand, to sweep away the State exemptions in favor of debtors, to take that property which the State has exempted and turn it into the fund of the assignee designated to administer upon the bankrupt's estate. It seems to me that this is a graver question than my friendfrom Nevada seems to think it is. If we pass the law without any provision in regard to homesteads, or without saying that there shall be an exemption of such an amount, fixing whatever amount that may be; if, in other words, we. the law as the Senfrom Vermont desires us to pass it, and the courts decide it to be unconstitutional, then all our homestead exemption laws are swept out from under us.
Mr. STEWART. I do not think that that will be the effect. It seems to me that if it is declared unconstitutional because it is not a uniform system that goes to the whole law, and consequently there will be no harm done. They say the law is not a uniform system of bankruptcy.
Mr. GRIMES. It seems to me that the proper way to set this forever at rest and to enable us to understand ourselves what we are going to do, and for our constituents to know what we have done, is to incorporate into the bill some provision declaring that such exemptions shall exist in all the States.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is the bill, but. this is an addition.
Mr. GRIMES. That will cover the amount of the homesteads in the States.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The difficulty about that was that in the Pacific States the exemption is $5,000. They are not willing to reduce that, as a general rule, and it is so various we found it impossible.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. General laws are not particular laws, and in legislating for a government we have to legislate with reference to the interests of localities. Now, speaking about the law of California, a $5,000 homestead there would not be more than $500 in some countries that I know; that is, as regards enough for the protection of the family.
Mr. Let no gentleman flatter himself that the Supreme Court, if they decide that this clause is unconstitutional, are going to decide that the whole law is unconstitutional.
Mr. GRIMES. I am satisfied they will not. They will decide that the law is uniform in all respects, but is not uniform in this respect, in asmuch as we, in this particular, had no authority to pass it.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. That will have to be. the result of a conclusion, and it cannot be determined by exceptional questions.
Mr. DAVIS. y own opinion upon this point is, that Congress has no competence or power to pass any bankrupt, bill that is not uniform, and that a clause adopting the various systems of exemptions of property from execution in satisfaction of debts by the different States would establish a system not uniform, and that it would consequently have the effect of vitiating and rendering void the whole law. I have no doubt that Congress may exempt what property it pleases in a bankrupt law in favor of the bankrupt, but the system of exemptions ought to be uniform through out all the States according to my understanding of the requisition of the Constitution. There cannot be a system of exemptions amounting to $500 in one State and $5,000 in another State in a constitutional bankrupt law. If gentlemen want a bankrupt law, and at the same time a reservation of exemptions from execution and satisfaction of debt by State laws, they must in the bankrupt law make a uniform provision to cover such exemptions, and I think that unless they adopt that course the law will not be uniform and constitutional.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HARRIs in the chair.) Is the Senate ready for the question?
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the yeas&nays have not been called I ask for them on this question? The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HOWARD. I wish the question may be again stated, so that it may be clearly un: derstood. In my opinion it is a subject of great importance.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was on page 17, section 14, after the word “States, ” in line 127, to strike out the following clause: And such other property not included in going exceptions the fore as is exempted from levy and sale upon executionby the laws of the State in bankrupt hashis domicile which the at the time of commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, to anamount not exceedingthat allowed by such State exemption laws in force in the year 1864.
Mr. HENDERSON. Is it in order to amend the lines proposed to be stricken out before the vote is taken on striking out?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is.
Mr. HENDERSON. I propose to amend, then, by striking out in the 32nd and 3 3rd lines the words “in the year 1864 and inserting “at the time when such proceeding shall have been commenced.”.
Mr. POLAND. I hope the Senator will with: draw his amendment for the Present. I should myself be in favor of the amendment that he proposes; but the question now stands upon the principle: whether we shall adopt the State exemptions. He can amend it afterward if it is retained. This amendment is to strike out merely.
Mr. HENDERSON. My only object was this: if it is to be adopted at all, it should be adopted so as to have
Mr. POLAND. The Senator's amendment will be in order afterward, if the clause be not stricken out.
Mr. HENDERSON. I do not wish to interfere.
Mr. POLAND. I hope the vote will be taken on the amendment to strike out the clause.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senfrom Missouri withdraw his motion to amend?
Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, the farmers, mechanics, and laboring men of the country have very little interest, I take it, in the passage of this bill. It is intended for the aid of men engaged in business in some form who have been unfortunate. If it was to operate in the future, I would not care how large the amount of property was that was to be exempted. If it was intended by exempting a large amount of property to discourage men from getting in debt, F o l. it would be a great blessing to the country; for I look upon credits, as a general rule, in this country as one of the greatest evils that afflict it, and especially for the young men of the country, who are apt to run in debt for their daily living. I should be perfectly willing that anyone who gave that E. of credit should rest solely and entirely upon the good faith and the character of the person he trusted, and have no advantages of law of any kind to aid him in it. But, sir, I wish to inquire whether it would be in order to move to strike out all after the words “ U.S., ” in the 24th line, down to the word “provided, ” in the 3 3rd line, which is the clause proposed to be stricken out by the committee, and to insert an amendment covering the part proposed to be stricken out and a portion of the other?
The PRESIDING. The Chair thinks it would.
Mr. WILSON. I make the motion then to strike out those words and to insert: And a homestead or other property not exceeding in value $2,000. That will include furniture and wearing apparel.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is all exempted now by this section.
Mr. WILSON. I know, but in addition this amendment will give a homestead or other property not exceeding in value $2,000. I think that will be little enough and will make it uniform throughout the country; and if we have got any persons in the country who are entitled to hold property to the amount of several 1000s of dollars under State laws it seems to me they should surrender that right to a certain extent to enable us to get a uniform law.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. What might make a home in one place might not make it in an other.
Mr. SHERMAN. I am in favor of making a homestead exemption in this law. I see the difficulty in the way of striking out the clause and not saying anything about the homestead or providing that it shall be regulated by State laws. At the same time the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts is not sufficiently definite. We have a homestead exemption law in Ohio and there are many cases arising under it that have come to my knowledge. Take this case: suppose the homestead on which a man resides is worth $2,500; would you deprive him entirely of the home: stead, or would you sell it and pay him the $2,000, or allow him to keep it and require him to pay interest on the excess? There are many cases of that kind that ought to be provided for if the Senate adopt this principle. Now, there are cases where the State. laws make a distinction between lands. If the homestead is in the country, or agricultural land, you must limit the number of acres of land; you cannot limit its value very well. So that, ic this principle is adopted, the bill itself ought to be recommitted to the ComJudiciary with a view to make the various exceptions and qualifications to carry out this idea. If adopted in this form it would create embarrassment.
Mr. CONNESS. This is an unhappy attempt at a compromise, as I view it, and I hope it will not be adopted. I believe that is all the speech I have to make upon it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not propose to participate in the discussions upon this bill, as I intend to vote against it in any event; but I will simply say, so far as this amendment is concerned, that I concur with the chairman of the ComJudiciary in his opinion that this part of the bill is unconstitutional. Suppose this bill provided in exPress terms that in the State of Iowa a homestead worth $5,000 should be exempt from execution, and that in the State of Illinois a homestead worth $500 should be exempt from execution, will anybody say that that would be a uniform law That is what this bill does, because it adopts the legislative enactments of the different States, and some of those enactments provide that $5,000 worth of real estate shall be exempt from execution and others provide that $500 worth of real estate shall be exempt from execution, and there is no way that the law can be made uniform if these different and conflicting acts of the several States are adopted and made a part of the law. Now, to undertake to say that a law is uniform which in fact is not uniform in its operation it seems to me is sticking in the bark.
Mr. STEWART. Suppose it is stated that there should be $5,000 worth of real estate, as an illustration, set apart in each State of the Union for a homestead for the family; would that be uniform in its operation? That would be constitutional, would it not? If it fixed the same amount of real estate to be set apart in each State of the Union for the homestead, say $5,000 or $500, that would be uniform.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Could not the Senator illustrate it by supposing that the law provided for ten acres of land, which might be much more valuable in one State than another?
Mr. STEWART. Yes; suppose it said ten acres of land. That would be a uniform amount uniform in quantity but it certainly would not be uniform in its practical operation. Suppose you said $5,000 worth of real estate: that would be uniform in the amount of valuation, but in its practical operation it would not be uniform, because $5,000 in some States would be a very handsome estate and in other States would not buy a country place. 1,000 dollars in some States would furnish a good home; in others it would not amount to anything. For instance, in the State of California it would not buy a home at all, whereas in Vermont it would. So that to have the law absolutely uniform in its practical operation is impossible. That was not intended, in my opinion, by the Constitution of the U.S. Any kind of an exemption in the law must have a different practical operation in one State from another. This bill adopts the exemptions of the States, and it is Presumed that the States have practically protected their citizens according to the circumstances about them; that they have thrown protection around the homestead and around exemptions for the purpose of protecting families about equally; and perhaps it is more uniform in its practical operation for us to follow what the States have fixed, owing to their different circumstances, than it would be to make it arbitrary through out the U.S. Vermont fixes $500 as the exemption; California, $5,000. That in its practical operation is more uniform, if you are going to talk of its practical operation, than it would be to fix an arbitrary amount for each State. So that after all I do not think the object sought to be arrived at by having uniform laws is contravened by this exemption.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, that is a pretty long question which the gentleman has propounded to me, [laughter, and I am much obliged to him for answering his own question. Isuppose that in the legislation of Congress a dollar is regarded as a dollar everywhere throughout the U.S. When a law of Congress provides that an exemption every where shall extend to $5,000, the law assumes that a dollar of gold or of the currency of the U.S. is a dollar in California and a dollar in Vermont.
Mr. STEWART. I do not like to interrupt the Senator, but I wish to ask him one more question. Does not Congress every day in its legislation recognize that a dollar in one place is worth more than a dollar in another? Does it not regulate the salaries of officers at different prices for different places? In your reve nue law you provide that the officers in one locality shall receive a certain compensation, and in another locality another. : same is true of military officers. You recognize that in one place a dollar is worth more than it is in another, because you give more. You recognize the fact that it costs a man more dollars to live in one locality than in another; and in making your uniform, laws you adapt your legislation to the situation of the country, and consequently make allowances of different amounts for the same service in different localities. Practically, therefore, Congress does not treat a dollar as absolutely worth as much in one place as in another, and business men do not.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I do not know that there is any constitutional provision as to the power of Congress to regulate sala. ries in the U.S., and therefore Congress can exercise its discretion upon that subject, and the salary is accommodated to the circumstances of the person whose salary is fixed. Some men have larger responsibilities than others; some men are placed in offices where their expenses are larger than the expenses of other men; and so the law regulating salaries is governed by such considerations. That has nothing to do with the question before the Senate; but I undertake to say that Congress has never provided by law that a Treasury note of the U.S shall be worth less in one part of the country than in another. Would it not be extraordinary legislation on the part of Congress, after, pursuant to law, a currency has been furnished to the country, for Congress to undertake to declare that this currency was worth less in California than it was in the State of Vermont?
Mr. STEWART. They do not exactly declare that; but they declare it in its practical operation, in making the law uniform, that it requires more of that currency to do the same thing in California than in Vermont; and so with this law. We say that in its practical operations, in order to make the law uniform, it is necessary in the new States that there should be larger exemptions than in the old States, and consequently we adopt the exemptions which the States themselves have provided as the best way to arrive at that uniform result.
Mr. POLAND. It is confined to the State exemptions in 1864.
Mr. WILLIA IS. Why is it confined to the State exemptions in 1864? Is it assumed that in 1864 the laws were any more equitable or just? Is this to be a rigid and unchanging rule that is forever to stand? And this very part of the provision requiring the laws of 1864to remain answers the arguments which the Senfrom Nevada urges, that the State must be allowed to accommodate its legislation to its particular circumstances, and so if prices go up the exemption laws must be changed to accommodate themselves to the prices of the country, and if they down the exemption laws must be again changed. This bill undertakes to designate a certain time in the history of this country, (and it might as well go back ten or 25 years as to go back two,) and declares that the exemption laws of the States in 1864, though they may have been repealed since that time by the States, shall be incorporated into and constitute a part of this bankrupt bill. My opinion on the subject, without giving it a very thorough examination, is that this provision is unconstitutional. I do not believe in this system of o;men to go in debt and then exempting them from its payment by any arrangement that operates upon contracts now in existence, I care not whether it be State or congressional legislation. Every man ought to be compelled to pay his debts as a general rule. But if a bankrupt law is to be enacted, in my judgment it should be prospective in its operations; and I would not object to voting for a bankrupt law to operate in future if its terms and provisions were such as I considered constitutional and reasonable.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of the Senfrom Nevada what effect this would have on his State, whether they had any exemption laws in 1864?
Mr. STEWART. As a Territory we had territorial exemption laws, and the State constitution continued those laws in force.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Then this bill would leave you in the condition of being without any homestead exemption, because the property exempted is that allowed “by such State exemption laws in force in the year 1864.”
Mr. STEWART. We were admitted as a State in the fall of 1864 under a constitution that continued in force the territorial laws previously passed, so that this would operate in my State.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The language is, “al lowed by such State exemption laws in force in the year 1864.” I was not aware that the State of Nevada was admitted and had State exemption laws in force in 1864.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed t;o and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. SATURDAY, February 2, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS, communicating reports from the heads of the several Executive Depts of the Government, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of January 12 inquiring “whether any person appointed to an office required by law to be hio by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who was commissioned during the recess of the senate previous to the assembling of the Present Congress to fill a vacancy, has been continued in such office and permitted to discharge its functions, either by the granting of a new commission or otherwise, since the end of the session of the Senate on the 28th day of July last, without the submission of the name of such person to.the Senate for its confirmation, and whether the surveyor or naval of cer of the port of Philadelphia has thus been continued in office without the consent of the Senate, and if any such officer, has performed the duties of that office whether he has received any salary or compensation therefor;” which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.
The PRESIDENT protempore also laid before the Senate a report from the SecyWar, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of January 30, the official reports, papers, and other data in relation to the causes and extent of the late massacre of U.S. troops at or near Fort Phil. Kearney by the Indians; which was referred to the ComMilAffrs .
The PRESIDENT protempore. The ref. erence will be ordered, and the motion to print will go to the Committee on.
Mr. POMEROY. The members of the ComPrintg are all, absent at Present. There is not a member of the committee in the Senate, and I should like to have the motion to print acted upon unless it is unavoidablee that it should be referred.
Mr. STEWART, from the ComPubLands, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.532) for the relief of the inhabitants of cities and towns on the public lands, reported it with amendments.
Mr. TRUMBULL, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the petition of N. Callan, Samuel E. Douglass, and William Laird, praying for compensation for services rendered in the selection of jurors in the DistCol, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComDistCol; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 222) prohibiting payments by any officer of the Government to any person not known to have been opposed to the rebellion and in favor of its supPression, reported it with an amendment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am also directed by the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.452) to prevent the illegal appointment of officers of the U.S., to report it back with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed, the Senate having acted on the subject of the removal of officers in the bill which has already passed. the Senate. The report was agreed to.
Mr. HENDRICKS, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S.R.No. 604) to define and punish certain crimes therein named, reported it with an amendment. BILL INTRODUCED.
Mr. HARRIS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.562) to amend an act entitled “An act for the removal of causes in certain cases from the State courts, ” approved July 27, 1866; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed. NAVIGATION OF WILLAMETTE RIWER.
Mr. NESMITH submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: z Resolved, That the ComCommerce, be instructed to inquire into the expediencyof making an . of $40,000for the purpose ofing remov obstructions to, navigation in river, the Willamette in Oregon, and to report by bill or otherwise. intero0EANIC SHIP CANAL.
Mr. CONNESS. I offer the following res. olution, and ask for its Present consideration: Resolved, That the SecyState be requested to report to by the Senatewhat stepshave been taken him to otain from the Republic of right Colombia the for the U.S. to make necessary surveysfor an interoceanicship canal through the territory of that republic. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. CONNESS. I wish briefly to say, in this connection, that it will be remembered that Congress, at its last session, made an appropriation of $40,000 for a survey of the Isthmus of Darien, for the purpose of a ship canal; and my information is that the State Depart.ment has not prosecuted its part of the business with the diligence that the importance of the question demands, and the object of this resolution is to ascertain officially from the head of that Dept what has been done before any further steps shall be taken. I hope the resolution will be agreed to. The resolution was adopted. H ON CLAD STEAMElt ONONDAGA.
Mr. MORRILL. I offer the following resolution for reference: Resolved, That the SecyNavy be, nd is hereby, authorized to transfer the iron clad steamerOnondaga to tard, upon the builder, GeorgeW. Quin his refunding to the Government the amount receivedby him for its construction. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest that the resolution in this form would not be the foundation of action. It would require a JtResolution in order to authorize the Secretary to make the transfer.
Mr. MORRILL. Well, sir, it is simply intended as a matter of reference for inquiry, and perhaps it answers the same purpose in its Present form.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The resolution will be referred to the ComNavAffrs if there be no objection. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN IDAHO.
Mr. WADE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill R. 490.
Mr. SUMNER. I ask the Senate to take up for consideration the resolution which I offered the other day with reference to Mr. Motley, and which was objected to.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope the Senfrom Ohio will yield to me for a moment to let that resolution be taken up. It belongs strictly to the morning hour, and there are reasons why that information should be had at once.
Mr. WADE. I insist on my motion. to have this bill disposed of. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.490) to amend an act entitled “An act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Idaho, ” approved March 3, 1863. It provides that the judges of the supreme court of the Territory, or a majority of them, shall, when assembled at the seat of government of the Territory, define the judicial districts of the Territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for : j to the several districts; and shall also fix and appoint the times and places for holding court in the several counties or sub divisions in each of the judicial districts, and alter the times and places of holding the courts as to them shall seem proper and convenient.
Mr. WADE. move to amend the bill by inserting the following as additional sections, to come in after the 1st section: Sec. 2. Abife:, That the next session of the Legislative Assemblyof the Territory odfayIdaho shall beheld commencingon the 1st Mon in December in 1868, and thereafter the legislatniviaellyA, ssemblyof said Territory shall be held bien Legislataivned Atshseemnebxlyt election for membersof the of said Territory shall be held soanid the elescetcioon ndshMall boe hseldAbuigeunsnti, a1ll8y6.8 and thereafter Abife:, That the members of the fi HoRep of said egislative Assembly shall be electedfor the term of 2 years, I want and the membersof the council of said Legislative Assembly shall be electedfor the term of 4 years: Provided, That at the 1st electionhereafter1/2 of the members of said council shall be eleetedfor the term of two years, and theremaining half for the term, of 4 years; and the districts wherein the members of the council are to be electedfor the term of 4 years at thenext election shall be determined by proclamation of the Governor of said Territory: Provided, That in which shall be entailtlleed outonteileescatntwdoemlecetmiobnedrsisotfritchtes council oneof said members shall be elected for 2 years, and the otherfor 4 years.
Mr. NESMITH, From the imperfect hearing that I had of the reading of the bill, it struck me as an innovation upon the usual practice in the Territories. I believe it has eretofore been the rule in all the Territories that the times for holding the district courts should be fixed by the Legislature, and that the districts should be fixed by the Legislature.
Mr. WADE. This bill has nothing to do with that. There is another bill that will come up by and by that will regulate that.
Mr. WADE. It is a bill in relation to the judicial districts in Idaho.
Mr. NESMITH. Does your amendment strike out the original bill?
Mr. NESMITH, I should like to hear the bill read again.
Mr. NESMITH, I suggest that that seems to be an innovation on what has heretofore been the established rule in the Territories. The power to fix the times of holding the courts, it seems to me, properly belongs to the Legislature, and should be exercised by the Legislature where it is now lodged. If there is any reason for this change, I am not aware of it, and I should like to hear it stated.
Mr. WADE. I understand that there is a reason for it. There is great difficulty in fixing these districts in 5. There seems to be some controversy between the Legislature and the judges there. As I am informed, and believe from the statements I have received, the Legislature is disposed to fix the districts in such a way that they will be scarcely available at all. In these great Territories it is very easy for the Legislature to make the districts in such a form that it is almost impracticable to hold courts there, and becomes exceedingly inconvenient for the judges. Although. legislation may be new in the Territories it is not new in some of the States. Nobody knows better than the judges how to arrange the districts so as to be convenient for themselves and beneficial to the people. I think they would be more apt to know about that than the legislature. Then, when they among themselves agree as to the districts or circuits, each one is to take his own. Our State has pursued that course to the satisfaction of everybody, and of the judges, too. I think the power is quite as well lodged in the judges as it would be in the Legislative Assembly, and as theiudges seem to desire that it be so fixed I can see no objection to it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think my colleague is?. ostaken in S. supposing that this proposed any innovation. Several years: before the organization of Idaho Territory, law passed by Congress providing the times the Territories the judges should fix eourts in o places for holding the district e bench rritories; and while I was upon conside." the Territory of Oregon, for a places.for portion of the time, the times and werefixe. ding the courts in that Territory to hold th 7 the judges when they assembled The re. Supreme court of the Territory. Idaho. that that law does not apply to beenoolitory is organized because the Territory has 7 years sinee the enactment of that law, and the organic law specially provides that the Legislative Assembly of the Territory shall have that power; and if I am not mistaken, at the last session of Congress a similar law was passed in reference to Washington Territory. I know that a law was passed faking the sessions of the Legislative Assembly in Washington Territory biennial, and the power to fix the times and places for holding the district courts in the Territory was conferred upon the judges.
Mr. yo. I know a law was passed requiring biennial sessions, but I did not think the power to which my colleague refers was embraced in that law.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say that rePresentations are made to me and to the ComTerritor by citizens of Idaho that the Legislative Assembly of the Territory, on account of their political hostility to the judges, are making laws and organizing the districts so as to subject the judges to the greatest possible inconvenience and the greatest possible expense, with a view, as is rePresented to me by reliable men, of compelling the judges to vacate their offices; and this sort of legislation is not peculiar to Idaho Territory; but this bill relates simply to that Territory. The bench in that ferritory is made up of citizens of the Territory, with one exception; and the chief justice, who was formerly a mem. ber of Congress, has been there for a long time. They understand the wants and neces sities of the Territory as well as anybody in the Territory. They can arrange these courts so as to be able to attend them, so as to suit the convenience of themselves and of suitors better than the Legislative Assembly of the Territory. I have heard no objection made to this legislation. I do not understand that the Delegate from the Territory, notwithstanding he differs in polities from the judges of the Territory, objects to this kind of legislation. At any rate, no such objection has been made known to me, and I believe it is the wish of the citizens of the Territory, so far as I am advised, that this bill should pass.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I should like to hear the amendment read.
Mr. HENDRICKS. This is rather singular legislation to take one Territory and provide as this bill proposes. I should like to know a little more about it, especially in view of the statement of the Senfrom Oregon, that it is owing to a political controversy between the Legislature and the judges. It is very certain that the Legislature could have no interest to do a wrong in the districting of the judicial circuits. It is attributing a very singular spirit to a body, that merely for the purpose of making an inconvenience to the judges they would make an improper districting of the Territory for purposes. Now, I cannot believe that i have no doubt that the Senfrom Oregon has very full information satisfactory to himself, but I think probably that comes from the judges, indirectly, in some way or other. The judges have an interest, of course, in making their circuits easy. The people who are rePresented in E. the Legislature an interest in having the courts held. It is certain that there is a great complaint in the Territories against the Federal officers, because they are absent so much from the Terri tories, and that is an evil that ought to be corrected; but I think in passing a bill like this we are not going in the direction of correction. To let the judges fix the districts to suit themselves, instead of allowing it to be done by the legislature, is certainly not to the interest of the people as much as it is to the convenience of the judges, and therefore I will not vote for it.
Mr. WADE. These additional sections are offered because we have been besought by the people of almost every Territory, for some years past, to provide for biennial in stead of annual elections. They do not believe it to be necessary to assemble their Legislature every year. A good many of the public men of this Territory have been here, and they all say it will be a saving of expense and more convenient to them to f.biennial sessions; and we thought, on the whole, we would try it, at their request. It will be an improvement, and as the people seem to want it, so far as the committee were informed on the subject, we thought it would be well to try it, and I think myself it would be an improvement. I. do not believe there is any necessity, generally, for their meeting every year. They are scattered over this large Territory, and it is very inconvenient and quite expensive for the Legislative Assembly to meet. I am in clined to think they will get along just as well with biennial sessions, and therefore I was willing they should try it. " This amendment is adapted to secure that end, and that is all there is about that. As regards the bill itself, the Senfrom Oregon [Mr. WILLIAMs] has stated the facts that appeared to the committee to require this change: that there was a controversy between the judges and the Legislative Assembly, and it seemed to us best to grant this power to the judges. I have no apprehension that the judges, any more than the Legislative Assembly, would so arrange the districts as not to be for the best advantage of all concerned. They certainly know as much about it, and I have no doubt would do it as honestly and fairly. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. HENDRICKS. takes his seat, I will suggest to him that some days since he introduced a resolution, which was slightly modified, and he accepted the modification, calling upon the Dept for information as to the time the territorial of ficers have spent in the Territories. Now, I propose that he let this bill lie over until we et that information. I should like to know how far the judges themselves are interested in this question, and that report of the Dept will perhaps give us a little information. It may appear that these are among the judges who have not been in the Territories very much; and I suggest to the Senator to let the bill lie over until we get that report.
Mr. WADE. I will inform the Senator that that resolution does not go any further than the Governors of Territories, if I recollect aright.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator made an inquiry as to a particular officer, and I proposed as an amendment to include all Federal officers of all the Territories. We shall get that information in a few days, and then we can see a little more about it. 'I think this is singular legislation, and therefore I would rather it should be postponed until we get that information.
Mr. WADE. I would not be adverse to that were it not that the session is drawing to a close and this is a Senate bill, and unless we get it through very soon there will not be any opportunity for it to pass, and I think, for the convenience of the people in this Territory, the bill ought to pass.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I move that the bill be postponed until tomorrow and that the amendment be printed. I do not want to delay it or to interfere with it, but I should like to know something more about it.
Mr. WADE. I hope not. We may as well pass it now as ever. The motion to postpone was not agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Ohio.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading; was read the 3rd time, and passed. SanFranCISCO AND Portland MAIL service.
Mr. CONNESS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate JtResolution No. 157.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday, which is House bill No. 798, the bankrupt bill. Does the Senator move to postpone that?
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the honorable senator who has that bill in charge will allow it to lie over informally. The consideration of this resolution, as will be seen in a moment, is of considerable importance, and it will occupy, I think, but a short time. If it should excite any considerable debate, of course I shall consent to its going over.
Mr. POLAND. With that understanding I shall not object to the motion.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom California asks that the order of the day be laid aside informally by unanimous consent, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the JtResolution mentioned by him. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate. There being no objection, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the JtResolution (S.R.No. 157) in relation to ocean mail service between SanFrancisco, in California, and Portland, in Oregon. It authorizes the PostMGenl to employ ocean mail service between SanFran cisco, in California, and Portland, in Oregon, not less than 3 times per month, in contin uation of the service from NewYork, via Panama, to SanFrancisco; but the cost of the service is not to exceed $25,000 per annum. The ComPostOffices reported the JtResolution with an amendment to add the following: And it is hereby madethe duty of General, the Postmaster after the passage of this, act, to advertise for bills, for the performance of provided for, the service herein for at least 30 days in at newspaper published least one in SanFrancisco and one paper published at, Portland, Oregon, and to contract therefor with the lowestresponsiblebidder.
Mr. CONNESS. Before the Senate vote upon the amendment, I ask the Secretary to read the report of the ComPostOffices accompanying the JtResolution. It is very brief and will state the case without any consumption of time.
The Secretary read the report, as follows:, The ComPostOffices have hadunderconsiderationSenateJtResolution No. 157, providing for oceanmail facilities between SanFrancisco and Portland, in Oregon, and report: That the only meansof mail communication betweenCalifornia andOregon at the present time is by overland from Sacramento, to Portland, which requires in the winter season about 12 days to make the trip. It is oyer one of the worst mountain roads in the world. During the past year $5,000,000of gold were received at and the north, besidesStahne lFarragnecicsocmomfroemrcePionrtolathnedr articles of merchandise, and yet it takes 12 days to have communicationbetweenthe citizens, parties to this greatbusiness. There are, 3 steamshiplines now running betweenSan Francisco and Portland, and they make the trip in 3 days. This resolution proposes for a small sumto establishan oceanservice to meet this great want to commerce, and, to establish it in tinuation of the ocean mail service between Ncoewn York and SanFrancisco. The committeerecommend the passage of the JtResolution.
Mr. CONNESS. Now, Mr. President, I will simply say in addition that the amount proposed as the maximum to be ofor this service has been offered by the Dept under former appropriations for similar service; but there was at that time but one steam ship line engaged, and they would not perform the service for $25,000. There are at the Present time 3 steamship lines, and the Government will undoubtedly get the service performed for that or a less sum.
Mr. SHERMAN. What is the amount in the bill?
Mr. CONNESS. The maximum amount is $25,000.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The JtResolution was reported to the senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The JtResolution was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. MINISTER AT WIENNA.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope there will now be no objection to taking up and acting upon the resolution I introduced the other day. I do not wish to say anything about it, but I should like to have a vote upon it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate, another subject being before the Senate.
The Secretary read it, as follows: Resolved, That the POTUS be requested to communicate to the Senate, if in opinion his not incompatible with the public interests, a copy of the letter on which the SecyState foundedhis recentinquiries addressed to Mr. Motley minister of the to." Statesat Vienna, with reto his reported conversation and opinions, and to furnish the name of the writer of said letter. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Upon this resolution the Senfrom Maryland is entitled to the floor, having been cut short by the expiration of the morning hour when it was last up.
Mr. SUMNER. I promised not to debate the resolution. I simply ask for a vote. The resolution was adopted. PetrSONAL EXPLANATIONS.–The TARIFF.
Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I find myself called to account and denounced in a leading newspaper of Philadelphia for having “dodged” the vote upon an important public measure; and in this denunciation my colleague is coupled or united with me. I allude to the final vote on the passage of the tariff bill. That bill was put to a vote yesterday morning at half past 12 o'clock. It was the 2nd protracted night session which had been held upon the bill, both of which sessions I sat out at some personal inconvenience. I stated at the taking of the final vote that I withheld my vote because I had paired off with a member of the Senate who was called away from the Chamber to at tend the deathbed of a distinguished former citizen of Pennsylvania. I could not resist that appeal, and therefore agreed to withhold my vote upon the passage of the bill. As to my colleague, I believe he was not Present; but it was manifest, it was known to every member of the Senate that the polling of any particular vote on that measure would have no influence upon the result; it was not important. t As for myself, sir, passing by all the personal denunciation with which I am visited in the paper referred to, I desire to say that I have never “dodged” a vote on a public question in a legislative body, either in Congress or in the Legislature of my own State. When I find it necessary to avoid any responsibility imposed upon me by my position as a member of this body I shall give the public a due announcement of the fact. They need not seek to learn it through the columns of a sensation newspaper Press
Mr. DIXON. I desire to state with regard to the vote upon the tariff bill, in which my name does not appear, that if I had been Present I should have voted for the bill. I was in favor of the bill; but the Senfrom Delaware:. was kind oto Pair oil me in consequence of my being unable to be herethrough indisposition. THE BANKRUPT BILL.: SIDENT protempore. The bill of s to establish a uniform system tloor.% throughout the U.S. is Whole othe Senate as in Committee of the Pending question being on the Massachu Proposed by. the Senfrom [Mr. Wilson] to the amend, w.the ComJudiciary the will be read. mend.ory read the amendment to the 9T which was to strike out on page 27, section 14, after the word “States, ” in line 27, the following: And such other property not included in going exceptions the fore as is exemptedfrom levy andsale upon executionby the laws of the State in bankrupt which the has his domicile at the time of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, to an aemxeomupnttionnot exceeding that allowed by such State laws in force in the year 1864. And to insert in lieu thereof: And a homestead or other property not exceeding in value $2,000.
Mr. FOSTER, (Mr. EDMUNDs in the chair.) Mr. President, with the Senfrom NewYork I am honestly and earnestly in favor of a bankrupt law, and I agree with him that this with a few alterations, is one of the best of aii bankrupt laws that I have ever read; and I ree with him further, in regard to this provision, that I cannot vote for it. I believe it is as clear and palpable a violation of the Constitution as is possible, and I would ask Senators this question to test it: Suppose the bill had, for each of the 36 States of the Union, assigned to those who might apply for the benefitof the law a different amount of property to be exempt from its operation. Beginning with the State of Maine, suppose it were to say that all persons applying under the voluntary clause for the benefit of this act, or all who under the involuntary clause should be made bankrupts, might have property to the amount of $200 to be appropriated for the support of the bankrupt; that in NewHampshire they might have $300; in Vermont, $400; in massachusetts, a homestead of the value of $1,000; in Connecticut, a homestead of the value of $500; and so on; through all the 36 different States, giving to bankrupts in, some States a small amount, to some in other States
Mr. STEWART. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question?
Mr. FOSTER. Certainly. necticut passes a law allowing a judgment to become a lien on all the real property of the debtor, and a judgment is obtained against the man before he commits an act of bankruptcy. It becomes a lien on real property. Let us suppose, then, that in Massachusetts there is no law allowing a lien on his real property, would Congress have the power under its authority to pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, to remove that lien in Connecticut so as to place the debtor there in the same situation as the debtor in Massachusetts? Or would the State have the right to take away this property from the operation of your law, and give it to a 3rd person through the instrumentality of a judgment lien? I submit the question, would Congress have power to prevent the property from being encumbered by judgment liens prior to the act of bankruptcy?
Mr. FOSTER. I have no doubt that Congress would have power to pass an act which should relieve the property from a lien of that sort under a State law. I am not aware that there has been a doubt exPressed by any judicial tribunal upon that subject. Under former bankruptcy laws the question arose, not as to the power of Congress to do it, but as to whether by the act they had done it. That question has been considered and different decisions have been made upon it by different tribunals under the bankrupt law of 1841.
Mr. STEWART. Allow me to ask a question. Suppose Congress did not make any provision on the subject, but left the States to provide for a lien, would not that be as strong an argument against the uniformity of the law as it would be if the reservation was made in favor of the party himself? Is there any prac tical difference in principle between making the reservation of the property of the debtor in favor of a 3rd person to the exclusion of the mass, of the creditors, and making it in favor of the family of the debtor? If the res ervation in the former case does not destroy the uniformity of the law, surely it does not in the latter.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. President, I have no difficulty in answering the question of the honorable Senator. If Congress passes an act which relieves property from liens created under State laws
Mr. STEWART. That of course is prior to final judgment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. On this question of uniformity as to exemptions I wish to suggest that practically, if there is any want of uniformity here, the same want of uniformity exists now under the laws of the U.S., because the Federal judges and Federal courts in every one of the States, in the collection of debts, recognize and enforce the existing exemption laws of the several States, so that in California the 'Federal courts allow an exemption of $5,000 worth of property as not i. to the payment of debts, while in the State of NewYork the Federal courts recognize $1,000 as the value of the homestead there not liable; and in all the States they recognize the various exemptions precisely as they exist under State laws. You might with just as much propriety say that those laws which our Federal judiciary are now enforcing in every State are unconstitutional, because they are not uniform in their operation, as to say that this bankrupt bill, when it shall have been enacted into a law, will not be uniform.
Mr. GRIMES. There is no requirement of uniformity in the case to which the Senator refers.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Every law of the U.S. must be uniform in every State. You cannot pass a law for one State that is not to apply to another.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Because the laws which are to be passed must be uniform of necessity, and I say that so far as the uniformity of the laws of the U.S. is concerned today in the enforcement of the payment of debts the several exemptions of the States are recognized by the courts.
Mr. GRIMES. But not recognized under any uniform bankrupt law of the U.S.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is no answer to the point which I make. I say that the uniformity of the rule is this: to take in every State all the property that is liable to the payment of debts and distribute it. You take what is liable in California, you take what is liable in Iowa, you take what is liable in Pennsylvania, and distribute it by a uniform rule.
Mr. STEWART. It seems to me that the decision of the SCOTUS in the case of Peck and others vs. Jenness and others, reported in 7 Howard, has an important bearing upon the principle here in volved, and I am unable to distinguish between the cases. The learned Senfrom Connecticut admits that if Congress passed a bankrupt law, whereby in one State the bankrupt's property could be taken under judgment liens and in another State not, it would have the same want of uniformity that this has.
Mr. FOSTER. I beg to correct the honorable Senator. I made no such admission. I did not admit that a law of Congress recognizing the existence of legal liens on property in the different States would have the same want of uniformity that the Present clause in this bill has.
Mr. FOSTER. It may be owing to my dullness, Mr. President, but I do not see the exact similarity which the gentleman says there is between recognizing a lien created by the law of a State and an entire exemption of the property of a debtor from being by his credit ors for the payment of his debts.
Mr. STEWART. I beg pardon; there is no case of that kind existing; there is no State where there is an entire exemption.
Mr. STEWART. The Senfrom Connecticut has failed to show by his argument that the creditors of a bankrupt in the State of NewYork, where there is no attachment law, fare the same as the 1st attaching creditor does in the State of Vermont, where they have an attachment law. I take those States for illustrations. I undertook to show that if uniformity meant to disregard everything and go directly to the property of the debtor and equally distribute it we never could have uniformity, and there was not uniformity under the other law; and I instanced the case of liens. Suppose A owes $10,000 in Vermont. He has creditors in the city of NewYork to the amount of $5,000. He has a creditor in Vermont to whom he owes $10,000. Suppose that he has $6,000 or $8,000 worth of property. He becomes in failing circumstances, this Vermont creditor attaches and takes it all. He goes into bankruptcy. Was that property equally distributed; or did the creditor in Vermont, who, by virtue of his lien law, went in and took the whole property and prevented any distribution with the other creditors, have an advantage?
Mr. FOSTER. If the Senator will allow me, suppose he paid that, an honest debt, the day before he commenced operations in bankruptcy, would that be an equal distribution among all his creditors? Suppose he paid a debt, an honest debt, and he honestly paid it?
Mr. STEWART. That would be a different propos rro
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, the Senfrom Nevada, in his 1st remarks this morning, stated one of the true principles of a bankrupt law, and that is, that there must be an equality in the distribution of the property or assets of the bankrupt.
Mr. STEWART. The distribution of those assets which are subject to execution by the State laws.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will the honorable Senfrom Kentucky allow me to ask him a question on that point, speaking of the laws of isconsin?
Mr. DAVIS. It was a mere example used by me by way of illustration.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I propose to put a question bearing on the precise point as applicable to Wisconsin. By the law of Wisconsin the homestead, which is exempted from payment of debts of the debtor, cannot be mort gaged or sold unless the wife join in the mortgage or in the sale. Now, the question I put is this: by your bankrupt law passed by Congress can you take away from the wife her right in that property?
Mr. DAVIS. If the Senator will permit me to proceed I will soon come at the principle that I am contending for. The principle that I contend for is that every property right which is denominated in the laws of bankruptcy by the term “assets” that a bankrupt owns
Mr. STEWART. When he commits an act of bankruptcy?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I had intended to submit some remarks in reply to the Senfrom Kentucky, [Mr. io but the ground has been covered by other Senators, and therefore I shall forbear making any further remarks, for the purpose of allowing a vote to be taken on this question if the Senate are prepared to vote, without my detaining them further.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. WILson] to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question recurs upon the amendment of the committee, upon which the yeas&nays have been ordered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand that the committee reported in favor of striking out the clause which Preserves the State exemptions, and now the question is whether we will concur with the committee in striking out the clause.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on striking out the clause recommended by the ComJudiciary, to be stricken out in the 14th section, on page 17. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 14, nays 25; 13. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOWARD. Now that we are upon this passage, I desire to move an amendment which is verbal rather than substantial.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest that there are other amendments reported by the committee not yet acted upon. The general practice is to go through with the amendments reported by the committee; but the Chair will entertain the amendment of the Senfrom Michigan if he Presses it.
Mr. POLAND. I shall not object to that course if the Senfrom Michigan desires to move his amendment now.
Mr. HOWARD, I move to insert between the wbrd “execution” and the word “by” the words “ or other processes or order of any court;” so as to read: such other property not included in exception the foregoing as is exemptedfrom levy on execution or other processesor order of any court.
The Secretary read the next amendment reported by the ComJudiciary, which was in section 26, to strike out in lines 44, 45, and 46 the words “on the application of any creditor or of the wife of the bankrupt, and on such reasonable notice shown as the court may direct, and for;” and in line 46 after “shown” to insert “the wife of;” and in line 47 to strike out “bring his wife” and insert “attend;” so as to make the clause read: For good cause shown, the wife of any bankrupt may be required to attend before the court, to end that shemay be czamined the as a witness.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. MESSAGE from The hous e. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERson, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bill and JtResolution of the Senate with amendments, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested. A bill (S.No.453) regulating the tenure of certain civil offices; and A JtResolution (S.R.No. 96) providing for the payment of certain Kentucky militia forces. ENIROLLED BILLS SIGNED. The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bill and JtResolution; and they were there upon signed by the President protempore. A. li". R. No. 1090) authorizing the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury the residuary legacy of James Smith son, to authorize the Regents of the Smithson ian Institution to apply the income of the said, legacy, and for other purposes; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 126) for the relief of certain settlers on the Sioux reservation in the State of Minnesota. TENURE OF OFFICE.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will take this occasion to lay before the Senate the amendments of the HoRep just received to the bill (S.No.453) reg ulating the tenure of certain civil offices.
The Secretary read the 1st amendment, which was in section one, to strike out in lines 3, 4, and 5 the words “exceptin the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, o War, of the Navy, and of the interior, the PostMGenl, and the Attygen.”
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate disagree to these amendments, and request of the fi HoRep a conference on the disagreeing votes.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope we shall agree to the House amendment. o: no occasion for a committee of conference. I think there is no reason in the world why the members of the Cabinet should not be included in the provisions of this bill. I think that we may as well meet that question here now as in a committee of conference. I was not Present when this bill was passed by the Senate; but it seems to me that all the reasons why we should regulate the appointment and removal of officers apply to. members of the Cabinet as well as all others. I see no propriety in the exception. I trust we shall take the vote in the Senate upon the proposition, and see if we cannot agree with the House; and if it be in order, I make the motion that the Senate concur in the amendment of the HoRep.
The PRESIDENT protempore.tion supercedes the motion that the Senate disagree and request a conference. The question, therefore, is on the motion of the Senfrom Illinois, that the Senate agree to the amendment made to this bill by the HoRep.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I believe that it is usual in this body and in most other deliberative bodies, where, after a full and fair debate, a large majority have decided upon the propriety of a particular act of legislation, and the other House disagrees to that and proposes to amend it, to insist upon the view of this body and to ask for a conference upon the question. Now, sir, upon this very question, after full and fair debate, after all the reasons of both sides had been, I think, pretty much exhausted, after my friendfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Hows] had stated with greatability and with still greater elo quence, if it were possible, the reasons why the heads of Depts ought not to be excepted from the provisions of this bill, and when the considerations that Presented themselves upon That mo the other side had been advanced, the Senate upon the yeas,&nays, by a very large majority, decided to retain this exception. Under such circumstances I think it would be extraor dinary, to say the least, for us, without any new reasons, because there can be none, (for, as I said, the debate so far as reasons go was exhausted upon the subject,) to suddenly retrace our steps without even conferring, with the RePresentatives of the House as to the reasons which induced and controlled them in Fo: to us this amendment. Therefore hope we shall stand upon the ground which we have adopted and have a conference, and not concur in this amendment.
Mr. SUMNER. I do not see precisely the reason for a postponement. The Senate is now unusually full, particularly when we consider that it is Saturday afternoon. I doubt whether on Monday we shall have more here than we have now. Then, the principle in question is so very simple that it will not require time or debate. I suppose every senator is ready to vote upon it now. Why, then, postpone it? Should we come to a vote, my conclusion is very easy; I shall vote for the amendment. It seems to me that it is required by the general principle of the bill. Without that amendment, the bill is imperfect. however, on this motion to postpone, I will not go into the merits of the question.
Mr. HOWARD. I wish to ask a question of my honorable friendfrom Vermont. He says that the law at Present authorizes the President to dismiss from office certain officers during the recess. Does the honorable senator refer to any statute of the U.S. conferring this authority from the President, or merely to the practice and usage of the Government as they have herefore existed 7I am not aware of any statute on that particular subject, but I may be ignorant.
Mr. EDMUNDS. did not refer to the practice, because I am not such a latitudina: rian as to believe that a practice in the face of a Constitution as clear as I think ours is on this point would make the law; but I refer to the statutes of the U.S., the acts of Congress, every one of which in creating these Depts, or nearly every one” provides an authority in the President to remove the chief executive officer of the Dept at his will and in this way
Mr. EDMUNDS. And in this way, not by exPressly declaring that the officer shall hold his office at the pleasure of the President, but by providing that when the President shall remove the officer another officer shall exercise the functions of the office and have charge of the archives of the Dept. That, in my judgment, confers an authority upon the President to remove, not by exPress grant, but by clear and unanswerable implication. I ask my honorable friendfrom Michigan, as we are fond of putting questions, whether such a stat ute in such language would not by implication confer the power?
Mr. HOWARD. I should hardly give it that effect myself in construing the statute; but I should treat it rather in this way: f should treat it rather as a recognition of the practice and usage of the Government on that particular subject. I should not treat it as a legislative affirmation of the principle.
Mr. McPHERson, Clerk of the HoRep, appeared below the bar and delivered the following message: Mr. President, I am directed by the HoRep to communicate to the senate information of the death of Hon. PHILIP Joh Nso N, late a RePresentative from the State of Pennsylvania, and the proceedings of the House thereon. o
The PRESIDENT protempore. The resolu of the HoRep will be read.
The Secretary read the resolutions adopted by the HoRep.
Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I have certain resolutions to Present to the Senate for adoption consequent upon the information just received from the HoRep. Before submitting those resolutions, however, I must say a few words which I think appropriate to the occasion. PHILIP Johnson, a RePresentative in the other House from the 11th congressional district of Pennsylvania, is no more. The House of which he was a member has adopted appropriate resolutions to do honor to his memory and to exPress, so far as any exPression by them can go, their sincere condolence with his wife and friends over the great bereavement which they have suffered. I embrace the opportunity to exPress some words suited to the occasion, and they will be words, not of warm or extravagant eulogy, but of sincere regard and of genuine respect for the character and memory of the deceased.
Mr. JOHNson was born in Warren county, in the State of NewJersey, on the 17th of January, 1818. When quite young he removed with his father to Northampton county, Pennsylvania, where he has ever since resided. He was a student of and received his education at LaFayette college, located at Easton, in that county. Subsequently, like many, perhaps a majority of the members doing service in the Senate and House, he was a teacher of youth, and served for 2 years in that capacity. Afterward he was a student at law, and was, I think in 1848, admitted to practice in the several courts of Northampton county. In 1853 he was elected to the HoRep of the Legislature of my State, and was reelected in the year following, having thus 2 years of service in that body. In 1860, just before the commencement of our unexampled difficulties and sufferings in this country, he was elected from his congressional district to the national HoRep. He was again elected in 1862, and still again elected in 1864, though more than 2 elections to that branch of Congress is unusual in the practice of my State. I think that habit which the people of that State and many other States have o, into is an exceedingly objectionable one. However, this is not the occasion to discuss it.
Mr. JOHNson was returned for a 3rd time, the people of his district thus deviating in his favor from the ordinary political rule among the people of Pennsylvania in the election of members to the other House. Almost at the end of his 3rd term he has been struck down. He will no longer move among us to give his counsel or to utter those words of encouragement which are as necessary in public as in private life to the honest and faithful discharge of duty.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, February 2, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. Boynton. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. COMMON SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was referred, under the law, to the ComPrintg: Resolved.That 2,000 copiesof the various utive information, unanimous consent is neces bills to establish a systemof common schoolsin the DistCol be printed for the use of the members. REVENUE COLLECTIONS IN MARYLAND.
Mr. FTHOMAS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the SecyTreasury be requested to communicate to this House a tabular statementshowing the amount of revenuepaid into the U.S. Treasury from Baltimore city and eachoneof the several counties of the state of Mary leaxncdepdturing the years 1864and 1865f, from all sources from duties on imports.
The SPEAKER. This being a call for exec sary for its consideration on this day. There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to. LeAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. BROOMALL asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. STARR for one week. Mr. KASSON asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. MERCUR. Mr. STOKES. I move that the leave of ab sence of my colleague, Mr. ARNEI.L., who is engaged in taking testimony in the case of his contested election, be indefinitely extended. The motion was agreed to. LAND GRANT RAILROAD IN MICHIGAN.
Mr. LONGYEAR. I ask unanimous consent that Senate bill No. 547, be taken from the Speaker's table and put on its onow. It is a purely local matter. The bill is entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to extend the time for the reversion to the U.S. of the lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad from Amboy, by Hillsdale and Lansing, to some point on or near Traverse Bay, in the State of Michigan, and for the completion of said road, “’ approved July 3, 1866.
Mr. LONGYEAR. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his objection till he hears a brief explanation of the bill.
Mr. ROSS. I object. Subsequently Mr. Ross said: Understanding that this bill provides for no additional grant of land I withdraw my objection.
Mr. CONKLIN I ask that the bill be read, reserving the fight to object. The bill, which was read, provides that the 1st section of the act named in the bill be extended by striking out “February” and inserting “July.”
Mr. GARFIELD. I object to the consideration of this bill without its reference to a committee.
Mr. DRIGGS. The bill has received the unanimous approval of the comPubLands. It simply proposes an extension of time for 3 months.
Mr. STEVENS. I object to its consideration now. COMJUDICIARY.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move that the ComJudiciary have leave for the remainder of the session to sit during the sessions of the House. The motion was agreed to. AGRICULTURAL REPORT FOR 1865.
Mr. GRINNELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Superintendent ofing be, Public Print and is hereby, directed to interspersethe illus trations in the Agricultural for 1865, in the editionfurnished to members of Congress in manner as thesame in the edition furnished to the ComrAg.
Mr. GRINNELL mtRtv the resolution was agreed t;o on the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. FortNEy, its Secretary, notifying the House to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes, with sundry amendments, in id: he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. It further announced that that body had passed, without amendment, House No. 1090, authorizing the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury the residuary legacy of James Smithson, to authorize the Regency of the Smithsonian Institution to apply the income of said legacy, and for other purposes. HOLDING EVENING SESSIONS.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move that on and after Monday next the House take a recess at half past 4 o'clock p. m. until half past7, except on Saturdays.
The SPEAKER. It requires unanimous consent to agree to this motion at the Present time.
Mr. WENTWORTH. If these evening sessions are to be devoted to speech making I will not object.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I propose that they shall be devoted to business.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I object if any votes are to be taken.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I give notice that on Monday I shall move a suspension of the rules for the purpose of making this motion. INDIAN DIFFICULTIES.
Mr. SCHENCK. As chairman of the ComMilAffrs I have received 2 communications in relation to some very serious difficulties arising from the fact that the agents and traders are furnishing arms to the Indians, which GenlSherman has been obliged to stop in a summary way. I ask that these communications may be referred to the ComMilAffrs and ordered to be printed,
The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, it will be so ordered. There was no objection. REPORT ON CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. JENCKES, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was referred, under the law, to the ComPrintg: Resolved, That 2,000 extra copies of report the of the joint selectCommiteeon the civil Service. U.S. be printed for the use of the
Mr. ALLISON demanded the regular order of business. TENURE OF CIVIL OFFICES. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order after the morning hour the bill (S.No.453) entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, ” the pending question being upon the mtRtv the amendment of Mr. WILLIAMs was rejected. The amendment was read, as follows: On lines 3, 4, and 5 of section one strike out the following: Excepting the Secretaries of State, of ury, the Treas: of War, of the Navy, and of the interior, and the PostMGenl, and AttyGen.
Skip Skip Mr. HALE demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 75, nays 66, not voting 49;. So the mtR agreed to. The question then recurred on the amendment. Mr. ANCONA demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. Mr. LeBLOND. I ask unanimous consent to submit an amendment to the amendment. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I object. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 82, nays 63, not voting 55; So The amendment was agreed to. During the vote, Mr. VANHORN, of NewYork, stated his colleague [Mr. WARR] was detained from the House by illness, and that if Present he would vote in the affirmative. The vote was then announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. By unanimous consent, the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] was authorized to offer an amendment to the 2nd section, which was to be voted upon in case the House agreed to the amendment just adopted. It could not have been offered as an amendment to the amendment because the power of amendment was exhausted under the rule.
Mr. GARFIELD. I only waived it because this was not carried. I now renew it.
The Clerk reported the amendment of Mr. GARFIELD as follows: In lines 3 and 4 of sectiontwostrike out the following: And excepting thosespecially excepted in section one of this act.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. Mr. LeBLOND. I now ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment, which I think ought to go in in order to carry out the object of the bill. objection. Mr. BENJAMIN objected. Mr. LeBLOND. Let it be reported. Mr. BENJAMIN. I object. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a 3rd time, and was accordingly read the 3rd time. Mr. BOUTWELL. I demand the previous question on the passage of the bill. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Mr. LeBLOND. I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative yeas 111, nays 38, not voting 41;. So the bill was passed. During the roll call, Mr. HUMI’HREY stated that his colleague, Mr. TAYLOR, was paired with Mr. WARD. Mr. NIBLACK stated that his colleague, Mr. KERR, was still detained from the House by indisposition. The result having been announced as above recorded, Mr. HALE mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. TARIFF BILL.
Mr. MORRILL. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the tariff bill and have it printed. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the ComPrintg, under the law: Resolved.Thnt 2,000 copies of the tariff bill be printed for the use of the House. HEIRS OF THOMAS W. HARVEY.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has now commenced and the House resumes the consideration of the bill pending at the exiration of. the morning hour yesterday, being bill No. 1060, extending certain letters patent for benefit of heirs of Thomas W. Har vey, the pending question being on 2nding the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time, and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. I jhink it will meet with no o Mr. HALE. on the passage. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. bill on the table. Mr. ALLISON. On that I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeas 74, nays 62, not voting 54; So the bill was laid on the table. During the roll call, Mr. RITTER stated that his colleague, Mr. His E, was absent from the House on account of indisposition. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. mtRtv by which the bill was laid on the table, on the table. Mr. MYERS. I demand the yeas&nays on that motion.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Then I withdraw the motion.
The SPEAKER proceeded with the call of committees. Before any reports were made, Mr. . of Massachusetts, said: I rise to a privileged motion. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill in relation to the Harvey patents was laid on the table, i.to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. agreed to. The SPEAKER resumed the call of committees for reports of a private nature.
Mr. ROLLINS. Is a bill regulating the pay of the employees of the House a private bill?
The SPEAKER. It is not. A bill regulating the pay of one employee would be a private bill, but one regulating the pay of all the employees would not be. Mrs. EMMA A. PORCh. Darling,
Mr. DELANO.from the ComClaims, reported a bill for the relief of Mrs. Emma A. Porch; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the SecyTreasury to pay to Mrs. Emma A. Porch dollars for services rendered by her to the U.S. as a spy and agent of the U.S. in the State of Missouri.
Mr. DELANO. I move to fill the blank with “$500, ” and I ask that the bill be put upon its passage.
Mr. ROSS. The bill makes an appropriation, and F move that it be referred to the Com Whole House on the Private Calendar. The motion was agreed to. W. W. POTTER.
Mr. DELANO, by unanimous consent, also, from the ComClaims, reported a JtResolution to authorize the SecyTreasury to pay a certain draft of W. W. Pot ter, late acting military agent of the State of NewYork.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PAYMENT of KENTUCKY MILITIA.
Mr. DELANO, from the ComClaims, also reported back, with an amendment, Senate JtResolution No. 94, providing for the payment of certain Kentucky militia forces. The JtResolution was read. It directs the SecyWar to cause to be investigated the claims of the forces called out under the command of James S. Fish in May, 1862, and to pay the said forces at the same rates for actual service rendered while passing from their homes as was allowed by law at the time to other volunteer, forces; the officers to be paid as of the grade to which the number of men, under the mustering regulations of the Army in force at that time, would have enti’ tled officers. The amendment of the committee was to add the following: And no allowance shall be made for any troops cwohninched citdionnot perform actual military servicein full cooperation with the authorities of the U.S and subject to their order; and be forerecognizing the services of the claimants under this act the SecyWar shall besatisfiedthat to insurethe safety of Brigadier General Morgan’scommand there was a reasonablenecessitythat heshould call out the said troops.
Mr. McKEE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last clause, as follows: And before recognizing the services of the claim satisfied tehratthtiosinascutrethtehe Secretary ofoBf rWigaard, isehraGllebne ceeraslsiMtyotrhgaatnh'secsohmoumldancdaltlhoeuret twhaessaaidretarosoonpas.blene I make this motion for this reason: those troops were ordered out by the general then commanding at Cumberland Gap. If they are entitled to pay at all, they are entitled to it upon their services in pursuance of this order. Now, if this amendment reported from the committee shall be adopted without modification it will make it a matter of discretion with the SecyWar to judge at this time of the necessity of that &d: of the general in command of the post at Cumberland Gap at that time. Now it is very probable that there was no Pressing necessity for that order; but even if that be true, these troops which were ordered into the service had no discretion; it was not in their power to decide upon the necessity of the order. They were obliged to obey the order without question; they did obey that order; and if they are entitled to pay at all they are entitled to it for the services they rendered, whether the order was necessary or not.
Mr. DELANO. I have only a word to say. The JtResolution requires that the SecyWar shall find that there was a reasonable necessity for the order calling out these troops. This subject received the full consideration of the ComClaims, and the amendment I have reported received the approbation of all the members but two, I believe. I now call the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question qrdered. The question was upon the amendment of Mr. McKEE to the amendment reported from the ComClaims; and being taken, upon a division, there were ayes 18, noes 40; Lo quorum voting. Mr. McKEE. I will not insist upon a further vote, though I think the amendment I have offered should be adopted.
Mr. LeBLOND. I will call for tellers on the amendment of the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. McKEE] These troops performed this service under orders, and they should be paid whether the order was proper or not.
Skip Skip Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. DELANo and LeBLOND were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 62, noes 40. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was then agreed to. The JtResolution, as amended, was then read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. ADWERSE REPORTS.
Mr. THORNTON, from the ComClaims, reported adversely upon the following, which were laid on the table, namely: The petition of Mrs. Susan Buchanan, praying that she be reimbursed for losses sustained in consequence of acts of the Federal Army; The petition of Madison Newton, asking allowance of extraordinary medical expense and personal attention because of wounds of his son received in the service; Memorial of Mrs. Rachel Holt, for damages; Petition of Captain A. N. Wells, for claim against the U.S.; and Petition of Mrs. Susan B. Ager, for damages. GeORG e M. AND NAHUM FA.Y.
Mr. THORNTON, from the ComClaims, reported back, with an amendment, a bill entitled “An act for the relief of George M. Fay and Nahum Fay.” The bill, which was read, proposes to direct the SecyTreasury to pay to Messrs. Fay, of Eureka, Humboldt county, California, $7,000 in full for the use of premises occupied by captured Indians from 1862 to 1865, for taking care of sick and infirm Indians, and for depredations sustained from the Indians. The amendment of the committee was to strike out $7,0insert $3,000.
Mr. BIDWELL. I desire to make an inquiry of the committee with reference to this bill, which is one introduced by myself. These parties actually claimed damages to the amount of about $13,000. 1000 Indians were at one time stationed upon their premises, remaining there from 1862 to 1865. I would like to know why the committee have cut down the amount to $3,000.
Mr. THORNTON. There was no satisfactory proof that damages to the amount of more than $3,000 had been sustained by the claimants. The committee based this amount ntirely upon the damage to the farm of the &laimants, the destruction of their crops, fences, &c. For this the committee deemed it proper to make allowance at the rate of $1,000 per ear. Mr. Speaker, I call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; which was upon the amendment reported by the committee. The amendment was agreed to. The bill, as amended, was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. THORNTON mtRtv the resolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. J. AND O. P. COBB AND COMPANY..
Mr. DELANO, from the ComClaims, reported back without amendment a JtResolution for the relief of J. & O. P. Cobb & Co., of Aurora, Indiana. The JtResolution, which was read, proposes to direct the Treasurer of the U.S. to pay to Messrs. Cobb & Co., out of any money applicable to the payment of claims against the Quartermaster's o:$7, 890 18, in full compensation for hay taken and destroyed by order of General Boyle, on the Ohio river, in July, 1863.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. GEORGE HENRY PREBLE.
Mr. DELANO. The ComClaims, to whom was referred Senate bill No. 176, entitled “An act for the relief of George Henry Preble, ” a commander in the Navy of the U.S., have directed me to report it back, and move that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. BLAINE. I trust the Gentfrom Ohio will not Press that motion. Let the bill go on the Private Calendar.
Mr. DELANO. Very well. I withdraw the motion to postpone indefinitely, and move that the bill be referred to the ComWhole on the Private Calendar. The motion was agreed to. Charles TAYLOR.
Mr. SLOAN, from the ComClaims, submitted an adverse report on the petition of Charles Taylor, collector of customs for the district of Saluria, Texas, praying reimburse gent of moneys paid by him to subordinates and not allowed him by the Treasury Dept; which was laid on the table. JOHN TIRADEr.
Mr. SLOAN also, from the ComClaims, submitted an adverse report on the petition of John Trader, praying compensation for the use of lots in Washington city by the quartermaster's dept; which was laid on the table. BENJAMIN deFORD AND OTHERS.
Mr. SLOAN also, from the ComClaims, submitted an adverse report on the etition of Benjamin, Isaac, and Thomas deord, of Baltimore, Maryland; praying compensation for property used by the Army; which was laid on the table. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled House bill No. 1090, authorizing the SecyTreasury to receive into the Treasury the residuary legacy of James Smith, to Aoi. the regents of the Smithsonian Institution to apply the income of the said legacy, and for other purposes; when the Speaker signed the same. VICTOR MYLENS.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, from the ComClaims, reported a bill for the relief of Victor Mylens, 1st lieutenant 60 8 NewYork volunteers; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the SecyWar and the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to recognize the military services of Victor Mylens, late of the 68 h NewYork volunteers, as an officer of said regiment; and that he shall receive the pay and allowances of the rank of 2nd lieutenant from the 17th of April to the 16th of May, 1863, and of the rank of 1st lieutenant thereafter to the 6th of June, 1865, deducting therefrom the amount received by him as a private soldier in said regiment for the same time. The report was read..
Mr. COBB. I make the point of order that that bill should have its 1st consideration in the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar.
The SPEAKER. The point of order comes too late.
Skip Skip Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I demand the previous question. The House divided; and there were ayes 31, noes 12; no quorum voting. The SPEAKER, No quorum voting, the Chair will appoint tellers.
Mr.?NoNd. I ask what objection is there to letting the Gentfrom Wisconsin say a few words?
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I have no objection to hearing him for an hour if we had that much of the morning hour remaining, but we have only 12 minutes left, as I understand. I withdraw the call for the previous question, and yield to him for 5 minutes.
Mr. COBB. This, sir, is a proposition to recognize the services of a foot soldier as an officer. It is entirely new legislation, and ought not to be enacted without full consideration. Now, shall we launch out, upon this entirely new and untraveled ground? Bills heretofore introduced to pay soldiers as officers, who for one cause or another failed to receive their commissions and be mustered in, have uniformly been rejected. I have no doubt this is a worthy soldier, and that he ought to have been promoted. I know many bad soldiers who were promoted when good ones were neglected. This man, it appears, was captured by the enemy. The Governor of his State issued a commission, which he did not receive in consequence of his captivity, and, as I understand, another was commissioned and served in his place, and received pay as such. If we are to commence with this case and to look over the vast army we had in the field to find all of the men who served worthily and who, before being discharged, had the misfortune to be cheated out of their promotion and the consequent emoluments, then we will start in an undertaking that will have no end. The exF. to the Treasury no man can conjecture. only ask the House to pause before launch in; out into this wide sea of claims. fihave any time left I yield to the Gentfrom Illinois.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. The rule which prevails at the war Dept is to refuse to muster and pay any officer who has not performed at least some duty under his commission. I had a similar case myself which was rejected by the War Dept. We have passed a law if the man returned from captivity and served one day his pay shall go back and commence with the date of his commission. I hope this bill will pass. This man served well and was only prevented by captivity with the enemy from being mustered in under his commission; and I o do not think of that fact he should be denied his rights.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. The Gentfrom Wisconsin misunderstands this case. This man did serve; he was in the battle of Gettysburg, and while wounded was taken risoner and held as such by the enemy for a ong time. His commission was issued, but he failed to get it on account of his imprisonment.
Mr. McKEE. I will state another fact that, notwithstanding the statement of the Gentfrom Wisconsin, no other person was appool in this man's place or received pay r it.
Mr. COBB. If the gentleman is correct then the report is wrong.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, called for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. The latter motion was disagreed to. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Mr. McKEE, from the ComClaims, reported back adversely the petition of Mary Riggles and the memorial of Chaplain Gonzales; and the same were laid on the table.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, from the ComClaims, made adverse reports in the following cases; which were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed: House bill No. 198, for the relief of Alexander W. McConnell, together with the petition accompanying the same, praying compensation for property and stores taken by U.S. troops at Savannah, Georgia; and The petition of James Todd, administrator of Samuel P. Todd, deceased, late purser in the U.S. Navy, praying reimbursement for losses sustained i. on clothing. ALMANSON EATON.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, from the same committee, reported a JtResolution for the relief of Almanson Eaton, receiver of public money for the land office at Point, Stevens Wisconsin; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill authorizes the proper accounting officer in settling the account of the petitioner upon satisfactory evidence being made an filed, to credit to him the sum of $2,092 72 of the public money lost and destroyed by fire from the burning of the offices, books, papers, and the public money of the register and receiver at Stevens Point on the night of Decem ber 29, 1865.
Mr. ROSS called for the reading of report. the The report was read, and at the conclusion of the reading the morning hour expired, and the bill went over until Friday next. PETROLEUM COMPANY OF WASHINGTON.
Mr. HENDERSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to incorporate the Petroleum Company of Washington city; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComDistCol.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. CIVIL SERVICE. The SPEAKER announced as the next business in order the consideration of bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof, on which Mr. HALE was entitled to the floor.
Mr. HALE. As I understand there are other matters of business that will come u today which render it desirable that this should give way to thema and as I have to leave today, I will yield the floor to my colleague on the committee, fo SchENck] e
Mr.. SCHENCK. I yield to my colleague, Mr. DELANo] who wishes to proceed with the Private Calendar. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. DELANO. Mr. Speaker, there are one or 2 very meritorious claims on the private Calendar. This, I understand, is objection day, and probably the last objection day that will occur during the session. I am authorized by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, Mr. ANcox A, who expects soon to announce the death of his colleague, to state that before he takes the floor we may have half an hour for the consideration of the Private Calendar. For that purpose. I move that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar. The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. It will be understood, if there is no objection, that at half past 2 o'clock today business will be suspended, and the floor will be assigned to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. AN conA] to announce the death of his colleague,
Mr. JOHNson. There was no objection. PRIVATE CALENDAR. The House resolved itself into the ComWhole House, (Mr. BouTwell in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of bills and JtResolutions on the Private Cal endar, as on “objection day;” which were disposed of as follows: Those bills on the Private Calendar which had been heretofore called to which less than 5 members objected were laid aside; and those called for the 1st time to which no objection was made were likewise laid aside to be reported to the House. JOHN R. BECKLEY.JtResolution (H.R.No. 174) authorizing the SecyTreasury to audit and pay the claim of John R. Beckley. No objection being made, the JtResolution was laid aside to be reported to the House, with a recommendation that it do pass. SUFFERERS BY PORTLAND FIRE. An act (S.No.425) for the relief of the sufferers by the late fire in Portland.
Mr. DELANO. I suppose it is hardly desirable to take this u o:
The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be considered as objected to. JOHN T. JONES. A bill (S.No.122) for the relief of John T. Jones, an Ottawa Indian, for depredations committed by white persons upon his property in Kansas Territory.
Mr. DELANO. I know nothing of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be considered as objected to. DONAHUE, RYAN, AND SECoR. A JtResolution (S.R.No.141) for the relief of Donahue, Ryan & Secor, builders of theiron clad monitor Camanche. [Objected to] BOLMER AND WEBER. A bill (H.R.No. 821) for the relief of Bolmer & Weber, of StLouis, Missouri. [Objected to] GOLDSMITH BROTherts. An act (S.No.192) for the relief of Gold smith Brothers, of the city of SanFrancisco, California, and Portland, Oregon, brokers. [Objected to] E. J. CURLEY. A bill (S.No.443) for the relief of E. J. Curley. Less than 5 objections being made, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the House. The Clerk, having concluded the reading of the bills subject to 5 objections, then proceeded to read those subject to one objection. MRS. EMMA A. PORCH. A bill (H.R.No. 1094) for the relief of Mrs. Emma A. Porch. [Objected to] GEORGE hien RY PREBLE. A bill (S.No.176) for the relief of o George Preble, a commander in the Navy of the U.S. [Objected to] There being no further bills upon the Cal endar subject to one objection, the Clerk proceeded to read the bills remaining on it subject to 5 objections. MRS. EMMA A. PORCH. A bill (H.R.No. 1094) for the relief of Mrs. Emma A. Porch. Less than 5 members objecting, the bill was laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation i. it do pass. GEORGE HENRY PREBLE. A bill (S.No.176) for the relief of George Henry Preble, a commander in the Navy of the U.S. [Objected to]
Mr. DELANO. I move that the committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BouTweli, reported that the ComWhole House adhad under consideration the Private Calen dar, and had instructed him to report to the House a JtResolution and 2 bills with the recommendation that they do pass. The House proceeded to the consideration of the JtResolution and bills reported by the committee. John reBECKLEY.JtResolution (H.R.No. 174) authorizing the SecyTreasury to audit and pay the claim of John R. Beckley.
Skip Skip Mr. DELANO. I demand the previous question on the JtResolution. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and, bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the thir time, and passed. Mr. DELANO moved to reconsider” the vote by which the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. E. J. CURLEY. A bill (S.No.443) for the relief of E. J. Curley.
Skip Skip Mr. DELANO. I demand the previous question on that bill. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading; and owas accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. MRS. EMMA A. PORCH. A bill (H.R.No. 1094) for the relief of Mrs. Emma A. Porch.
Skip Skip Mr. DELANO. I move the previous question on the bill. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was aecordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr.?osc, mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. CONGRESSIONAL PRINTER.
Mr. LAFLIN. The ComPrintg, which is authorized to report at any time, have instructed me to report a bill providing for the election of a congressional printer. The bill was read a 1st and 2nd time. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. The bill was read at length. The 1st section provides that the HoRep shall elect vica voce some competent person, who shall be a practical printer, to take charge of and manage the Government Printing Office. The 2nd section provides that the person so elected shall be deemed an officer of the HoRep, and shall be denominated “Congressional Printer, ” and shall hold his office for 2 wears and until his successor shall be elected. He shall print and bind the Journals and such other documents as may be ordered by each House of Congress; and shall execute all the printing and binding for the Executive Depts now required by law to be executed at the Government office; and shall in all respects be governed by the laws in force in relation to the Superintendent of Public Printing, and the execution of the printing and binding. The 3rd section provides that from and after the passage of this act, and the election of a Congressional Printer in pursuance thereof, the office, of Superintendent of Public Printing shall be abolished. portunity. The 4th section provides that this act shall take effect from and after its passage; and all laws inconsistent with its provisions are hereby repealed.
Mr. ROSS. I would inquire how this bill comes before the House at this time?
The SPEAKER. It was reported from the ComPrintg, which is authorized to report at any time. As the question was raised the other day in regard to the authority of another committee, the ComEnrollBill, to report original bills or resolutions under the general authority to report at any time, the Chair will state that it has been decided upon appeal that the ComPrintg is not confined merely to resolutions for printing copies of documents, but it can also at any time report bills and JtResolutions pertaining to the subject of printing. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. LAFLIN. This bill explains itself; its provisions are short and so plain that they can be clearly understood by every member of the House who has given his attention to its reading. The object of the bill is to place the control of the Government Printing Office in the hands of Congress; that being the body which is chiefly responsible for the heavy expenditures made in that office, it has been thought proper that upon them should devolve the responsibility of selecting the individual to manage that office. It is needless for me to occupy the time of the House by any further explanation of why it has been oexpedient by the ComPrintg to recommend the passage of this bill. The committee do not desire to Press the subject upon the House without due and proper consideration. If there is anyone here who desires to discuss this question I am perfectly willing in the mean time retaining possession of the floor to give him such an op I believe in a matter of this magnitude, in regard to which there may properly be a just difference of opinion, it is due to those who may differ with the committee that they should have an opportunity to exPress that difference. I do not care to Press this subject to an immediate consideration without affording such an opportunity. This session being so near its close I trust no member of the House will consider me as ungenerous if I ask that anyone who may choose to submit his views in opposition to this bill will do so in as short a time as possible will condense his views into as brief a space as he can. And now, if there is anyone who desires to s.p.eak, either in favor of or in opposition to bill, I will give him the opportunity, retaining, as I have already said, my control of the floor.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that it is the desire of the Pennsylvania delegation to take the floor at half past 2 o'clock; to announce the death of their late colleague, Mr. Joh NsoN.
Mr. ROSS. I would suggest to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. LAFLIN] that as this is a new measure and just introduced, it had better be postponed until next week, and in the mean time the bill can be printed.
Mr. LAFLIN. I cannot consent to that arrangement. As gentlemen are well aware, it is now so late in the session that if this bill should encounter the veto of the President it will be impossible for us to pass it over that veto, unless it should now be passed at once.
Mr. LAFLIN. As there seems to be no one who cares to discuss this subject, I now call the previous question. Upon 2nding the demand for the previous question, upon a division, there were ayes 80, noes 23. So
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded. The main question was then ordered; which was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. TRIMBLE. I move that the bill be laid on the table; and upon that motion I call for the yeas&nays.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon ordering the yeas&nays; and upon a division, there were ayes 21, noes 87; not one 5th voting in the affirmative. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. FINCK called for tellers.
Mr. CONKLING. I suggest that we take the yeas and mays on the passage of the bill. We do not want them twice on substantially the same question.
Mr. FINCK. What is the necessity of rushing through the House a bill of this kind today which has not been printed 2
Mr. CONKLING. We propose to elect a printer that we may have this and other bills printed. [Laughter]
Mr. NIBLACK. I beg to appeal to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. LAFLIN] to let the bill lie over till next week.
Mr. FINCK. I insist on my call for tellers. Tellers were ordered.
The SPEAKER. 25 members a sufficient number to call the yeas&nays– have voted to order tellers. If there be no objection the Chair will consider the yeas and navs as ordered. here was no objection. So the yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed a bill and JtResolution of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested: An act (S.No.490) to amend an act entitled “An act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Idaho, ” approved March 3, 1863; andJtResolution (S.R.No. 157) in relation to ocean mail service between SanFrancisco, in California, and Portland, in Oregon. DEATH OF HON. PHILIP JOHNSON.
The SPEAKER. The hour of half past 2 o'clock having arrived, the Chair, in pursuance of the arrangement agreed to by unanimous consent, recognizes the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. ANgoNA,) who takes the floor to announce the death of his colleague, Mr. JOHNson.
Mr. ANCONA. Mr. Speaker, it has become my melancholy duty to announce to the House the death of a friend and colleague, Hon. PHILIP Johnson, a member of this House from the State of Pennsylvania. This sad event occurred on Thursday evening, at 8 o'clock, at his rooms in this city. Though suffering with a chronic disease for the past 3 years, preventing his attendance here nearly all of ast and up to a recent period of this session, the immediate cause of his death was a cold contracted a week ago, when last he participated with great earnestness in the discussions in this House, resulting in congestion of the lungs. PHILIP Johnson was born in Warren county, NewJersey, January 17, 1818. In 1839 he removed with his father to Northampton county, Pennsylvania. He was educated at Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania, spent several years teaching school in the South, after which he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1848, soon afterward elected clerk of the courts, and in 1853 and 1854 to the State Legislature from Northampton county. In 1860 he was the revenue commissioner for the 3rd judicial district of the State, and was elected the same year a RePresentative from Pennsylvania to the 37th Congress; reelected in 1862 and 1864to the 38 h and 39th Congresses.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, in sec. onding the resolutions which have been offered by my colleague from the Berks district, I beg leave to add my tribute of respect to the character of my deceased friend. He had many admirable traits, was kind hearted, generous, manly, and of unquestioned integrity and fidel dity to his convictions of duty. e served several years in the Legislature of Pennsylvania. It was there that I 1st formed his acquaintance and began to appreciate his value. He was an active, efficient member of the body, and was devoted to the interests of his constitquents, among whom his popularity grew as their knowledge of him extended. When opportunity offered for sending him to a wider sphere of usefulness they elected him as their representative to the 37th Congress. He was reelected to the 38 h and 39th, when failing health admonished him to decline the nomination, which would have been freely given him, to the 40th. During much of the last and Present ses.sions he has been owithdrawn from active participation in the proceedings of the House; but his mind was equally intent upon the great questions now engaging the attention of the nation, and when last in the House about a week since he participated in debate. His views on public affairs were decided, and he never shrank from their assertion or vindication, yet he never heedlessly obtruded them, nor allowed them to weaken the ties of friend. shop. His ill health often weighed upon his spirits and occasionally made him appear despondent.
Mr. JOHNson had few advantages in early life. Until he reached manhood he was com. aratively untrained. But, appreciating the importance of education, he roused himself to the required effort, and by his own labor supported himself and paid the expenses of a collegiate course at Lafayette College, after which he turned his attention to the study of law and soon became a practitioner at the bar. His mind was clear and quick; he had a." delivery and easy power of exPression is friends were warmly attached to him because of his manliness and truthfulness. He will be much mossed in his town and district, at the bar and in the social circle. I lament his death as of a friend I have long known and highly esteemed. Mr. Speaker, this is another loud admonition to us all. But a few days since a highly valued friend, H. S. Magraw, Esq., a member of the Maryland Legislature, and a warm personal and political friend of the deceased, was stricken down in full health by apoplexy. While watching over his insensible condition I received the starth ng news that PHILIP Johnson was dead. They have both passed together into immor tality. How important that we, while using our best energies to reconstruct our Government for time, should not fail to use proper exertions for reconstruction personally for eternity.
Mr. STROUSE. Mr. Speaker, having been intimately acquainted for years with
Mr. JOHNson, I feel it a duty on this sad occasion to exPress my deep regret at the loss of one whom I was proud to call my friend. Nearly 30 years ago
Mr. JOHNson came to Northampton county, Pennsylvania, and settled in Easton, the county town. His industry, ability, and honorable conduct very soon secured him troops of friends, and he became deservedly one of the most popular men in northeastern Pennsylvania. Of this the many positions of trust and responsibility conferred upon him, not by executive appointment, but by the free suffrage of the people of his district, afford the best evidence. For 3 successive terms they chose him as their RePresentative in this House; and such was their confidence in his sterling integrity and ability that he would have been again their choice at the last election had he not per emptorily declined a renomination on account of his failing health. In every relation of life be maintained an unsullied and spotless character, and even those who differed with him on questions of governmental policy oacknowledged his honesty of purpose and true patriotism. As a man he was what is well designated the noblest work of God “an honest man.” As a hus band he was most affectionate and kind. As a counselor he was reliable and conscientious; and in the forum, both in the State and in the councils of the nation, he was candid, truthful, patriotic, and honorable. As a friend, I can well say the was warm hearted and sincere, ever ready to aid those in need and extending his generous hand to those who by misfortune were thrown upon an uncharitable world. His kindness of heart was touchingly mani fested at the time when the 3 years' troops were raised in 1863. Several companies of volunteers from
Mr. JOHNsox's district were ordered to report at Pottsville, my home, for the purpose of joining the regiment then forming in my district. At that time.
Mr. JOHNson wrote me several letters requesting me most earnestly to see to it for him, that “ the boys from Northampton” were well cared for and to do all I could for the comfort of the soldiers from his district, adding that any disbursement of money I might make he would gladly repay. Acts and conduct like these exPress more genuine patriotism than all the windy harangues of the politician. But he is gone from our midst! While we mourn his loss a loss indeed to the devoted and faithful partner of his bosom as well as to his district, State, and the nation we can console ourselves by the knowledge that the Virtues manifested by him in this world have secured him a place in the bright realms of our Heavenly Father. May his honorable course of conduct be imitated by men of our country; and when our time comes when the last boi shall toll for us may we be prepared to appear at the bar of that great tribunal from which there is no appeal, and may we so have lived as our good departed friend has lived, to truly earn the title of “good and faithful servant.” Requiescat in pace. The resolutions submitted by Mr. ANconA were unanimously adopted.
The SPEAKER. In accordance with uniform usage, the committee of arrangements was named by the Speaker yesterday. At the suggestion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. ANconA,) he was excused, and his colleague [Mr. GLossBRENNERJ was appointed chairman of the committee; and the Chair Jhearsseaylso appointed the Gentfrom New [Mr. SITGREAVES] in place of the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. HARDING] who also requested to be excused. The committee is as follows: Hons. ANDREw J. GLossbrexNER, of Pennsylvania; John B. ALLEY, of Massachusetts; JAMEs K. MooRHEAD, of Pennsylvania; CHARLEs A. ELDRIDGE, of Wisconsin; John A. Nicholson, of Delaware; WILLIAM E. FINCK, of Ohio; THoMAs W. FERRY, of Michigan; WILLIAM E. NIBLAck, of Indiana, and CHARLEs SITGREAves, of NewJersey. And then (at 2 o'clock and 55 minutes p. m.) the Speaker declared the House adjourned till Monday next.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. Monday, February 4, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain: Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. STEWART, and by unan imous consent, the reading of the Journal of Saturday was dispensed with. WISCONSIN SENATORS.
The PRESIDENT protempore Presented the credentials of Hon. TIMothy O. Howe, chosen by the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin Senfrom that State for the term of 6 years, commencing March 4, 1867; which were read and ordered to be filed. He also Presented resolutions of the Legislature of Wisconsin instructing Hon. JAMEs R. Doolittle to resign his seat in the U.S. Senate; which were ordered to lie upon the table and be printed.
Mr. WILSON, from the ComMilAffrs , to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 632) to authorize the building of a military and postal railroad from Washington, DistCol, to the city of NewYork, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.
Mr. HENDRICKS, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.500) to amend the 2 1st section of an act entitled “An act to amend the several acts heretofore passed to provide for the enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes, ” approved March 24, 1863, reported it with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed; which was agreed to.
Mr. TRUMBULL, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.534) to provide for the allotment of the members of the Supreme Court among the circuits, and for the appointment of marshals for the Supreme Court and for the DistCol, reported it with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 902) to declare the sense of an act entitled “An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermasters' stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the U.S., ” reported it with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to who was referred a resolution, submitted by Mr. DAvis on the 12th of December, 1865, declar atory of the principles of the Constitution in relation to the writ of habeascorpus, reported it with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 84) to regulate the time and places of holding the district court of the U.S. within and for the district of Maine, reported it with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed; which was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.563) supplementary to the several acts of Congress abolishing imprisonment for debt; which was read twice by its title, and referre to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. WILLIAMS asked, and by unanimous. consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.564) to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States; which was read twice by its title, referred to the JtCom on Reconstruction, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. FESSENDEN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a JtResolution (S.R.No. 163) to provide in certain cases for the removal of. from bonded warehouse free from internal tax; which was referred to the ComFinance. CLAIMS OF LOYAL EAST TENNESSEEANS.
Mr. PATTERSON submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to resolved.That the SecyWar be requested, r amendment intende if in his judgment not incompatible with the public interest, to communicateto the Senate the order of GenlBurnside organizing a judicial commission for the of claims for property taken from the loyal people of East Tennesseefor the use of the Army; alsotheorder of General Schofieldorganizing a commissionfor the same together with the namesof the claimants and the several amounts of the claims so ad judicated by the commissions organized by General Duruside and General Schofield. SAND creek MAssacks.
Mr. POMEROY submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved. That the SecyWar be requested to furnish the Senatea copy of the evidence taken at iDtaernyvecroamnmd iFsosriotnL, yon, Colorado Territory, by amil of which Colonel S. F. Tappan, Veteran battalion 1st Colorado cavalry, was President, orderedto inquire into and report all the facts connected with the socalled Sand Creek massacre in Chia NGE OF REFERENCES. On motion of Mr. FOWLER, it was Ordered, That the ComClaims be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (S.No.537), for the relief of James Fulton, paymaster U.S. Navy, and that it be referred to the PAYMENT OF KENTUCRY MILITIA.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will take this opportunity to lay before the Senate the JtResolution (S.R.No. 94) providing for the payment of certain Kentucky miltia forces, which has been returned from the HoRep with an amendment.
Mr. WILSON. That resolution comes back from the House ofowith a slight to guard it more care fully, I understand. I hope the Senate will concur in the amendment.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was to add at the end of the resolution the following: And no allowance shall be made for any troops which did not perform actual military service in full connection and cooperationwith the authorities of the U.S and subjectto their orders. The amendment was concurred in. COMPENSATION OF TENNESSEE SENATORS.
Mr. HARRIS. I am instructed by the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred a communication from the SecySenate in relation to the compensation of the Senators from the State of Tennessee, to report the following resolution on the subject: Resolved.That the SeySenate be directedto pay to the Senatorsfrom the State of Ten messeethe compensationallowed by law, to be comoOutnegdrferSoSm. the commencementof the 39th I should like to have the resolution acted upon now. There being no objection, the resolution was read twice, and considered as in ComWhole.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I merely wish to say in regard to that resolution that in my judgment, according to the practice of the Senate, the Senators from Tennessee were entitled to compensation from the time the State of Tennessee was recognized by act of Congress to be entitled to rePresentation, and not before. the of the committee odifferently and propose to pay them from the commencement of the Congress. It is a matter that I shall take up no time about, but it seems to me if that is settled to be the rule when we come to admit Senators, as some time or other we shall, from the State of SCarolina and other States, they will claim compensation from the commencement of their terms, going back 2 or 3 Congresses. I do not see upon what principle this resolution can be passed, except it is that the State of Tennessee was entitled to rePresentation all the time, and therefore that the persons selected as Senators are entitled to be paid from the time the term commenced.
Mr. WILSON. What committee is that From the Judiciary I hope we shall have no further action on this subject at Present. We should consider the matter. I move that it lie over until tomorrow.
Skip Skip The question being put, there were, on a division ayes 14, noes 12; no quorum voting. Mr. DOOLITTLE called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN. If the Senfrom massachusetts wishes to look into this matter for his own information I have no objection to the resolution being laid over; otherwise, it being a personal question, I think it ought to be settled now.
Mr. WILSON. I will simply say that it seems to me to be a most extraordinary proposition, and I want time to reflect on a matter of this kind. It seems to me to involve a principle that would place us in a very ridiculous attitude before the country.
Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator says that he wants to examine into this question, I consent that the resolution shall lie over.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Upon the statement of the Senfrom Massachusetts that he desires to look into this matter a little further, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the call for the reas&nays.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The vote last taken discloses the want of a quorum, and the Chair must count the Senate to ascertain if there be a quorum Present. [After counting] The Chair ascertains by counting the Senate that a quorum is Present. The call for the yeas&nays can be withdrawn by unanimous consent, and the further consideration of this resolution may be postponed until tomorrow by unanimous consent. Is there any objection 7 No objection being made the call is withdrawn, and the further consideration of the resolution postponed until tomorrow. RAILROADS IN CALIFORNIA.
Mr. STEWART. I move to take up for consideration the bill (S.No.461) to aid in the construction of the SanFrancisco Central Pacific railroad.
Mr. WILSON. I hope that bill will not be taken up this morning. I think a bill so long as that ought not to be taken up in the morning hour. There are a great many small bills, for the consideration of which the only chance is the morning hour. The bill now proposed to be taken up is a large bill, and it will take a long time to read it.
Mr. CONNESS. I do not know what the Senator means when he calls this a large bill.
Mr. SAULSBURY. As these new States, western States, are getting all the public lands within their limits, and the old States get none given to them, I propose an additional section to this bill for the benefit of my own State. Abife:, That 200,000 acres of the public lands of the U.S. as shall be directed by the SecyInterior o.adb, eingrathnete Sdtattoe tohfeDJuenlcatwioanre and Break I will say, Mr. President, that this road is not completed, and, an appropriation of the public domain would be of great service to the op"; to enable them to complete their road. I am aware of no grant of public lands to any of the old States to aid them in the construction of public works or for any other purpose, unless it be the act passed a few years ago which provided for granting to the States 30,000 acres of land for each of their moembersI in Congress, for educational purthink that we on the Atlantic coast have as much interest in the public lands as gentlemen on the Pacific coast and in the far West; and while the public lands are bein f. away it is nothing but just that wej have some portion of them. If there were not a proposition before the Senate to grant public lands to assist in the construction of railroads in the western States and the States on the Pacific coast I should not offer this amendment.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the honorable senator, if he wants public lands for the State of Delaware, will make the experiment on a bill to be introduced by him here, and not incum ber the Present bill with such an amendment. I Presume the Senator is not quite in earnest in the matter.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I do not think this amendment will incumber this bill at all. If Senators are opposed to my amendment it is a very easy matter for them to vote it down. I certainly shall not take up the time of the senate in discussing the question, but I know of no more proper case than the one before the senate to get the sense of the Senate on the question whether we of the Atlantic border, we of t he old States, shall have any interest in these lands and receive any benefit from their istribution. The amendment was rejected. The bill was reported to the Senate, as amended, and the amendment made as in ComWhole was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, and was read the 3rd time, and passed. Its title was made to read, “A bill for a grant of land to the State of California to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State.” CoMPENSATION of CIVIL EMPLOYís.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House JtResolution No. 224. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service of the Government at Washington.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask the consent of the Senate to withdraw the amendment that I reported from the ComFinance, and to substitute another, which I am instructed by the committee to report in place of it. The SPEAKER protempore. The Senfrom Oregon asks the unanimous consent of the Senate to withdraw the amendment reported.the ComFinance to this JtResolution. An amendment to that amendment having been proposed, and being now pending, the original amendment cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the Senate. Is there any objection? No objection being made the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. In listening to the reading of that portion of the amendment naming the persons to be included, watchmen, clerks, &c., I did not hear the watchmen of the Executive Mansion, mentioned. There are some watchmen employed there as well as in the various Depts, and I suppose this proposition ought to apply to them as well as to the others, if we are to make it general, I suggest, therefore, that it be amended in that respect.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How much do they receive?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. When the appropriation bill was under consideration last year these watchmen called upon me and stated that their pay was less than that of the watchmen of 8. the I thought it would be just to put them all on the same footing, and I think such an amendment was made. If we are to act on this question now I shall move to insert the watch men of the Executive Mansion, .
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to know what they receive now, I think the Senator should give us an explanation on that point, and tell us how many there are of them. He ought to know that before he moves the amend Inent.
Mr. SHERMAN. They come within the exception.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I understood that there were 2 of these watchmen, and that they received the same pay as the watchmen of the Capitol.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well; that is very much larger than watchmen receive in the depts. We have not increased in this JtResolution the compensation of the watch men of the Capitol; it does not apply to them at all. They receive very much larger pay than those in the Depts. The pay of the employees of the Executive Mansion was fixed last year in the bill reorganizing the force there, by which they were jo very liberally and very handsomely; an there receive the same pay as those of the Cap itol they receive a very much larger pay than if the watchmen in the Depts. We have not increased the pay of the watchmen of the Capitol in joint this resolution, and there is no reason why these others should be included in it.
Mr. GRIMES. I will inquire of the senator who has charge of this JtResolution what is included in the term “employees.” The JtResolution gives increased compensation to civil officers, temporary and all other clerks, messengers and watchmen, and employees, male and female, in any of the follow:ing named Depts, enumerating several of them, and then specifying “the Coast survey, Naval Observatory, navy yard.” Does that include the workingmen of the navy yard? Are they to be considered as “em ployees” under this resolution?
Mr. FESSENDEN. That would cover all the workmen, I think. It was not intended that it should.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If gentlemen will take the pains to read this amendment carefull I think they will see what it means. I think there is no difficulty in understanding it. The 1st clause includes all “civil officers, tem porary and all other clerks, messengers and watchmen and employees, male and female, in any of the following named Depts, or any bureau or division i.e. to wit: State, Treasury, War, Navy, interior, postoffice, AttyGen, Agricultural.” That clause includes all officers, clerks, messengers, watchmen, and employees, male and female, in the different Depts. Then it proceeds to include all “civil officers and tem porary and all other clerks and employees, male and female, in the offices of the Coast Survey, Naval Observatory, navy yard, PayMGen, ” &c. The Senate will see that this applies only to those clerks and employees who are in the offices, and does not embrace the mechanics and laborers in the navy yard or any of the other branches of business enumerated in this portion of the resolution.
Mr. RAMSEY. If it is in order to do so, I should like to move an amendment to the amendment by inserting after the words “navy yard, ” in the 13th line, the word “arsenal.” There is a large number of employees, there.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. DooLITTLE] to the amendment is pending.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Perhaps I am mistaken in.". that the watchmen at the Executive Mansion ought to be included in this JtResolution; but if the JtResolution should lie over until tomorrow morning I will look into the matter. The language of the resolution is very sweeping and goes very far, and if we undertake to make it general we ought to reach all who are in the civil service.
Mr. TRUMBULL. As this JtResolution is likely to go over, I should like to make an inquiry of the Senfrom Oregon who has it in charge, to know whether the 3 3rd and 34th lines, which exclude from the operation of the JtResolution and deny its benefits to any person whose salary has been increased by law since the 30th of June, 1864, would not deprive the female clerks who are employed in. Depts from having any benefits from this JtResolution? I think we increased their compensation slightly last year.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It would have that effect?
Mr. TRUMBULL. If that is to be the effect of it I object. I think they are paid little enough, and they ought to have the benefits of this resolution, and I trust that before it shall pass the Senate it will be amended in that particular. I know no reason why a faithful clerk, who is a female, and who performs the duties as well and as efficiently as a male, should receive but $600, as some of them do, or $720 or $900 a year, while no male clerk has less than $1, 200, and then why we should increase the pay of the $1, 200 clerk, who is a male, and exclude from the benefits of the act the fIefmale who gets but $900, or perhaps $600. the intention of the JtResolution is to deny its benefits to the female clerks, I hope it will be amended before it shall be enacted into a law; and at the proper time I shall move that amendment if no other person does, so as not to deny the female clerks in the Depart nents the benefits of this resolution.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not intend to oppose any such amendment to this JtResolution, but I will state the facts by which a majority of the committee, as I understand, were influenced in directing me to report the amendment in its Present shape. This resolution proceeds upon the assumption that the salaries that were fixed prior to 1864 are adequate to compensate those who are now in the employ of the Government at the Present high prices. At that time these ladies received $600 per annum; subsequently their salaries were fixed at $720 per annum, and then at the last session of Congress their salaries were raised to $900 per annum. In addition to that they have each received $100 of the balance of the $225,000 which the SecyTreasury was authorized to distribute among those clerks who received less than $1, 200.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Allow me to inquire have all the lady clerks received that?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Both the $6the $900 clerks?
Mr. WILLIAMS. There are no $601s. There are no female clerks in the Treasury Dept at this time receiving $600. They all receive $900.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Allow me to inquire if they do not receive in the QuarterGen’s Dept and some other Depts less than $900?
Mr. FESSENDEN. We raised them all last year in all the Depts to $900. There were, I believe, 6 or 8 in i.dept the postoffice who were accidentally left out, and this resolution will apply to them.
Mr. WILLIAMS. apthe ladies, I think, who are clerks in the Depts have been paid $900; and I was about to say, in addition to that, a portion of them in the Treasury Dept have received some share of the $165,000 that was put in the hands of the SecyTreasury for distribution at the last session of Congress. The idea that influenced the decision of the committee, as I understand, was this: that the question as to how much these ladies should receive had been before Congress and it had been determined, and was last year determined, that they should receive $900 per annum. The question of their compensation was taken up and considered, and they were allowed $900 per annum; but as to these other clerks, their salaries were fixed many years ago, and they have not been changed by subsequent legislation. It was said that as the subject of the compensation of these ladies had been considered by Congress at the last session, and as it was then the judgment of Congress that $900 per annum was an ade quate compensation, this 20%. ought not to apply to them. I recognize the force of the argument advanced by the Senfrom Illinois, that a lady in the Treasury Dept or any other Dept who performs duties that are equal in importance to those devolved upon a clerk of the other sexshould be entitled to receive the same compensation. I know of no particular reason why they should not receive that compensation. I have simply stated upon what idea, as I understood it, this exclusion of these ladies proceeded, without intending to oppose any amendment.
Mr. CONNESS. ill the Senator permit me a word TENURE OF OFFICE.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to dif: the unfinished business of Saturday, which is the bill (S.No.453) reg ulating the tenure of certain civil offices. This bill is returned to the Senate from the HoRep with an amendment, and the question is on the motion of the Senfrom Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] that the Senate concur in the amendment made in the bill by the HoRep.
Mr. POLAND. This bill returned from the House came in while the bankrupt bill was under consideration on Saturday, and it seems in some way it has obtained precedence. I desire to inquire if when this bill is completed the bankrupt bill will then be entitled to be considered?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will state that there are several bills in the list of special orders, the bankrupt bill among them, and the oldest special order would be entitled to priority. The Chair is not advised at this moment which, in the special orders, is the oldest special order. the will state, in reply to the suggestion of the Senator, that this bill when it came from the House was laid before the Senate by the Chair to expedite business by the unanimous consent of the Senate, the Chair supposing that it would be very soon disposed of.
Mr. POLAND. I have no desire to antag onize the bankrupt bill in the order of business with the bill that is now before the Senate; but I desire to have it understood that I shall ask to have the bankrupt bill proceeded with immediately upon the disposal of this bill, whether I am entitled to it as a matter of right or not.
Mr. HOWE. I inquire if this bill has precedence of the bill in the charge of the Senfrom Vermont?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair thinks it has, it being the unfinished business of Saturday, being the business in hand at the time of the adjournment. Under the rule that is the unfinished business after the expiration of the morning hour.
Mr. HOWE. How was the other bill dislaced?
The PRESIDENT protempore. It was displaced by the common consent of the Senate, and this bill was taken up.
Mr. FESSENDEN. E being a proposition for a committee of conference, it was not supposed that it would take any time.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not think it is fair that the bankrupt bill should be displaced by the accidental fact that the question on the amendment of the House to this bill led to discussion, and thus crowded it for the rest of the session on Saturday. If it is in order, I move to lay aside the unfinished business and pool to the consideration of the bankrupt 111.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope my friendfrom Ohio will not insist on that motion. The bill now under consideration has gone through a discussion in this body and in the HoRep, and has come back with one single amendment, which has been under discussion before. Now, the simple question is, it having been debated, whether we shall agree in that amendment, or whether we shall not. It is a bill which it is quite desirable, if it is to pass at all, should pass early, for reasons that it is unnecessary to mention. Therefore, I hope the Senate will be willing to proceed now with it. We shall gain time by so doing on the whole, because it is now fresh before us and we can soon dispose of it. I am not disposed to occupy time. A single vote on it will then leave us free to proceed with something else.
Mr. SHERMAN. I submit my motion, not with any desire to interfere with the order of business, but simply because I do not think it is exactly fair, when a bill comes from the House with an amendment and by common consent the question is about to be put to the Senate, to i. a long debate to intervene on that motion, thus crowding aside the pendin business. It is rather contrary to the usua custom, because the action of the Senate on a House amendment is usually taken as a matter of course and rapidly disposed of, either referred, agreed to, or rejected. Certainly the Senfrom Vermont, [Mr. Poland,) in agreeing to waive his right to the floor, did not expect or did not intend to allow a long discussion to intervene on another subject post poning his bill. I. think it is a matter of justice and fairness to the bankrupt bill that it should be disposed of one way or the other. I do not think the pending question should be Pressed unless the Senate by common consent would appoint a committee of conference, which they can do by disagreeing to the House amendment, and that may expedite the action of the Senate on the bill; and if that can be done without further debate I think it will expedite the passage of the bill itself.
Mr. EDMUNDS. That is precisely what I desired the Senate to do when the bill came back to us, but that was opposed by my friendfrom Illinois, on the ground that he wished to have a direct vote on the main question of concurrence. That having led to a little debate, I think it is right, as it is now suggested, to ask the Senate to dispose of it. It will only take but a short time, and then we can go on again with the bankrupt bill. There are peculiar reasons attending the passage of this bill which I think make it right that I should insist upon that; although I entirely agree with the Senfrom Ohio, that in an ordinary and usual case it would be my duty to yield and not displace the pending business the accidental circumstance of a debate having arisen. As it is, I hope the Senate will finish this bill.
Mr. HOWE. I wish the Senate would allow this bill to go over. I agree with the Senfrom Ohio that, in justice to the bankrupt bill and those having charge of it, it ought to go over, and I should like it as a matter of personal convenience. I should like to say something upon the question on agreeing with the HoRep in the amendment, and I would rather not say it today.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the Senate ready for the question on the motion of the Senfrom Ohio 2
The PRESIDENT protempore. That the Senate postpone the Present and all prior or ders and proceed to the consideration of bankrupt bill. the
Mr. EDMUNDS called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 24, nays 16; 12. So the motion was agreed to. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. WADE. I rise to give notice that I shall endeavor to call up tomorrow the JtResolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution limiting the Presidential term. I do not suppose it will take very long, and I am very anxious to dispose of it. I wish it to be lood, therefore, that I shall try and get it up then.
Mr. EDMUNDS. f wish to give notice that as soon as the bankrupt bill is disposed Iof shall ask the Senate to take up the amendment of the House, which has just been laid over.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to strike out of lines 8 and 9 of section 30 the words no discharge shall be granted to a debtor a 3rd time bankrupt.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to strike out section 31 after the enacting clause, in these words: That any creditor opposing the discharge of any pt may, upon filing a specification in writing oqfuethsteiognrounds of his opposition, demand that the of the bankrupt's right to a dischargeto be tried by a jury, and the same shall be so tried at saastitsaftaecdtosreilyssion of the district court, unless it be unjust shown to the court that it would be to the bankrupt to subjecthim to the expense and delay of such trial, in which case it shall be the duty of the court to refusesuch trial. But only one such trial shall be had: and if the jury disagreethe court shall decide upon the application as if nojury had beencalled; and the verdict of the jury or the decision of the court shall be final, so far as the proceedingsin bankruptcy are concerned. And in lieu thereof to insert: That any creditor opposing the discharge of any bankr.upt may file a specification in writing of the of his opposition, and the court may in its biesetrrieetdioant oarsdtearteadnsyeqsuseiosntioofnthofefdaicsttrsioctpereosuertn.tedto
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in lines 3 and 4 of section 33, to strike out the words “executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, assignee, or factor;” and in line 4 tcoiasrtyri, k”e out the word “other” before “fidu so as to make the section read: That no, debt created by the fraud or embezzle public officer, boarnwkhriulepta, cotrinbgyinhis defalcation as a ocharacter, shall be discharged under this act; but the debt paayym been ptroonveadc, caonudntthoef dsiaviiddednedbtt;hearnedonnoshdaisll charge granted under this, act shall release, discharge, or affect any personliable for the same debt cfoorntorracwtoitrh, intdhoersbearn, ksruurpett, y, eoitrhoetrhearswpisaer.tner, joint
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to strike out all of section 33 after the word “otherwise” in line ten, as follows: And in all proceedingsin bankruptcy commenced oapfteerraotine en, year, from the time this act shall go into no discharge shall be grantedto a debtor awghaoisnesatssetsdo not payo% of the claims majorityhis estate, unless the assentin writing of a haveFi.n number, and value of his creditors who their claims is filed in the caseat or before the time of application for discharge.
Mr. WILSON. Before the question is taken on striking out that whole clause, I move to amend it in the 11th and 12th lines by striking out the words “commenced after one year from the time this act shall go into operation.”
Mr. POLAND. If the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts should be adopted, and the amendment that is proposed by the ComJudiciary as to the residue of this clause should not be adopted, it would make a very material change in this bill. The result would be that in no case whatever would a bankrupt be entitled to be discharged if his estate did not pay 50 cents on the dollar, unless the creditors assented to the discharge. I do not wish to enter into any discussion on the subject, but to state what the effect of this proposition will be. I do not think the Senate are prepared to make such an important limitation upon this subject, as would be the effect if this amendment were adopted and the resi due of the clause were not stricken out. If the amendment of the ComJudiciary is agreed to, it is immaterial what becomes of this amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts, for that strikes out the whole clause.
Mr. WILSON. The Senfrom Vermont has stated the precise effect of the amendment if adopted. That is just what I intended to do by the amendment should it be adopted. This billis modeled on the bill of my State, probably the most perfect bankrupt bill in the country, and that bill requires the payment of 50 cents on the dollar or the assent of a majority in number and amount of the creditors before the bankrupt can be discharged. I think the experience of 25 or 30 3.; shows that that law operates well, and that there is very little difficulty in a bankrupt getting discharged under it in a proper case. If it extended over the whole country I think we should have an excellent system. While this bill, if it shall pass, will relieve a great many excellent men who ought to be relieved and whom I shall be glad to see relieved, we shall have a great deal of dishonesty enacted under it, and there will be a great deal of fault found and complaints made, as there were at the time we passed the bankrupt bill in 1841 or 1842. I think if we pass this bill with the amendment I propose all i. in the country who ought to be discharged will find no great difficulty in making settlements with their creditors. I do not know what others will do; I simply want to vote for it myself. I believe it to be sound policy.
Mr. HARRIS. The proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts is a veryingenious mode of entirely defeating this measure. No honest man could get a discharge under this law if the amendment should prevail. How is it? An honest man devotes his property so far as it will go toward the payment of his debts in the 1st place. He then finds a balance of indebtedness which he has no means of paying. The proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts is, that in addition to the devotion of his property to the payment of his debts he shall pay 50%. of the balance of the debts, when probably he has not a dollar to devote to that purpose. No honest man can get a discharge under the law if the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts prevails; it defeats the bill.
Mr. WILSON. I will simply say that after 25 years' experience in an agricultural, mechanical, and commercial State, where there is a great deal of indebtedness, we find that the system works admirably, and honest men experience no great difficulty under it. I do not know what the Senate intends to do; but I shall vote that way myself. I have great doubts about the propriety of passing this bill, especially at this time, and with the limitations we have got upon it. I see very plainly that a man may be a man of fortune and yet not be compelled to pay his debts.. I expect it will be so joithat the stay laws which have recently been passed in some States to enable men to retain their property, so that their cred. itors can obtain nothing from them will be included under this bill, and their creditors may whistle for their claims.
Mr. POLAND. I suppose there will be a great many dishonest men in the world whether this bankrupt law is passed or not. There are a great many men in the world who evade the payment of their debts now. I know no reason why we may not have as ample and as sharp machinery in a bankrupt law to compel dishonest debtors to disgorge as in any other law. The provisions of this bill are exceedingly sharp in relation to the means furnished for ascertaining the truth in that respect; and if my friend, the Senfrom Massachusetts, can devise anything more stringent, anything that will be more available, he is perfectly welcome to have it put into the bill. It is drawn with very great care in that respect. If my friend has any fears in relation to the stay laws of the southern States I shall be perfectly willing for one to vote for an exPress amendment that shall prevent their being included. In relation to what the Senator says as to the exemption, that has been made, that a man may have the benefit of this law and still be a wealthy man, have a large amount of property, I will only remark that the provisions of this bill do not allow any debtor to retain any greater amount of property or any different property from what, by. laws of the several States, he is now entitled to retain. It exempts nothing from the reach of the creditors except what is exempt now by law. We have not increased the amount of exemption at all, or allowed a debtor to retain anything against his creditors except what is now protected by law from his creditors under any process of the law now known.
Mr. WILSON. I wish the Senfrom Vermont had given us his deliberate opinion whether those stay laws will be under this bill protected. I should be very glad to hear his opinion upon that point.
Mr. POLAND. I am very willing to give my opinion to the Senator. I think those stay laws are unconstitutional and void, and that nothing in this bill covers them or protects them or makes them valid.
Mr. WILSON. Why does the Senator say that it is the end of the bill? I should like to know why he makes that particular remark. I do not so understand it. We can pass the bill afterward, and the bill will be effective. I do not see anything that justifies the Senator in making that declaration. If he means to say that some persons cannot be cleared of their debts, relieved of their obligations, if we pass the bill in this form, it is a fair declaration; but the bill, in my judgment, is a much better bill with the amendment than it is without it.
Mr. STEWART. I will explain why it is the end of the bill. Here is one man who is a rascal, who has committed all the acts of bankruptcy that are possible, who has concealed his property, and has defrauded his Under the amendment the creditors cannot drive that man into bankruptcy unless they can show that they can it. 50%. out of his assets. If he has got his property hid so that the assets available will not pay 50%. of his debts, the creditors cannot drive him into bankruptcy. He will be able to say to them, “Although I have committed innu merable frauds, although I ought to be hung, erhaps, for the frauds I F. have committed, still not got property which can be got hold of to divide 50%, among my creditors, and therefore you cannot force me into bankruptcy.” Is that right?
Mr. WILSON. This bill was drawn by an eminent member of the HoRep, and passed by the HoRep, and they propose precisely the same thing at the end oS. year. I propose to begin now and require the debtor to pay 50 cents on the dollar, or obtain a majority in number and amount of the creditors before he can be discharged. There is no end to the bill by adopting the amendment. The bill is just as good a bill, and in my judgment a much better and safer one for us to pass, with the amendment than without it; and after we put it in operation, if modifications be needed they ean be made. In my judgment, if this bill passes as it stands you will find 1000s of men over this country who have concealed property, who have cheated creditors, rushing for ward 1st to obtain relief under it, as was the case under the old bankrupt law, and you will find a great outcry against it. Now, sir, I believe that if the well settled system existing in my State, and which has existed there for a quarter of a century, containing the provision which I have here moved, which works admirably, and under which hardly any man fails to obtain his discharge, is incor porated into this bill, its operation will be better and more satisfactory, and will work out greater results of justice than it will in this manner. I shall therefore vote for the amendment.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senfrom Massachusetts the other day in debate enlightened us as to the paternity of a bill which was then under consideration. Now, I should like to know of him whether or not he regards this as a western measure.
Mr. WILSON. No, sir. I do not think it is a measure that the agricultural, laboring, and mechanical interests generally take a great deal of concern in. It is a commercial bill. I believe a good bankrupt bill ought always to exist. I think that it was a great mistake that the old bill, after it had done all the evil it could do, was not properly amended accordin to the experience ocountry and then continued in force. If that had been done we should now have a good bankrupt bill in the country. We ought to have such a bill, and I move this amendment for that purpose. This I know is a commercial measure, a measure for protecting the business men of the country more than the agricultural and mechanical interest8.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr.ed MUNDs in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the committee.
Mr. POLAND. I do not design upon these amendments to enter into any discussion about the general merits of a bankrupt law. The principle upon which this bill goes is, that a debtor who is unable to pay his debts and who surrenders all his property is entitled by law to have a discharge. The simple question is, whether we will say that the principle of this law is to be entirely thrown aside, and declare that whether a man shall have a discharge or not shall depend upon the consent of the creditors. If we require that we may as well not have any bankrupt law.
Mr. DAVIS. I do not think the proposition I make interferes with the general principle of the bill. I agree as a general proposition both of humanity and of policy that where a debtor is unable to pay his debts and he is forced into bankruptcy against his will, or, if you pleased, without his concurrence, and he is compelled to surrender his property to his creditors, he ought to have his discharge. The proposition which I make does not apply to that class of cases at all. It applies only to cases where the application is in form, as well as in substance; in the name of the debtor himself to be declared a bankrupt, and in all such cases that the debtor where he seeks himself to be declared a bankrupt shall not have the privilege of can celing his debts by a judgment against him in bankruptcy unless that judgment is concurred in by a majority of his creditors both in number and in amount. In every case in which the proceeding is instituted by a creditor and not the debtor himself, the general principle of the act would be left to apply, and the debtor would be allowed to have the benefit of his free and full discharge. It would only be in case where the proceeding was instituted formally by E. the debtor and not by his creditors, and where the Presumption.arise that it was a fraud and speculation on his part to get a discharge from his debts under the forms of this proceeding by his own movement, and not by the movement of his creditors it would only be in that class of cases that the consent of a majority of the creditors in number and amount would be required under my amendment. In deed, I am not certain that it would not be a salutary principle, one that would be promotive of justice and not at all inhumane in its operation, to require such a consent of credit ors in every case of bankruptcy, whether it be voluntary or involuntary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr.ed MUNDs.) The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senfrom Kentucky to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question again recurs on the amendment of the ComJudiciary.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was to strike out all of section 33 after the word “otherwise” in line ten, in the following words: And in all proceedings in bankruptcy commenced after one year, from the time this act shall go . into no discharge shall be granted to a debtor whoseassetsdo not pay 50%. of the claims against his estate, unless the assent in writing of a majority in number, and value of haye proved his creditorswho their claims is filed in the case at or before the time of application for discharge.
Mr. HOWARD. I was not in my seat when the pending amendment was 1st stated, but I can see no reason for making such a distinction as this. I think it is unfounded. I can see no justice in Iit; hope, therefore, it will be stricken out. I will not detain the Senate, however, at this time with any further remarks.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in line 15 of section 34 to strike out “two years” and insert “one year;” so as to make the proviso to that section read: Alipayaprovided, That any creditor or creditors of said bankrupt, whose debt was proved or provable againstthe estate in bankruptcy, who shall see fit to 29mtestthe validity of said dischargeon the ground that, it wasfraudulently obtained, may, at anytime within dne year after the date thereof, apply to the in ordinary proceedings. court which granted it to set aside and annul the Saille.
Mr. POLAND. It is just perhaps that I should make some little explanation in reference to this amendment. Under the bankrupt law of 1841, whenever a bankrupt pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy when sued for any debt that had accrued prior to the discharge, the creditor was at liberty upon the trial to come in and impeach the discharge. When the discharge was set up and pleaded as a defense to an action against a bankrupt the creditor was authorized to come in and answer that discharge by showing that there was some fraud in the proceedings of the bankrupt, that his property was not all surrendered, that there were almost any violations of the requirements of the bankrupt law. By this bill the discharge is made final and conclusive. The discharge when pleaded by the bankrupt to an action is not allowed to be impeached in that collateral way. But the creditor is authorized to apply to the court which granted the discharge to have the discharge itself set aside. If the creditor discovers that the bankrupt has been guilty of any concealment of his property, or for any reason was not entitled to the discharge, he might have appeared before the court and objected to the court's giving the discharge, and he may again apply to the court after the discharge has been given to have the discharge itself annulled or set aside.
Mr. POLAND. The bill as it passed the House gave the creditor 2 years for that pur: pose. The amendment proposed by the committee restricts it to one year. I do not desire to discuss the relative merits of the respective times, one year or 2 years; but the effect of this amendment is to reduce the time from 2 years as the House fixed it to one year.
Mr. HOWE. I decidedly like the amendment reported by the committee. I think effect should i. given to this judgment of the court in bankruptcy some time or other. I think it should take effect at least in a year. That is time enough, it seems to me, given to any creditor who did not appear on the hearing to move for a rehearing, which I understand this to be in effect. The very object of the bill is to enable insolvent debtors to procure a discharge from their indebtedness, and they ought to be able to know whether they are discharged or not in some reasonable time. To require them to go through all the steps preliminary to a hearing, give all the notices, cite all the creditors, have the hearing, obtain the decree, and then be compelled to wait 2 years to know whether that decree is worth anything or not seems to me to be a ship. very great hard "helieve a year is as long as is allowed any party to move for a rehearing on a new trial To allow so long a time as 2 years goes very far to defeat the whole purpose of the bill. It is said that there is a great urgent public necessity for unfettering a vast amount of business talent and ability that is now tied up by indebtedness. If you want to unfetter it do so. There is no object in merely changing the fetters. Do it in the course of their lives. They will be unfettered in the course of time at some time or other, and the great majority of them, I am inclined to think, before they would be by the force of this bill if that time is extended to 2 years. I hope the Senate will agree to the amendment of the committee.
Mr. POLAND. By the act of 1841 it was not necessary that the creditor should apply to get the discharge set aside. He could contest it wherever it was set up as a defense.
Mr. HOWARD. He could contest it at any time?
Mr. HOWARD. I believe such was the law. There was no limit as to the time within which this contestation could be made. The creditor could at any time within 20 years contest the validity of the discharge upon the o. ground of fraud. Here the committee propose to limit this contestation to one year from the time of the discharge. I think that is entirely too short. If a bankrupt has been honest and truthful in his proceedings in bankruptcy and has obtained a discharge honestly and fairly, he has nothing to fear during the short period of 2 years that should embarrass him in recntering into any commercial business. On the other hand, if he has been guilty of fraud or falsehood in procuring his discharge, 2 years is a of quite short enough within which to allow the creditors to contest that discharge and show the fraud and falsehood. I hoope the amendment will not be agreed to. he question being put on the amendment, Mr. HOWE called for a division; and the ayes were 6, and the noes 19; no quorum voting.
Mr. HOWE. I give it up: I withdraw the call for a division.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no quorum Present and voting.
Mr. POLAND. I think if the question be put again it will be shown that there is a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair ascertains by actual count that a quorum of the Senate is Present.
Mr. HOWE. I do not insist upon a further division.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment, then, will stand as disagreed to. The next amendment of the committee will be reported.
The Secretary read the next amendment, which was in section 34, line 30, t o strike out the words “and true” after proved.” The amendme', t was agreed to. The next amendment was in section 36, to strike out the words “and not true, ” after “not proved, ” in line 35.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in section 40.7, to strike out the words “of the sala ries.” and insert “for the services.”
Mr. POLAND. As the bill was originally drawn, the registers had a salary given them. As the bill now stands they are paid by fees, so that this becomes a mere necessary verbal alteration.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in line 50, of section, 47, to strike out “commission ers” and insert “judges.”
Mr. POLAND. That is necessary in consequence of an amendment already adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments reported by the committee have been gone through with. The bill is still open to amendment.
Mr. POLAND. Section 49 confers jurisdiction under this act upon “the SCOTUS for the DistCol.” I believe there is no such court. I move that the words “ U.S. for” be stricken out, so as to read “the supreme court of the DistCol, ” which I believe is the name of the local court here.
Mr. POLAND. In the next line jurisdic.tion is conferred upon “the district courts of the several Territories.” The local name of these territorial courts is supreme courts. I move, therefore, to strike out the word “district” and insert “supreme.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That change will be made if there be no objection.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I propose the following amendment, to come in at the end of the last section of the bill: unAtnadrypbroavnikdreudpftucrythuenr, deTrhathtisnoacptroscheaelldidnigsssionlweoolr affectthe obligation of any existing contract or in debtedness.
Mr. POLAND. Perhaps we ought to understand the importance of this amendment and not let it pass in silence. I hardly understand the amendment myself; but if I have anything like a correct understanding of it, it provides that this bill shall be prospective merely; have no effect upon existing debts and contracts. That is a pretty important principle. I do not desire joto enter into the discussion of it at all. 25 years ago, when the bankrupt law was passed in 1841, this subject was discussed at very great length and with very great ability at 2 or 3 several sessions of Congress before the bill was finally passed, and at the session when it was finally repealed. It was claimed, with great emphasis and earnestness at least, that a bankrupt bill of this sort would be unconstitutional; that we had no right to make it apply to existing debts; but it was iootherwise by Congress in the passage of that bill, and that principle was universally sustained by the courts everywhere, so that it is no longer open to this objection of unconstitutionality. As to the question of expediency, it seems to me there can be no doubt about it. If we are to have a bankrupt law at all, is it not just as necessary that men who are now laboring under a mass of debt that they cannot pay should be discharged as that men should be discharged from debts that accrue hereafter? The question of constitutionality having been settled beyond all question or cavil by the 1,000 judicial decisions that were made under the bankrupt law of 1841, it seems to me that difficulty is entirely removed. And as to its expediency, as to the rightfulness of it, as to the propriety of the thing itself, there can be no question in the mind of any man.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not propose to make any speech in support of this amendment. I am opposed to the enactment of any bankrupt law made applicable to existing indebtedness. I would support a bankrupt law to operate prospectively, so that every man who makes a contract can make it in reference to a bankrupt law in existence. Without undertaking to say whether this part of the law which this amendment is intended to affect is constitutional or unconstitutional, I do not believe in the justice of any such legislation. And as to the necessity of the retrospective effect of this law, I disagree very much with the honorable Senfrom Vermont. According to the information I have, there never has been a time in the history of this country when there was so little necessity for a bankrupt law as at this time; no time when the people were so generally free from debt in the U.S. as they are at this time.
Mr. POLAND. Then it will not do any harm to make it retrospective.
Mr. WILLIAMS. For that reason there is no Pressing necessity, as it seems, for a bankrupt law to operate upon existing indebtedness. Doubtless there are very many persons who will be greatly injured by the enactment of this law. I am convinced that if the law is enacted in its Present shape its history will be very much like the history of the other bankrupt law: just as soon as an opportunity is afforded, all the dishonest debtors of the country will avail themselves of the advantages of the law, and all those who are honest and endeavoring to struggle along and pay their debts will be deprived of its advantages; and the conduct of the dishonest debtors will make the law so odious that it will be repealed, as the other was, in a very short time, and the real benefits of the law will in that way be wholly defeated. I do not see why a prospective bankrupt law could not be so I believe that was the intendment of the men who made the Constitution, that a bankrupt law should be made to operate in future , that all legislation should be such as to enable men when they make a contract to know what the obligation and effect of the contractis. I hope, sir, that this amendment will be adopted. "I ask for the yeas&nays upon it. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senator if he feels bound to vote against a bill operating prospectively? Suppose this amendment should be adopted and the bill should be recommitted to the committee and they should prepare a bill in accordance with the instructions which the adoption of this amendment would involve, would he feel bound to vote against it?
Mr. SHERMAN. I think it would be better at once to recommit the bill. It would not be fair to defeat it in this way. If the amendment were adopted, as a matter of course the gentleman having charge of the bill would at once move its recommitment. If the Senator desires to recommit it on the ground that he will not vote for anything but a prospective bill, he had better make a motion to recommit exPressly with those instructions, I might say that there is another opposition to this bill from the commercial cities Cincinnati for example., Most of the letters I receive, in regard to this bill, are either from persons who desire to avail themselves of its benefits or persons in Cincinnati who are creditors. They claim that, by this bill, their debtors in the southern States will be discharged that the property of the southern States, now greatly reduced in value, will be thrown suddenly upon the market by bankrupts, and that they will be paid off with nothing; that they are substantially excluded by public opinion from becoming purchasers of property in the southern States, and that there is great danger that they may lose all chance. their debts if this bill becomes a law. Now they are able, by compromises and by adjustments, to get some portion of their debts, but their imPression is that if this law passes, which must be uniform in its operation, the little property that is in the hands of their debtors in the South will be suddenly thrown into the market and sold at the Present depreciated prices, and they defeated in the collection of their debts. These considerations will induce me to vote against the bill on its passage. At the same time I shall vote against any amendment that would embarrass the bill or make it inconsistent with itself.
Mr. HENDERSON. des?e to submit a motion that the bill be recommitted to the ComJudiciary with instructions to report a bill on the subject of bankruptcy with provisions as follows: I. That no person shall be authorized to become a voluntary bankrupt except on the conditions following: 1st. He shall relinquish all his property to the assignee in bankruptcy for the benefit of his creditors, regardless of State exemptions, except a specified amount not to exceed in value $500. 2nd. His indebtedness provable under the act must amount to at least $1,500. 3rd. The assets shall pay at least 30%. of any debt existing at the time of the passage of the act, or." otherwise the same not. discharged unless a majority of the creditors consent. 4th. No debt contracted or accruin after the passage of the act shall be discharge by certificate in cases of voluntary bankruptcy unless the assets shall have paid 50%. of the amount proved. 5th. All future acquisitions of the bankrupt, obtained by descent, devise, bequest, or in the course of distribution, shall be subject to the payment of his former debts. 6th. No debt shall be discharged unless it be specified in the original or supplementary schedule of the debtor or ofor proof by the creditor. H. Involuntary bankruptcy shall be subject to the following restrictions: 1st. The petitioning creditors seeking to obtain a judgment of bankruptcy must represent and establish against the alleged bankrupt an indebtedness not less than $1,500. 2nd. A specified amount of property not to exceed $1,000 shall be exempt E. the proceedings, in favor of the head of a family, and not to exceed $500 in other cases. 3rd. Subsequent acquisitions, as in the case of involuntary bankruptcy, obtained by devise, descent, bequest, or in the course of distribution, shall be subject to the payment of discharged debts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senfrom missouri to recommit the bill with these instructions.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I inquire whether that motion is in order at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly. A motion to recommit supersedes a motion to amend.
Mr. JOHNSON. As between their own citizens.
Mr. POLAND. It is to help their cred itors.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I should not have a word to say upon the proposition of the Senfrom Missouri except for his suggestion that this will be a test vote. I shall probably not vote for the bill, and yet I would not vote for his proposition to recommit. I think that defeats the bill; I think it is due to the committee, on so grave a question as this, to allow the bill to come to a final vote, mainly upon the propositions that shall come from the committee, at least from such portions of the committee as support the measure; and it is for that reason that I shall vote against the proposition of the Senfrom Missouri to return the bill to the committee. This bill received very full consideration by the ComJudiciary at the last session, and, with some exceptions, is perhaps as good a system of bankruptcy as can be established. I do not say it is a perfect bill; but the objections to the bill are perhaps inherent in the subject of the legislation itself. While I shall probably not vote for the bill, I have voted against bills with more confidence in my judgment upon the subject than in this instance. The Constitution clearly contemplated a uniform and perhaps a permanent system of bankruptcy in the country, and I am inclined to the opinion that if a good system can be once established to take the place of the various systems of the States it will be an advantage. The evil of the times grows out of the different systems of insolvency in the different States. Clearly the framers of the Constitution contemplated some uniform and perhaps permanent system; and while I will not vote for this bill perhaps, because I do not know what is the pleasure of the people I rePresent on the subject, yet I repeat that I think it is but fair to allow the bill to come to a vote, and I shall vote against amendments calculated to embar rass the bill. I shall only vote for such amendments as I think will improve the bill, and for none with a view to embarrass it.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do not propose to speak to the particular amendment suggested by my friendfrom Missouri, because, if I understand correctly what the Senate has alread done, it has.substantially againsteac one of his propositions. The honorable member tells us that he doubts very much whether the clause in the Constitution was intended to embrace or does embrace other than traders, and that it was not contemplated to provide for cases of voluntary bankruptcy. It is true that at the time the Constitution was adopted the bankrupt laws of England were made applicable exclusively to traders, but England long since has applied them to all other classes; and the power to apply them to other classes in the Parliament at the time, the Constitution was adopted nobody could have questioned. The clause, therefore, which gives to Congress the power to pass bankrupt laws has been considered as equivalent to the same power existing in parliament; and the Supreme Court, in the case of Sturgis vs. Crowninshield, admit, I think, very clearly that the clause embraced eve class of debtors, and was not confined to. ers. In the same case they also, in words, state that under that power Congress may provide for voluntary as well as fo. involuntary I have the opinion by me.
Mr. HENDERSON. That question did not arise in the case.
Mr. JOHNSON. It did not arise in that case in some respects. That case involved the constitutionality of a State insolvent law which undertook to discharge debts, and in considering that question Chief Justice Mar shall, who gave the opinion, went into an examination of the whole subject: 1st, what was the extent of the congressional power to pass bankrupt laws; 2ndly, how did it conflict with the power of the States to pass insolvent laws? It was maintained in relation to the power of the States that they had not authority by an insolvent law to discharge a debt. The Chief Justice said it would be exceedingly difficult to decide that a law passed by a State discharging a debt and all the subsequent acquisitions which the debtor might make. not be an insolvent law within the powers which the States had because of the reservation; in other words, he did not consider the power with which Congress was clothed to pass laws on the subject of bankruptcy as interfering with the right of the States until that power was exercised to pass laws discharging debts as between their own citizens;.; in exPress terms the court admit that it is in the power of Congress under its authority to pass bankrupt laws to include every variety of bankrupts, every class of bankrupts, and also to provide that a bankrupt might himself apply for the benefit of such laws. The motion to recommit was not agreed to. The question recurred on the amendment oby Mr. WILLIAMs; and being taken y yeas&nays, resulted yeas 10, mays26; 16.
Mr. POLAND. In the last section of the bill the provision is that “no petition or other proceeding under this act shall be filed, received, or commenced before the 1st day of November, A. D. 1866.” I move to strike out “November” and insert “April, ” and to strike out “1866” and insert “1807;” so as to take effect the 1st day of April, 1867.
Mr. HARRIS. I think it would be better to say June.
Mr. POLAND. I will modify my amendment so as to say June instead of April, to make it take effect on the 1st day of June next
Mr. HOWARD. I move to strike out the amGrsi, mes and 37th section of the bill, and I ask the Clerk to read that section.
The Secretary read it, as follows: Sec. 37, Abife:, That the provisions of this act shall apply to ali corporations and joint stock companies, and that upon the petition of any officer of any such corporation or duly company, authorized by a vote of a majority of the corporators Present at any legal meeting called for the purpose or upon the petition of any creditor or itors of such corporation or company, made and cprerdesented in themanner hereinafter provided in respect to debtors, the like proceedings shall be had and taken as are hereinafter provided in the caseof debt ors; and all the provisions of this act which apply to the debtor, or set forth his duties in regard to furnishing schedules and inventories, executingpapers, submitting to secreting, conceexaalminign, actioonnvse, dyiisncgl, oasisnsgig, mniankgi, ngover, or paying away his money or property, shall in fire manner, and with like force, effect, and penalties, apply to eachand every officer of such corporation or pany comin relation to corporation thesamemattersconcerningthe or company, and the moncy and property thereof., All, payments, conveyances, and as odeclared fraudulent and void by this act, whenmade by a debtor, shall in like manner, and to the like extent, and with like remedies, be fraudulent and void when made by a corporation or pany. com: No allowance or discharge shall be granted to any corporation or joint stock company, or to any person or officer or memberthereof: Provided, That whenever anycorporation by proceedingsunder this act shall bedeclaredbonkrupt, such decreeof bankruptcy shall work a forfeiture of all the franchises of such corporation, and the affairs of such corporation shall be wound up in the manner provided in this act in respect to natural persons.
Mr. HOWARD. That is the Present doctrine of the Supreme Court.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to inquire of the Senator if he is of the opinion that the assignee can sell the franchise?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is a question that requires some consideration. e franchise is sold under State laws.
Mr. HENDRICKS. When the Legislature of the State agrees to it.
Mr. JOHNSON. Very well. I do not see that it makes much difference. If the franchise is property, and that I assume is true I suppose that will not be denied and if it is property that may be used for the purpose of paying the debts of the corporation, then I do not see why the assignee in bankruptcy cannot sell it as well as the creditor who sues in a State court. Does my honorable friendfrom Indiana deny that it is competent for a creditor to sue a corporation, get his judgment, and levy it upon the road itself and sell every thing? What can he do under that judgment? supposing it to be a railroad corporation he can sell all the motive power; he can sell all the iron rails and all the ties, and leave nothing but the naked bed; and where the bed itsel belongs to the company he can sell that. Then what is there left?
Mr. HENDRICKS. In reply to the Senator my view is this: that the road, the bed, the track, the rolling stock cannot be sold except the Legislature of the State creating the corporation has authorized its sale, either directly or indirectly. As the Senator is aware, most of these questions come up on foreclosures of mortgages. The Legislature, authorizing the corporation to mortgage its property, impliedly authorizes the sale of its property upon the foreclosure of the mortgage. But if the Legislature has merely created a corporation and authorized it to transact a class of business, and that corporation has fallen in debt and the creditor takes a judgment at law, in the absence of an exPress authority to sell, I apprehend that the officer of the court cannot sell, and that the only remedy of the cred itor then would be to go into chancery and, through the instrumentality of a receiver, take possession of and use the property. I have not recently examined the question with great care, but it is a troublesome one.
Mr. JOHNSON. Could any decree a chancelor could pass in the ease cited by the honorable member enforce the corporation to carry on the road, compel the President for the time being or the directors to remain President or directors? If not, who is to appoint them? How is the road to be carried on 2
Mr. HENDRICKS. In the case which I have mentioned the court appoints the receiver and through its own officer takes possession of the corporate foand uses it for the benefitof the creditors, and makes the money for the creditors out of the use of the property itself, and does not undertake to sell the property, and thereby pass the franchise.
Mr. JOHNSON. The question is not whether we can extinguish the franchise; I have said just now I thought it was better the franchise should not be extinguished for other reasons; but if the State can authorize a cred itor of a corporation to come into a court of chancery and have a receiver appointed to take possession of the road and to carry it on for the benefit of the creditors, why cannot we, by a bankrupt law, authorize the assignee to take possession of the road and carry it on for the benefit of the creditors? To destroy the franchise instead of benefiting the creditors is desirable. would be an injury. The only benefit that the franchise can be to the creditors is by enabling the creditors to have the benefit of the franchise, and that can only be by exercising the franchise. If the franchise be in a company authorized to carry on a railroad, and authorized to do nothing else, then in order to secure the creditor the advantage of the franchise it may be necessary to give to the assignee in bankruptcy the authority to carry on the road, just as my friend admits chancery might in a State court, independent of any mortgage in cumbrance, authorize a receiver to be appointed and give him the power to carry on the road for the benefit of all the creditors. What I suggested, however, was and I make the suggestion to my friendfrom Vermont, who has more particularly this bill in his charge as quasi chairman that I think he had better amend the latter part of the section so as to Preserve the franchise.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not interrupt the Senfrom Maryland with a view of controverting any of his positions, but my purpose was entirely and only to have the benefit of his view upon a question which, after hearing the argument of the Senfrom Michigan, some what troubled my mind. A corporation exists by virtue of State legislation. What this eor poration may do depends altogether upon the will of the State Legislature, and how the franchise may pass from one person to another ordinarily depends upon the will of the Legislature; and it has not been regarded as a thing to be sold by the corporators themselves or by a court at law. The question upon my mind was this: what shall be done with the corporate property when the assignee takes possession of it? He cannot permanently retain the possession, and.the answer of the Senfrom Maryland did not meet the trouble fully. What will the assignee do with the corporate property? If he cannot transfer the franchise the corporate property, as has been so forcibly demonstrated by the Senfrom Maryland, is almost valueless. Can the as signee by a sale of the corporate property pass with it the franchise, the right to use it as the corporation itself might use it? I am certainly in favor of striking out this proviso, and I hope the Senator having the bill in charge will consent to that. I think it suicidal. I think you might as well provide in the other portions of the bill that when a man is declared a bankrupt he shall be put to death as to provide that a corporation being declared bankrupt its franchises shall cease, its life shall cease. If we can do this, we ought to do that. If we can sell the corporate property, and pass with that the right to use it under the State laws, that is the end which And before the vote is taken on the motion of the Senfrom Michigan I move to strike out the proviso.
Mr. JOHNSON. There is no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senfrom Indiana moves to amend the amendment by striking out the proviso in the section proposed to be stricken out by the Senfrom Michigan, and the question is on that amendment to the amendment.
Mr. HOWARD. I wish to inquire whether that motion is in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to amend the amendment is in order.
Mr. HOWARD. My motion is to strike oout t:he whole section, and the motion of the from Indiana is to strike out a part Of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the amendment is in order.
Mr. POLAND. It seems to me that if my friendfrom Michigan had examined this bill through and with a little more care he would not have been so much alarmed at this 30 7th section. It extends the provisions of this bill to corporations. The term used is broad enough, to be sure, to include colleges, academies, lyceums, and every variety of corporations, although they are not business corporations and not likely to have any debts. but it seems to me that if my friendfrom Michigan had examined a little further and had seen that no corporation could be proceeded against, unless it had been guilty of an act of bankruptcy, he would have had very little fear for the academies, colleges, and lyceums. The same provisions, both for voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy, are extended to corporations, in order to allow the creditors of a corporation to proceed against it and to wind it up under this system of bankruptcy. They have, in the 1st place, to establish that the corporation has committed an act of bankruptcy. In the case of an individual there are a great variety of things that amount to an act of bankruptcy; but in the case of a corporation the only act of bankruptcy that could be charged would be the making of a fraudulent assignment or a fraudulent concealment of their property. We could hardly suppose that in the case of a college.
Mr. HOWARD. Does the Senfrom Vermont mean to say that voluntary proceedings may not be taken by a corporation?
Mr. POLAND. I do not apprehend that there can be any such difficulty in relation to conflict of jurisdiction as the Senfrom NewYork suggests. In my own State we have a statute system of winding up an insolvent bank, and I suppose they have in every State, some of them more extensive than ours, applying to all corporations; but I do not suppose, if this bill passes and becomes a law and corporations are brought within the provisions of it, that if proceedings were pending under the State law and the State court had got full jurisdiction of the whole subject the U.S. court would interfere, or would have any right to interfere, to take away the administration which had been begun in the State court. That is the ordinary and general principle: where there are concurrent jurisdictions, where there are 2 courts, either of which may have jurisdiction of the same subject, the one that 1st takes jurisdiction retains it and has it. That is a familiar principle, which my friendfrom Michigan must understand as well as anybody. n relation to the constitutional doubt that my friend suggests, although these corporations are made by the State; although, instead of being natural persons, they are creatures that are born out of State laws, still if they can be debtors and creditors I do not apprehend there is any question but what they may come within the purview of a bankrupt law. I do not desire to go into
Mr. HOWARD. Then I suppose, if the Senator will allow me, he would hold that the jurisdiction of the district or bankrupt court in such a case as I put would oust the juris diction of the State court.
Mr. POLAND. Not by any means, if the State court had 1st taken jurisdiction.
Mr. HOWARD. That is only in cases of concurrent jurisdiction. Here, according to your theory, the Federal legislation is supreme, and there would be no concurrence.
Mr. POLAND. So far as regards a general bankrupt law, between a bankrupt law as passed by Congress and a bankrupt law as passed by a State, I understand that when Congress has acts the State law itself becomes ine perative. When Congress have legislated on a subject that is specially within the jurisdiction of Congress their legislation ousts the State legislation. But there are a great variety of suits at law: ordinary suits, where a party may sue either in the State courts or the U.S. courts; but when he has once sued in the State court or in the U.S. court, and that court has got jurisdiction, that is the end of it. That is a principle that is perfectly well settled. It is precisely so here. Where there is. a system of State law by which a corporation may be wound up, and its assets distributed among the creditors, and here is a general bankrupt law under which the U.S. courts might take jurisdiction of it, if the State courts get the 1st jurisdiction under the State law, which is not superseded by the general bankrupt law, they retain it; and the idea that the U.S. court, would afterward take away that jurisdiction it seems to me is an objec.tion entirely without foundation.
Mr. BUCKALEW. There seems to be considerable difference upon this Present question. I propose to submit a motion to the Senate upon which all Senators can agree. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. POLAND. Senators all understand how very difficult it has been to get this meas ure before the Senate. I have been notified by the chairman of the ComFinance that the day after tomorrow he intends to proceed with his appropriation bills. I really ope. PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remind the Senfrom Vermont that debate is not in order on a motion to adJOutn.
Mr. HENDRICKS. There will be no difficulty in getting a vote tomorrow.
Mr. POLAND. I desire simply to say that if the Senate propose now to adjourn, I shall ask the Senate tomorrow to proceed with the bill until it is finished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senfrom Pennsylvania that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, February 4, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNToN. The Journal of Saturday last was read and approved. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The SPEAKER stated the 1st business in order was the call of States and Territories for bills and JtResolutions for reference, under which JtResolutions of State Legislatures under the amended rule could be Presented, not to be brought back by a motion to reconsider. LONGEVITY RATIONS.
Mr. BRANDEGEE introduced a JtResolution declaratory of the law of longevity rations to officers of the Army; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. NAVAL COAL DEPOT IN NEWJERSEY.
Mr. HUNTER introduced a bill to facilitate the establishment of a marine and naval coal depot on the eastern shore of NewJersey, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCommerce. PROHIDITION OF SALE OF GOLD.
Mr. KELLEY introduced a bill prohibiting the SecyTreasury from selling gold; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComWays&Means, and ordered to be printed. NATIONAL THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE.
Mr. WELKER introduced a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to incorporate the National Theological Institute, ” and to define and extend the powers of the same; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to, the ComDistCol. APPEALS FROM DISTRICT JUDGES.
Mr. McKEE introduced a bill to empower the judges of the district courts of the U.S. to hear and determine appeals from their own judgments and decrees; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. TAX ON STATE BANK CIRCULATION.
Mr. TRIMBLE introduced a bill to repeal the tax on State bank circulation; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComBanking&Currency, and ordered to be printed. MARTHA E. RING.
Mr. HAWKINS introduced a bill for the relief of Martha E. King; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. RELIEF OF LOYAL CITIZENS.
Mr. MAYNARD introduced a bill for the relief of loyal citizens of the U.S. in the lately insurgent States; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. AGRICULTURE.
Mr. MAYNARD Presented JtResolutions of the State of Tennessee directory to our RePresentatives in Congress; which were referred to the ComAg, and ordered to be printed. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. DEFREES introduced a bill to reestablish civil governments in the States lately in rebellion, and enable them to assume their proper relations with the States in the Union; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the joint select ComReconstruction, and ordered to be printed. RAILROAD IN TEXAS.
Mr. ANDERSON introduced a bill to authorize and provide for the construction of a military and postal road from Galveston, in the State of Texas, to Fort Gibson, in the Indian Territory, with a branch to Little Rock, in Arkansas; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPacificRR. ReCONSTRUCTION.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, introduced a bill, which he stated had been drawn up by the delegation of southern loyalists from Louis iana, to guaranty a RFG to the States of Texas, Louisiana, arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, NCarolina, SCarolina, Virginia, and Flor ida; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the JtComReconstruction, and 3rd: to be printed. RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINE.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, also introduced a bill to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Colorado river to the Pacific Central railroad, and to secure to the Government of the U.S. the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComPacRailroad, and ordered to be printed. NAVY YARD ON THE NORTHWESTERN LAREss
Mr. SPALDING introduced a JtResolution in respect to a navy yard on the north western lakes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComNavAffrs. SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. BEAMAN introduced a JtResolution of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, approving the action of Congress in passing over the President's veto the bill an nulling all distinction on account of color in the exercise of the elective franchise in the DistCol; which was referred to the ComDistCol, and ordered to be printed. CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON.
Mr. UPSON introduced a bill to repeal section 3rd of an act entitled “An act to amend an act to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, passed May 15, 1820, ” approved May, 1864; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComDistCol. HARBOR ON THE KALAMAZOO RIVER, Mr. UPSON also introduced a bill to provide for the survey of the harbor at the mouth of the Kalamazoo river; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCommerce. JAMES R. DOOLITTLE.
Mr. COBB. I hold in my hand JtResolutions of the Legislature of Wisconsin, which I desire to have printed and referred to the appropriate committee. It is suggested that the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs would be appropriate.
The Clerk read the title of the resolutions as follows: litJotlinet. Resolutions in regard to Hon. JAMrs R. Doo Several MEMBERs. Read, read.
The SPEAKER. It is not usual under this call to have these resolutions read. Is there objection?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will put the question.
Skip Skip The question was taken on having the resolutions read, and it was decided in the affirmative.
Mr. COBB introduced a bill to establish and limit the rate of interest on money in the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComDistCol. SPECIE PAYMENT.
Mr. LYNCH introduced a bill to provide for the resumption of specie payments; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComBanking&Currency, and ordered to be printed. T ExPANSION AND confrACTION of CURRENCY.
Mr. LYNCH also introduced a bill to provide against undue expansion and contraction of the currency; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComBanking&Currency, and ordered to be printed. PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Mr. DONNELLY introduced a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, and secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes;” which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the select ComPacificRR, and ordered to be printed. WAGON ROAD IN Ortegon.
Mr. HENDERSON introduced a bill extending the time for completing a military wagon road in the State of Oregon; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPIL LINE TO MEXICO.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, introduced a bill granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraphic line from the city of Lawrence, in the State of Kansas, to the bound ary line between the U.S and the republic of Mexico, in the direction of the city of Guaymas, on the Gulf of Mexico; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the select ComPacificRR, and ordered to be printed. BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSOURI.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, also introduced a bill to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the comPostOffice. WYANDOTT INDIANS.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, also introduced a bill for the alienation of the lands of the incompetent class of Wy and ott Indians; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComIndAffrs. JAMES S. PORTER.
Mr. HUBBARD, of WestVirginia, introduced a bill for the relief James S. Porter; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. ORGANIC ACT OF COLORADO.
Mr. BRADFORD introduced a bill amend atory of the organic act of Colorado Territory; which was.". 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComTerritories. SURVEY OF THE COLORADO RIVER, Mr. BRADFORD also introduced a bill for completing the survey of the Colorado river; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComAppropriat. WAGON ROAD IN COLORADO.
Mr. BRADFORD also introduced a bill to survey and construct a wagon road from Den wer City to Colorado City; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComTerritories. EQUALIZATION OF BOUNTIES.
Mr. O'NEILL introduced a bill supplement. ary to an act to equalize bounties, approved July 28, 1866; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComMilAffrs, and ordered to be printed. IRA. G. Robertson.
Mr. FARQUHAR introduced a JtResolution for the relief of Ira G. Robertson, of Indiana; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. The call of the States and Territories for bills and JtResolutions having been concluded, the House resumed the consideration of the following resolutions offered last Mon day by Mr. KELso: Resolved.That for theoof securingthe fruits of the victoriesgained on the part, of the Republic during the late war, waged by rebels and traitors againstthelife of the nation, and of f. effect to the will of the people, as exPressedat the polls during the late election by orities numbering in the iatgisgrtehgeate more than, 400,000 votes, oduty of the 39th Congress to take, without delay, such action as will accomplish the following objects: 1.The impeachment of the officer now exercising the functions pertaining to the officeof the POTUSA., and his removal from office upon his conviction in due form, of the for erimes and high misdemeanorsof which he is mani and notoriously guilty, and which render it wnsafe longer to permit him to exercise the powers he has unlawfully assumed. 2. To proyide for the faithful and efficient adminilsimtriattsiopn reosfertihbeed, ebxyeclauwti.ve dept within the
Mr. LOAN. On those resolutions I now move the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; the pending question being upon Mr. JENckes' motion to refer the resolutions to the ComJudiciary. The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. Mr. JENCKES mtRtv the resolutions were referred; on the table. agreed to. EQUAL SUFFRAGE.
Mr. NOELL. I offer the resolutions I send up to the Clerk's desk. The Clerk commenced the reading of the resolutions, as follows: peIRopelseo, lved.That Governmentswere made for the and not the peoplefor the Government
Mr. BLAINE. I. rise to a point of order: and my point of order is that the gentleman has already offered one resolution under this call.
Mr. NOELL, I do not think I have offered a resolution under this call.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman offered a resolution in January last: the call has rested with the State of Missouri since the holidays.
Mr. NOELL. Have I a right to offer the resolution by a vote of a majority?
The SPEAKER. A majority can give the gentleman leave to offer the resolution.
Mr. BLAINE. Missouri has held the floor for resolutions for 4 Mondays; I think other States should have a chance to be heard. I do not know the object of the gentleman's resolution, but I appeal to him not to insist upon offering it now, but let other States be heard.
Mr. NOELL. I do not ask to debate the resolutions now; I only ask leave to offer them, and then let them go over under the rule.
Mr. NOELL. I ask leave merely to submit the resolutions. No objection was made. The resolutions were received and read, as follows: Resolved.That Governments were made for the people, and not the peoplefor the Government; that Toveerrriytoarydult citizen of sound mind, in any State or has the right to a voice in the formation of the constitution of said State, andin therePresentation and lawsof saidState, and that any State which disfranchises any class of  its citizens on account of sexis not republican in form and should be over turned by Congress. Resolved.That the ComDistCol is hereby instructed to report to this House without delay a bill soamendingan actentitled “An act to regulatethe elective franchise in the DistCol, ” which passed congressJanuary 8, 1867, avsottiongabolish the disfranchisement of persons from Resolovneda, ccountof sex. That the ComJudiciary are instructed to report a bill.a convention and authorizing every adult citizen of sound mind in the convention State of Massachusetts otosevooftme faokrindgealecgoantestsittoutsiaoind for said State republican in form.
Mr. NOELL. When I offered the other resolutions I was prevented by objections from the other side from explaining my object in presenting them. I desire to debate these resolutions.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman rising to debate the resolutions, they will go over until next Monday, under the rule. SUFFRAGE IN DISTCOL.
Mr. FERRY Presented JtResolutions of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, commending the action of Congress in passing a bill abolishing all distinction of color in the exercise of the elective franchise in the DistCol; which were laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. CONTRACTION OF THE CURRENCY.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Ioffer the following resolutions, upon which I call the previous question: Resolved, As the opinion of this House that the interest will notjustify a greatercurtailment of the national circulation than$4,000,00 permonth or $48,000,00 during the year 1867 which.$íso cooumghptonuontd tion tbeere exclusive of and in addition to the notes falling out during the current year. Resolved, That in lieu of such an amount of compound interest notes as may become due and be redeemed woitfhcinurtrheencyyeanro, was authorized by xcleaswsotfothbee withdrawn from circulation each month, the SecyTreasury ought to be authorized and required:issue U.S. legal tender noteswithout in The question was upon 2nding the call for the previous question.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Will it be in order to move to refer these resolutions to the ComWays&Means?
The SPEAKER. If the previous question is not 2nded and any member rises to debate the resolutions they will go over under the rule. If no member rises to debate them the motion to refer will be in order.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I hope the previous question will not be 2nded.
Mr. CONKLING. I want to make an appeal to the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. Wilson] to at least allow us to understand these resolutions before we are called upon to vote upon them.
Mr. CONKLING. I am not debating the resolutions; I am appealing to the gentleman to withdraw his call for the previous question, and for leave to do that I am not beholden to: the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. LeBLoND]
The SPEAKER. That is in the nature of debate, and is not in order if objected to by any member.
Mr. BLAINE. If the previous question is not 2nded will a motion to refer them be in order?
The SPEAKER. If no member rises to debate the resolutions a motion to refer will then be in order.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That would be equivalent to killing the resolutions.
Mr. ROSS. I would ask if the resolutions are susceptible of division if we come to a vote upon them?
The SPEAKER. There are 2 separate resolutions, and a vote can be demanded on each one of them.
Skip Skip The question was then taken upon 2nding the call for the previous question; and upon a division there were ayes 45, noes 69. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, called for tellers upon 2nding the previous question. Tellers were ordered;.". WILson, of Iowa, and Mr. LeBLOND were appointed. The House divided; and the i.reported ayes 40, noes 76. So The previous question was not 2nded.
Mr. BLAINE. I rise to debate the resolution.
The SPEAKER. Debate arising the resolution goes over under the rules. HOLDING EVENING SESSIONS.
Mr. KASSON. I offer the following resolution, on which I demand the previous question: Resolved, That on and after tomorrow, and until otherwiseordered, the House will take a recessdaily, except on Saturdays, from half past 4 o; m. to half pastsevenp.m.; and that on reassemblingthe 1st hour each evening shall be devoted to hearing and considering reports of committees, under the same regulationsthat now governthe morning hour.
The SPEAKER. As this resolution prooses to change the order of business so as to have at night proceedings as if in the morning hour, a 2/3rds vote is necessary for its adoption. On 2nding the call for the previous question there were ayes 40, noes 68. So the previous guestion was not 2nded.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I rise to debate the resolution.
Mr. KASSON. I desire to modify the resolution.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that, by the usage, the call for the previous question not having been 2nded, some gentleman opposed to the call is entitled to the floor. The Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. WENTworth, 1 who opposed the demand for the previous question, rises to debate the resolution, and it goes over under the rule.
Mr. KASSON. Can I not offer another resolution?
The SPEAKER. Only by consent of a majority of the House. REDUCTION OF THE CURRENCY.
Mr. PRICE. I offer the following preamble and resolutions, on which I demand the previous question: coWunhterrye, aasfmfeuctcihngeminbjuarriroaussslmy entnow prevailsin the the commercial and other intereststhereof, on accountof the uncertainty yoof lwumhaet maybe done by this.Congressaffectingthe e it of currency now in circulation: Therefore, Resolved, asthe opinion of this House. That any greater reduction of the currency than that already authorized by law, to wit, $4,000,00oper month, woRuelsdolnvoetd be advisable. managed That the said reduction should be so as to take the amount so retired and gan celed from the interest bearing notes, and not from 3 nsoonly iendte, rest bearing notes. That that part of the compound interest notes which shall fall due during the next year and shall notbe retiredand eanceledunder and byvirtue of the law now authorizing the retirement and gan cpelallcaetisonsuopfp$lie4d,00boy,0l0epogearl mteonndtehr should have their interest. notes bearing no
Mr. CONKLING. I rise to a point of order. My point is that in effect this is the same resolution which was introduced by the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. WILson, of Iowa] I ask the Speaker to examine it.
Mr. PRICE. Allow me to say to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Conkling] that I wrote this resolution a month ago, and have had it lying in my desk ever since. It is not the resolution introduced by my colleague; but covers additional ground and has reference to different points.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will decide the K.' of order raised by the Gentfrom NewYork. It has been decided repeatedly that though a resolution totidem verbis the same as one on which the House has already acted cannot be introduced, yet a proposition differing in language, although it covers precisely the same ground, can be entertained. The Clerk will read from page 12 of the Digest.
The Clerk read as follows: "No, motion, or proposition on a subjectdifferent from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment. And no bill or resolution shall, at any time, be amended by thereto, annexi or incorporating therewith, any other bil br resolution pending before the House. (Rule 48. The latter clause of this rule, as originally reporte to the House, contained at the end of it, proposition “nor by any of the substance, in whole or in." of any other bill or resolution pending before e House? These wordswere stricken out by the House before it would agree to the rule, by which it would seem to containing have been decidedthat anamendment the substance of another bill or resolution may be entertained. (Note to rule 48.) such, too, hasbeenthe practice eversince.”
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I desire, if it be in order, to move the following as a substitute for the resolutions of the Gentfrom Iowa: That the public interest demandsthat there shall not be any reduction in the amount ofing the outstand U.S. States notes, commonlycalled “green backs, ” during the current year,
The SPEAKER. No amendment is in order unless the Gentfrom Iowa withdraws the demand for the previous question.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. I desire a division of the question, so that the vote on these resolutions may be taken separately.
The SPEAKER. It jbe in order to call for a division after the previous question is recorded.
Skip Skip On 2nding the call for the previous ques.tion there were ayes 49, noes 71. Mr. PRICE called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. PRICE and CoNKLING were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 68, noes 69. So the3 question was not 2nded.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Irise to debate these resolutions.
The SPEAKER. Debate arising, the resolutions go over under the rule.
Mr. GRINNELL. I offer the following res. olutions, on which I demand the previous question: Resolved.That the public interest demands that there shall not, during the current year, be any reduction in the amount of the outstanding U.S. notescommonly called greenbacks. Resolved, That the ComWays&Means be instructed to report such bill as may be necessary to effectthis object.
Skip Skip The House divided; and there were ayes 51, noes 64. Mr. GRINNELL demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. GRINNELL and Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported ayes 68, noes 66. So The previous question was 2nded. The question then recurred, shall the main question be Mr. POMER&OY"demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. Mr. MORRILL moved that the resolution be laid on the table. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative yeas 71, nays 82, not voting 37;. So the House refused to lay the resolutions on the table. The question again recurred, shall the main question be now put? on which the yeas&nays had been ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 87, nays 66, not voting 41;: So the main question was ordered. During the vote, Mr. SiSicNNER stated his colleague, Mr. DAwson, was paired on all questions with Mr. MYERs. Mr. LONGYEAR stated his colleague, Mr. DRIGGs, was absent on account of sickness. The vote was then announced as above recorded. The resolutions were then adopted. Mr. GRINNELL mtRtv the resolutions were adopted; on the table. agreed to. EVENING SESSIONS.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move to suspend the rules to offer for consideration the following resolution: Resolved, That until otherwise ordered the House will on eachday, except Saturday, take a recessfrom thraalnf spaacstitofnouorf ubnutsiilnehsaslf. past 7 o'clock, for the
Skip Skip The question being put, there were ayes 48, noes 68. Mr. PRICE and Mr. ROLLINS demanded they.eas&nays. yeas&nays were not ordered. So the rules were not suspended. ROLL OF HONOR.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following JtResolution.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I call for the regular order.
Mr. FARNSWORTH, I hope the gentleman will allow me to offer this. It will not take any time.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I will yield. The JtResolution was read, as follows: Be it resolved by the Senate and HoRep, doc., That the thanks of Congressand of the country are due, and areo: to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, SecyWar: Majer General M. C. Meigs, QuarterMGen; and Brevet tLeiermutaesntaenr, tfCoroltohneeilrJacmarees M. Moore, Asst Quar in collecting and burying the loyal and honoreddead of the war, and for their perseyering labors in obtaining the names of those who died, whether 9f woundsreceived in battle, disease, or starvation in rebel prisons, and publishing them upon the “rolls of honor” of thenation.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was read a 1st and 2nd time, orderengross, and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. FARNSWORTH mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
Mr. MORRILL. Will the Gentfrom Massachusetts allow me to offer a resolution to. to the ComPrintg?
Mr. HOQPER, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir. The resolution was accordingly read, as follows: Resolved, That the ComPrintg be instructed to inquire into the expediency of printing for the use of the House of digest RePresentatives, the of the statutesof the U.S. Prescribin the rates of duties on including any compenismaptioornts and the cost thereof, to the compiler. The resolution was referred to the ComPrintg under the law. POOR OF THE DISTCOL.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the Gentfrom Massachusetts allow me to submit a JtResolution appropriating $25,000 for the relief of the poor of the DistCol? o HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I will allow it to be offered.
Mr. LeBLOND. Let it be reported. The JtResolution was read, as follows: Whereas the extrelne severity of the Presentwinter has doubled the sufferingsand distressof the poor: Therefore Resolved by the Senate and HoRep, &c., That there is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated the sum of $25,000t, o be paid to Major General O. 0. Howard, to be distributed to the suffering poor of this District, without distinction of race or color, in such sums or in such mode as may seem to him dshoainllgs be proper; and that he report his acts and under this act in detail to the next Congress.
Mr. CONRLING. I would like to know whether the Gentfrom Illinois will allow me to offer an amendment, that the sum so appropriated shall be embraced in the next tax levy of the city of Washington 2
Mr. INGERSOLL. I think it would be u.njust to impose this upon the tax payers of city. There are several 1,000 people
Mr. McKEE. I object to the introduction of the resolution. o:ingERSOLL. I move to suspend the rules.
The SPEAKER. Does the Gentfrom Massachusetts yield for that motion?
Mr. ROSS. I suggest to my colleague that he insert a like appropriation for the city of Peoria, Illinois.
The SPEAKER. before the House. REPORTS FROM CoxixiiTTEE ON COMMERCE.
Mr. ELIOT. Will my colleague yield to me?
Mr. ELIOT. I desire to say that there are several matters of public interest to be reported from the ComCommerce, among others the river and harbor appropriation] there has no opportunity offered for reports from that committee. I therefore ask that due week from next Saturday, after the morning hour, the ComCommerce may have an oto report; and in the mean time I am in hopes that the river and harbor bill will be reported and printed, in order that action may be had upon it at that time.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I object. o: LíðT. Then I move to suspend the rules.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. yield for that oongressional, priNTER. of the SPEAKER stated that the regular order business was the consideration of the bill eported on Saturday from the ComPrintg, providing for the election of a con. F. the pending question being upon Mr. TRIMBLE's motion to fay the bill on the table, upon which the yeas&nays had been ordered.
Mr. ELIOT. I move to postpone the regular order of business for one hour.
Skip Skip The question was put, and there were ayes 38, noes 61. Mr. PRICE demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. ELIoTand HUMPHREY were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 60, noes 38. So the consideration of the regular order of business was postponed for one hour. REPORTS FROM THE ComCommerce.
Mr. ELIOT. I now move to suspend the rules, so as to enable me to move that Saturday week be assigned for the consideration of reports from the ComCommerce.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Would it be in order for me to move to amend so as to include the ComBanking and currency? I do not know of any reason why this privilege should be extended to the ComCommerce and not to other committees.
The SPEAKER. It is not in order to move to amend a motion to suspend the rules.
Skip Skip The question was taken on the motion to suspend the rules; and there were ayes 80; noes not counted. The resolution is not I do not So the rules were suspended, 2/3rds of the members Present voting therefor.
Mr. ELIOT. I now move that Saturday next, after the morning hour, be set apart for the consideration of reports from the ComCommerce. The motion was agreed to. POOR OF THE DISTCOL.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to suspend the rules to enable me to introduce a JtResolution appropriating $25,000 for the relief of the poor of the DistCol.
Mr. LeBLOND. To have repeatedly objected to this resolution, and shall do so now unless the gentleman will embrace the mayors of the cities of Washington and Georgetown.
Mr. INGERSOLL. The mayor of the city of Washington does not desire to be one of the persons to distribute this fund.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were ayes 43, noes 53. So (2/3rds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the senate had agreed to the amendments of the House to the JtResolution of the Senate (S.R.No. 94) providing for the payment of certain Kentucky militia forces. ENRolled BILL ANDJtResolution signED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles, when the Speaker signed the Sanne: An act (S.No.433) for the relief of E. J. Curley; and aJtResolution (S.R.No. 94) providing for the payment of certain Kentucky militia forces. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. LYNCH. I move to suspend the rules to enable me to offer the following preamble and resolutions: Whereas the overthrow of the armedforces of rebellion left s the of Virginia, NCarolina, Sboaumtah, CLaoruoisliinaan, a, GeAorkrgainas, aFsl, oraindda, Mississippi, Ala; Texas “deprived of all civil government;” and whereas the governments now existing in those States, established by the POTUS consitutional sanction, and being under, have no consti the control and administration of the leadersof the rebellion, fail to afford to loyal citizens of the U.S. that protection to Resolvedw.Thhiacth they are entitled: Therefore. it is the duty of Congress immediately to establish such governmentsover those States as shall maintain the authority of ment, suppress violence, the national Govern establishorder, and protect all the citizens thereof in their lawful rights, to end the that they may as speedily as is the safetyof the consistentwith nation be restored to relations to the Union. their former Resolved.That in the formation of new State goveraments for those States all loyal citizens have a right to participate and should be protected in exercise of such rights by the national the Government.
Mr. LeBLOND. Do these resolutions come in on leave?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Maine moves to suspend the rules to enable him to offer them.
Mr. BINGHAM. Do not these resolutions go to the JtCom on Reconstruction without debate?
Mr. LYNCH. I move to suspend the rule which requires these resolutions to go to the JtCom on Reconstruction, together. with all other rules. that would prevent their being received and considered at this time.
The SPEAKER. That motion is in order, and if agreed to by a 2/3rds vote the resolutions will come before the House for consid: eration until rejected or adopted, or disposed of in some other way.
Skip SKip Mr. LeBLOND. I call for the yeas&nays upon suspending the rules. Yi. "ARNSWORTH. Let us take a vote by division 1st, Mr. LeBLOND. We may as well take the eas&nays at once; but if gentlemen desire iIt will withdraw my call for the yeas&nays and let the question be 1st taken by a division. The question was then taken upon suspending the rules; and upon a division, there were ayes 20. Before the noes were counted, Mr. LYNCH called for the yeas&nays. The question was taken upon ordering the yeas&nays; and upon a division, there were ayes 14. Before the noes were counted, Mr. LYNCH called for tellers upon ordering the yeas&nays. The question was taken; and there were ayes 22. So, there being in the affirmative one 5th of a quorum, tellers were ordered. Messrs. LYNch andingER soli, were appointed tellers. The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 25, noes 46. So (one 5th voting in the affirmative) the yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. THAYER. I rise to a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER. There is one privileged motion now pending the motion by the gen: Gentfrom Maine [Mr. LYNch] to suspend the rules in order to allow him to introduce the resolutions which have been read.,
Mr. THAYER. Is not another privileged motion in order?
The SPEAKER. A motion to adjourn would be in order.
Mr. THAYER. I desire to move to reconsider the vote by which the regular order was postponed for an hour.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can enter a motion to reconsider that vote, but it cannot now be acted upon, pending the motion to suspend the rules; for if that motion should be agreed to it would suspend the rule by which the subject referred to by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER) was made the regular order.
Mr. THAYER. I would inquire of the Chair if a suspension of the rules under this motion would bring the resolutions of the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. LYNCH] before the House for discussion and consideration at the Present time, to the exclusion of the regular business of the House?
The SPEAKER. That would be the effect of the motion if agreed to.
Mr. THAYER. Then I hope the rules will not be suspended.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative–yeas 60, nays 82, not voting 48; . So (2/3rds not voting in the affirmative) the rules were not suspended. REMOVAL OF NAVAL ACADEMY.
Mr. SCHENCK. I move to suspend the rules in order to enable me to offer a resolution for action at this time.
Mr. THAYER. I rise to a privileged motion; I move to reconsider the vote by which the regular order was postponed for an hour.
Mr. SCHENCK. ask the gentleman to hear my resolution read; I am not certain but Philadelphia is interested in it.
Mr. THAYER. I will hear the resolution read. The resolution was read, as follows: Resolved, That the ComNavAffrs be instructed to inquire into the propriety of an imme diate removal of the U.S. Naval Academ from its Present location in the State of Marylan to somepoint in a loyal State wherethe pupils in that institution will be secureagainstthe surrounding political and social influences hostile to the national Government, which now predominate at Annapolis; and that the committee report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. THAYER. I withdraw my motion to reconsider.
Mr. SCHENCK. I now move that the rules be suspended, in order to enable me to submit for consideration at the Present time the resolution which has just been read.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. On that motion I call for the o:&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. o
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 96, nays 36, not voting 48; So (2/3rds voting in favor thereof) the rruelceesivewde.re suspended, and the resolution was
Mr. SCHENCK., I demand the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. PAINE. With the consent of the Gentfrom Qhio, I, desire to propose an amendment to his resolution to strike out the words, “to inquire into the propriety of an immediate removal, ” and insert in lieu thereof the words “to report a bill providing for the immediate removal.”
Mr. PIKE. As a member of the ComNavAffrs, I hope that if this amendment be adopted the House will indicate to what place the Academy shall be removed.
Mr. SCHENCK. Some gentlemen around me ask me to modify my resolution by accepting the amendment which theo proposes. I cannot do this; yet I am perfectly willing that the House shall vote upon the amendment; indeed, I am rather inclined to vote for it myself. I will simply say that I have offered the resolution in good faith. I have seen too much of the social influences brought to bear upon officers and soldiers stationed in the midst of a community not sympathizing loyally with such officers and troops to wish to expose any longer these young cadets or pupils at the Naval Academy to the influences which by reason of their being educated at Annapolis may in juriously affect them as well as our future avy and the prosperity of the country.
Mr. PAINE. P. o not desire a separate vote on my amendment. Unless the Gentfrom Ohio will accept it I prefer that it should not be voted on.
Mr. SCHENCK. The opinions of members vary so much in reference to the amendment that I cannot accept it.
Mr. PAINE. Then I withdraw the amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. I renew the demand for the previous question.
Mr. oS. I ask the gentleman to with draw the call for the previous question.
Mr. SCHENCK. o will yield if the gentleman wishes simply to ask a question. I "o: do to open the subject for debate.
Mr. HARRIS. I do not wish to ask a question; I wish to debate the subject.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would like my colleague to inform us what particular necessity there is for the passage of this resolution. I for one have not heard any complaints on this subject, and I know no reason why we should adopt such a resolution.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I want to get the institution out of the political and social atmosphere which exists at Annapolis.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would like to offer an amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. I insist on the call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded; there being ayes 67, noes 40. The main question was ordered; which was upon agreeing to the resolution.
Mr. LeBLOND called for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. BINGHAM. I ask for a division of the question upon this resolution, so that the vote may be 1st taken upon that part of the resolution ending with the words “to some pointin a loyal State.”
The SPEAKER. This resolution cannot be divided. The rule declares that a resolution or motion may be divided “if it o: [. ”. in substance so distinct that, one being taken away, a substantive proposition shall remain for the decision of the?o The portion of the resolution following the words the gentleman has quoted would not be intelligible if standing alone.
Skip Skip The question was taken on the adoption of the resolution; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 108, nays 85, not voting 47;. So the resolution was adopted. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Mr. BINGHAM moved to suspend the rules, to enable him to submit the resolution: Resolved, That the SecyState be and is hereby respectfullyrequested to report to this House whatsnow rePresentedin Congresshave ratified the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the 39th Congress. The rules were suspended, and the resolution was received.
Skip Skip Mr. BINGHAM demanded the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Mr. CONKLING and Mr. BOUTWELL suggested that the resolution be modified so as to read “directed” instead of “respectfully requested.” Mr. BINGHAM accepted the modification. The resolution as modified was adopted. Mr. BINGHAM mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
Mr. NIBLACK. I ask unanimous consent for leave to submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComDistCol be, and is hereby, instructed, to report a bill conferring the elective chisewithin said district on all foreign born malepersonsover the age of 21 years, who are entitled to naturalization under existing laws, and who have resided one year within the District, and havedeclared their intention to becomecitizens of the U.S.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I object. PERE MARQUETTE HARBOR. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the SecyWar, transmitting, in response to a resolution of the House, a report of the chief of Engineers relative to the improvement of the harbors of Pentwater and Pere Marquette; which, on motion of Mr. FERRY, were referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. BILLS ALLOWred TO BECOME LAWS. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House the following letter from the SecyState.
The Clerk read as follows: DEPTof STATE, WASHINGTON, February 1, 1867. SIR: I have had the honor to receivean authentic ated copy of a preambleand resolution passedby the HoRep on yesterday, in which I am directed to inform, the House whether certain laws, to wit: one a bill “to repealsection 13 of ‘An act to supPressinsurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seizeand confiscatetheoof rebels, and for other Hifto. approved July 17, 1862, ”and another a franchise, bill “to regulatethe elective in the Territories of the U.S.:" which bills arereportedby the comEnrollBill to have been Presented to the POTUS respectively on the 9th and 12th ultimo. in my (this) Dept. In reply, I have respectfully to state that the 2 laws referred to in the resolution were this day filed in this Dept,;" with an accompanying note from Colonel William G. Moore, which note is as follows: ExECUTIve MANsiox, WASHINGron, D.C., anuary 31, 1867. SIR: I am directed by the President to you transmit to an act to repeal section 13 of an act to suppress insurrection, to lion, punish treason and rebel to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for, other, purposes, approved July 17, 1862;and an act to regulate the elective franchise in the territories of the U.S. Thesebills were presented to the President for his approval, and have not been returned by him to the House in which they originated within the time Prescribed by the Constitution of the U.S. Having therefore become laws, they are transmitted to you for such further proceedings as the laws of require. the U.S. bave the honor to be. veryoyour obedient servant, WILLIAM G. MOORE, U.S. Army. To Hon. WILLIAM H. SEwARD, SecyState. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, WiLLIAM. SEWARD, To Hon. SCHUYLER Colfax, Speaker of the HoRep.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I move that the communication be printed and referred to the ComEnrollBill. The motion was agreed to. CONGRESSIONAL PRINTER. The SPEAKER stated as the next business in order the consideration of the bill reported last Saturday by the chairman of the ComPrintg, providing for the election of a Congressionak Printer, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. TRIMBLE to lay the bill on the table, on which the yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. LAFLIN. I ask our friends on the other side of the House if they are not willing to have the vote taken by yeas&nays on the passage of the bill at once instead of having them taken on the motion to lay it on the table.
Mr. TRIMBLE. My object was to have the &nays on the question as a test vote. suppose if it is taken on laying the bill on the table that will be a test vote.
The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the gentleman to insist upon his motion.
Skip Skip The question was taken on laying the bill on the table; and it was decided in the negative yeas 32, nays 109, not voting 49; So the bill was not laid on the table. The bill was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. LAFLIN mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. CIVIL SERVICE. The SPEAKER announced as the next business in order the consideration of bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof, on which Mr. Schenck was entitled to the floor.
Mr. SCHENCK. I yield to the chairman of the ComJudiciary, who desires to make a report. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I rise to make a jo. report. In accordance with leave ranted by the House, I report back from the ComJudiciary House bill No. 859, to declare valid and conclusive certain proclamations of the President and acts done in pursuance thereof, or of his orders, in supPression of the late rebellion against the '. I do not propose to consider this bill until the pending special orders, namely, the civil service bill and the bill equalizing bounties reported by the Gentfrom Ohio are disposed of.
The SPEAKER. Those are pending by unanimous consent, and therefore take precedence of the bill reported by the Gentfrom Iowa.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I give the House notice that this will come up after those are disposed of. COMMON SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the ComPrintg, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:. Resolved, That 1,000 copies of the various bills to establish a system of common, schools in District the of of the Houseeo.lumbia be printed togetherfor the use TARIFF BILL.
Mr. LAFLIN also, from the same committee, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That 2,000 extra copies of the amendmentsof the Senate to the tariff bill beprinted for the useof the House. CIVIL SERVICE REPORT.
Mr. LAFLIN also, from the same committee, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That 2,000 extra copies of the report of the joint sciect Committee on the Civifser. tvhiceeHoofutshee. U.S. be printed for the use of LAND OFFICE REPORT.
Mr. LAFLIN also, from the same committee, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Joesolved, That 10,000 copies of the report of the ComrGLO 202, with the separateand connectedmaps, and the balance with the connectedmap only, beprinted for the use of the llouse.
Mr. LAFLlN moved to reconsider the several votes just taken; on the table. agreed to. WISIT OF AGASSIZ, TO BRAZIL.
Mr. BANKS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the POTUS be requested to communicate to this House, if in opinion his it can be doneowith the public interest, a copy of every official correspondence which may have taken place respecting the recent visit to Brazil, for scientific purposes, of Louis Agassiz. Professor FORTIFICATION BILL.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union on the special order. The motion was agreed to. So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union (Mr. PoMERoy in the chair) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being bill of the House No. 919, making appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, the pending question being upon the following amendment offered by Mr. $o. For commencement of 2 additional forts for the defense of purchase Portland harbor, Maine, including the of sites, $150,000.
Mr. SCHENCK. As direct reference has been made by my colleague [Mr. SPALDING] to the action of the ComMilAffrs in connection with this subject, I will reply to him, though in but few words. The gentleman is right in regard to one portion of his statement, and entirely wrong in another. He says that if this amendment shall prevail it is the purpose of the ComMilAffrs to follow it up with other propose amendments to the bill. He is wrong in saying we shall follow up this amendment, by proposing as amendments all the other items for which estimates have been made.
Mr. SPALDING. With perhaps one excention. "
Mr. STEVENS. I may be mistaken, but my recollection is that the item now proposed to be inserted is not embraced in the estimates from the Pedept, to Mr. SCHENCK. It is estimated for, and is one of the 5 items which the ComMilAffrs agreed to recommend. My colleague [Mr. SPALDING] has satisfied himself by examination that he was mistaken in supposing these items were not estimated for, as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] can by an examination of those estimates. Now, one word more in reply to my colleague. He asks if this is a scheme to approF. money for a new system of defenses. ot so; but it is to make additional defenses to those which we now have at points where additional defenses are needed; to extend the Present system, not to abolish it or substitute anything for it. With this explanation of the manner in which these matters are Presented, the conclusions of the War Dept approving and recommending to our consideration the items asked for, and of the action of the ComMilAffrs upon them which was, as the gentleman must be advised, a discriminating action, for they rejected one portion of the recommendation and approved the other with this explanation I am ready to submit this question to this committee.
Mr. po. On page 86 of the official estimates will be found this among other items: haFrobrort, w$ola5dod,0itoio0n.al fortsfor the defenseof Portland The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING) very kindly corrected the error into which he fell in that respect.
Mr. SPALDING. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I renew the amendment. I corrected the Gentfrom Ohio when he made the statement before as my colleague has done now. It is evident that the gentleman had not examined the question very carefully, for he denied on the former occasion that there were any estimates made for these fortifications. I wish simply to say, Mr. Chairman, that lans and estimates for these works were made in 1861 by a board of engineers appointed by the SecyWar. They found at Portland harbor 3 forts one commenced some ten years since, the other 2 being old fortifications and entirely useless against modern vessels of war with modern armaments. These are an inner line of fortifications, constructed for the purpose of guarding the main channel to Portland harbor. But outside of these fortifications and outside of their range there is a high island behind which vessels can lie protected from the range of the old fortifications and shell not only the vessels in the harbor but the city itself. The board of engineers determined therefore that it was necessary to have other works. A large amount of money has been expended upon the old fortifications; yet they are entirely useless against modern war vessels unless an outer line of fortifications be constructed in accordance with the plan reported at that time. I wish the House to understand that this is not a new matter brought forward now for the 1st time. It is a part of the system of fortifications determined upon in 1861. With these remarks, as the matter has already been fully explained, I leave the question.
Mr. HILL. I desire to inquire of the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. LYNCH] whether he knows of any estimates having been made by competent parties as to the entire cost of these proposed fortifications. This proposition is to appropriate $150,000 to begin with. Now, I would like to know what amount it is going to take to end this matter; how much we may expect to appropriate for this purpose before we get through.
Mr. LYNCH. I cannot answer that question. I do not know what is to be the entire cost of these fortifications. I suppose that with these, as other fortifications, the engineer dept estimates the amount necessary to commence them; and the work goes on from year to year until completed.
Mr. HILL. Then, for all this House knows, the erection of these fortifications may involve an expenditure of 5 or ten million dollars.
Mr. LYNCH. Isuppose that the engineer dept and the War Dept assume that it is necessary to protect our cities and harbors, cost whatever it may; that they report in favor of such works as will be effective for that purpose, the cost being a 2ndary consideration. The gentleman, I suppose, will not take the ground that if a fortification is necessary in order to protect our coast he ought to vote against it, even if it cost $10,000,000. I submit that the only question in such a case as this is whether the work is absolutely necessary; it is not a question of cost.
Mr. Chairman, I desire to say in reply to the Gentfrom Maine, that am not disposed to be niggardly upon the subject of fortifications; but I do think that before gentlemen bring in here propositions for the appropriation of 100s of 1000s of dollars to begin a work, it is due to this House that they should take some steps to ascertain what it will probably cost to complete the work.
Mr. LYNCH. I would inform the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HiLL] that “gentlemen” of this House did not bring this matter here. It is brought to our attention by the Government, within whose charge this matter comes" It is not proposed by any individual member of the House, but by a committee acting on the recommendation of the SecyWar.
Mr. HILL. I beg leave to say that when I spoke of “gentlemen bringing in propositions” I did not mean to make any reflection upon the Gentfrom Maine: I jo', meant to refer to the persons concerned in bringing this forward, whether members of this House or connected with any other dept of the Government.
Mr. PAINE. I will state for the information of the Gentfrom Indiana and other members, that one very i. reason why no member of the committee has Presented a statement of the cost of this work is that up to this time no detailed plan and no estimate of the expense have been made by the War Dept itself.
Mr. LYNCH, by unanimous consent, with drew his amendment.
Mr. KASSON. I move in line 3 to insert the following: For repairing and enlarging Fort Porter, at Rock, Black NewYork, $50,000 For Fort Niagara, $100,000. For Fort Knox, Penobscotriver, Maine, $75,000. For Fort Preble, Portland harbor, Maine, $150,000. For Fort McClary, Portsmouth, NewHampshire, 100,000. soFort Independence, Boston, Massachusetts, for 2 forts for the defense of Narragansett bay. RhdIsland, $100,000. For newbattery at Fort Hamilton, NewYork, $80,000. For modificationsof Forts LaFayetteand Columbus. CGaibsstolenW, illiam, South Battery, Fort Wood, and Fort NewYork harbor, $300,000. For purchaseand repairs of instruments, $10,000.
Mr. Chairman, these are for works already commenced. The committee were led to suppose, by a misplacement of the estimates, that these were for new works, but as they are not they are now offered.
Skip Skip The committee divided; and there were ayes 27, noes 45; no quorum voting. The CHAIRMAN, under the rule, ordered tellers; and appointed Mr. KAssoN and Mr. CoNKLING. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported ayes 34, noes 65. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BERGEN. I move the following amendment, to come in after line 38: For draining Government lands at Fort Haruilton. NewYork, . Niagara river, NewYork. o, of go: & Mr. Chairman, there is a large extent of land near Fort Hamilton, NewYork, which is swampy and unhealthy and ought to be drained. The State of NewYork passed a law for draining low lands at the expense of the land holders. I submit it is as just and proper for the U.S. to pay for the of the low lands belonging to it. These low lands give rise to fever and ague, and they ought to be drained, if for no other consideration than the Preservation of the health of the garrison always kept at Fort Hamilton. The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SCHENCK. I move now to insert the other items of which I gave notice. In the E. disposition of the House I will not divide them, but offer them as a whole: For commencement of an additional fort for defense of Portsmouth harbor, NewHampshire, including purchaseof site, $75,000. For commencement of a fort on LongIsland head, Boston harbor, $75,000. IslFaonrd, continuation of the sea wall on Governor's NewYork harbor, $100,000. For cominencementof a fort at Point SanJosee, SanFrancisco harbor, California, $50,000. If any gentleman desires a division of the question he can ask for a vote upon them separately. I offer them as one amendment.
Mr. SPALDING. All together. The amendment was disagreed to.
Mr. MAYNARD. It seems to me this is an indirect mode of getting at a number of private claims. It seems that the Government during the war found it necessary to take possession of individual property, and this is a mode by which they can be paid, without getting the action of Congress directly to pay them. We are not informed where these sites are or how much land is expected to be purchased. In other words, it is throwing the whole matter over, nominally, to the War Dept, but actually to some subordinate officer, who will dispose of the public, money according to his ideas of what is. between the Government and the owner of the property. That is a mode of disposing of the public money which has been found to be unsatisfactory heretofore, and I would respectfully submit to the chairman of the ComMilAffrs whether we had not better have some information before we make the appropriation. It strikes me this is a great deal like buying a pig in a poke.
Mr. SCHENCK. The argument Presented by my friend is veryingenious, but it has one defect: it does not conform to the facts. That I consider rather fatal to it. He thinks this is a mode of paying private claimants. They have asked nothing of the sort. They have not even offered for sale, nor ';it certain that they will sell this property. But the facts are simply these, as the gentleman would have heard if he had paid attention to my statement: these sites have been taken possession of during the war for the supPression of the rebellion. They are found to be admirably adapted to the defense of the coast in case of attack. Tem porary earthworks have been constructed upon them. Those earthworks we have no right to hold. We took possession of the land in a summary way, and the land will now revert to the owners, and these earthworks, some of which are considerable and important struct ures, will necessarily go to decay. They will be washed down or plowed up and will disappear. The War Dept, inasmuch as they have found these to be eligible sites for these works, and as they will be the same at any other time when the country is engaged in a war, proposes to purchase the sites. The amount to be paid, as I have already remarked, will probably be less than the owner would claim for rent and damages. But the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARDJ is mistaken in supposing that the appropriation is made for the purpose of paying these claims. The purchase is recommended because of the intrinsic value of the sites themselves for the objects of the Governmentin making a defense of the coast. The gentleman is therefore mistaken, howeveringenious his argument may be, in put ting it upon the ground that this appropriation is designed for the payment of private claims.
Mr. STEVENS. Can the gantleman inform us where this property lies?
Mr. SCHENCK. Some of these sites are on the Delaware river, below Newcastle; some on the coast of Maryland, and some further north. A number of the most valuable are on the Delaware river, commanding bends of that river and the approaches to Philadelphia. It is not intended that there shall be fortifications there, and they will F.never be used in that way. It is simply intended to secure them for the purposes of defense in some way here after by making this purchase and taking care of the fortifications now constructed, and to prevent them from being washed away and disappearing, as they will if the land passes back to the owners of the property.
Mr. MAYNARD. "I do not wish to act under a misapprehension of facts, nor I do desire to do any injustice. Can the gentleman tell us whether these parties have already received any compensation?
Mr. SCHENCK. I think not. There were some cases where the ground was occupied under, a contract either exPress or implied, and where the QuarterMGen has settled with the parties; but as a general rule the claims are still outstanding.
Mr. MAYNARD. Does the gentleman suppose that these claims will not at some time be Presented either here or at the War Dept?.
Mr. SCHENCK. I think they will; indeed I think some of them have been Presented now, but I think this will be a summary way of getting rid of them. I am willing that the gentleman shall move an amendment off that this payment shall be held to exclude al such claims.
Mr. MAYNARD. I think it would be a very summary mode of disposing of these cases. Isuppose there are 1000s of cases all over the country where it has been found necessary to build forts at very great expense, and where the necessary land has been taken, and in some instances where very valuable houses have been destroyed. And I suspect that the owners of such.who find themselves unexpectedly the owners of forts, will come to the War Dept and urge their claims for damages. [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. SCOFIELD. I rise to what I believe to be a privileged motion. I move to strike out the enacting words of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not in order in ComWhole; it must be made in the House.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I trust the Chair will reconsider the decision. I understand that a motion to strike out the enacting clause is always in order in ComWhole, and that if it prevail it has the effect of defeating the bill,
The CHAIRMAN. It can only be made after the comittee has gone through with the bill. The committee is now engaged in perfecting the bill by claims.
Mr. MORRILL. I desire to offer an amendment to this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Upon further reflection the Chair is of opinion that the motion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] to strike out the enacting words of the bill is in order.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I will withdraw my motion long enough to allow the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] to offer his amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. I o: the pending amendment must 1st be disposed of.
The CHAIRMAN. There is an amendment already pending, offered by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. ScheNCK] When that amendment shall have been disposed of, the question will be taken upon the motion to strike out.the enacting words of the bill.
Mr. SCHENCK. I move to amend the amendment by adding $1,000 to the appropriation. I do so for the purpose of o reply to the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] who persists in the idea that this is a scheme for paying claimants, that I want him to understand that this appropriation is proposed simply because these sites are held the Government to be valuable for purposes of the Government. The gentleman complains that there are persons in Tennessee and elsewhere, who have had their farms occupied for forts, who are Presenting claims which will not be paid in. way. Now, I propose this to the gentleman in order to compromise our differences; I aver that it is necessary along the coast to secure the sites that have been occupied during this war by the Government, with a view to a war with a foreign country; and that to say the least of it there is a possibility of our having a war with some other country. Now, if the gentleman will rise in his place here and say that he believes it is equally important for the Government to keep and hold the sites for forts in Tennessee and elsewhere, because he apprehends the secessionists will undertake to fight the Government again, perhaps I may go with him to hold those sites. But I do not believe the secessionists will again fight, and therefore I do not believe it is necessary to secure those sites to enable the country the better to carry on war against another rebellion. I believe we may have war with a foreign Government, but never again with rebels.
Mr. MAYNARD. I will rise in my place and say that I concur with the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SchENck] in the belief that there is no necessity for keeping forts in the interior with a view to another rebellion. I also believe there is precisely as much necessity for keeping them for that purpose as for keeping these earthworks on the Atlantic coast in view of a war with any foreign nation.
Mr. SCHENCK. There seems, then, to be only a difference of opinion between us in regard to whether we may or may not have a foreign war. I do not suppose there can be any difference of opinion between us in regard to another rebellion. I now withdraw my amendment to the amendment. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. SchENck, and it was not agreed to.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I now move to strike out the enacting clause of this bill, in order to test the sense of this committee upon the merits of this bill. For myself I have come to the conclusion, after hearing the bill discussed some what, that neither the convenience of the country nor the wants of the country demand the large expenditure of money which is conoby this bill.
Mr. MORRILL. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] yield to me for a moment?
Mr. MORRILL. I am opposed to the motion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania for the reason that I desire to offer the following amendment to this bill: Provided, That not more than 1/2 of the several sumsherein appropriated shall be expended during the year ending June 30, 1868
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I would inquire of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania if he insists upon his motion to strike out the enacting clause of this bill?
Mr. SCOFIELD. Certainly; I insist upon my motion.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Then no amendment is in order.
Mr. MORRILL., I desire to oppose the motion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania because I wish to offer the amendment I have read. We have already rejected appropriations as meritorious as any contained in this bill. If any bill for fortifications should pass, clearly those items of appropriation which have been omitted from this bill should be included. My own judgment is that we should reduce the whole appropriations 1/2 at least. I understand that the amounts named in the bill are not less than $3,000,000. Now, I am unwilling that we shall entirely suspend these operations where work has already been commenced, and where it would be about as expensive for the Government to take care of them and repair damages as to go on and complete them. I hope that the House will come to the conclusion to appropriate for expenditure during the next fiscal year 1/2 of the Famounts.proposed by the Committee on apand recommended by the War dept. yield to the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] the remainder of my time.
Mr. KASSON. I want to suggest to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Scoriel D] that he withhold his motion till the bill has been gone through with and perfected, so far as we may be able to do it by amendments. With the bill in that condition I think his motion could be voted upon much more satisfactorily.
Mr. Chairman, I think we may as well test at this time as any other the sense of the House upon this bill. If the bill embraces some meritorious features, as the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] seems to think, these should have been carefully sifted out by the committee and embraced in a bill by themselves. The committee can, if it deem proper, report them in a future bill. I believe that this bill as a whole will, if passed, involve a wasteful expenditure of the public money not justified by the Present condition of our finances.
Mr. KASSON. 1,960,000 dollars, nearly 2 million dollars, of the appropriations estimated for and recommended by the Depts are not em. braced in this bill. The bill as reported by the ComAppropriat does not embrace 1/2 of the estimates.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that a bill so long as this cannot be entirely bad; but taken in the aggregate it seems to me to involve such large and unjustifiable exend.itures that I desire to test the sense of the upon it at this time.
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the Chair please state the effect of the proposition of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania? The CBIAIRMAN. Rule 123 states that “Whenever a bill is reported from a ComWhole, with a recommendationto strike out dthiseagerneaecdting words, and such recommendation is to by the House, the bill shall stand recommitted to the said committee without further action by the House.” If the recommendation is agreed to by the House, then the bill isj On agreeing to the motion of Mr. Scofield, to strike out the enacting clause of the bill, there were ayes 58, noes 40. So the motion was agreed to.
Mr. BRANDEGEE. I move that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Pome Roy reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly House bill No. 919, making appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1868, and had directed him to report the same with a recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union and resume the consideration of the President's message. There are several gentlemen who have been waiting for some time an opportunity to deliver speeches.
Mr. HILL. o: that the House adjourn. On the motion there were ayes 58, noes 45.
Mr. MORRILL called for tellers. Tellers were ordered: and Messrs. MoRRILL and SPALDING were appointed.
Skip Skip The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 59, noes not counted. So the motion was agreed to; and the House (at 4 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m.) adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. TUEsday, February 5, 1867. Prayer by Rev. T. R. HowLETT, of Washington, DistCol. On motion of Mr. WILSON, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with. executive COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a report of the SecyInterior, communicating, in obedience to a resolution of the Senate of the 30th of Jan uary, information in relation to the late massacre of U.S. troops by Indians at or near Fort Phil. Kearney, in Dakota Territory.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move that that communication and accompanying documents be referred to the ComIndAffrs, and printed.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest that a similar communication from the SecyWar has been referred to the ComMilAffrs.
Mr. HENDERSON. It should have gone to the ComIndAffrs.
Mr. WILSON. If that be the case I move that the ComMilAffrs be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, and that it be referred to the ComIndAffrs,
Mr. HENDERSON. Let them both be referred to the ComIndAffrs and printed.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That order will be made if there be no objection.
Mr. GRIMES, from the ComNavAffrs, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.509) to amend certain acts in relation to the Navy, reported it with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 843) for the relief of Rufus C. Spalding, paymaster in the U.S. Navy, reported it without amendment. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Cincinnatus W. Harper and Clarence C. Harper, children and heirs at law of the late John Harper, deceased praying for compensation for the use and occupation of their land by the U.S. Government, in the county of Norfolk and State of Virginia, for hospital and navy yard purposes, submitted an adverse report, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject; which was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 903) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the U.S. for the year ending June 30, 1868, reported it with amendments.
Mr. ROSS, from the ComPrintg, to whom was referred a motion to print the memorial of the officers and managers of the National Association for the Relief of Destitute Colored Women and Children, praying for such action as may secure them from loss in a lawsuit instituted against them by Richard S. Coxe, and protect them in their pursuits while carrying out the objects of the association, reported in favor of printing the memorial.
Mr. VANWINKLE, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred the petition of Jacob Shave r and Albert C. Corse, prayin for compensation for past use and purchase o an invention for post marking and cancellation of postage stamps on letters patent by and pat ented to Marcus P. Norton, of Troy, NewYork, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComPostOffices; which was agreed to. HENRY E. Morse.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I am instructed by the ComPensions, to whom was referred a bill (S.No.538) for the relief of the widow and children of Henry E. Morse, to report it back with a recommendation that it pass, and as it is a bill making provision for a very des titute widow, I ask : its Present consideration. By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill. It directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Mrs. Marion W. Morse, widow of Henry E. Morse, late a private of company G, 9th Vermont volunteers, on the pension roll at the rate of 8 dollars per month, to commence September 23, 1863, and also to allow to their mine r children under 16 years of age the amount given by law to the mine r children of widows entitled to pensions. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. BILLs introduced.
Mr. DAVIS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce, a bill (S.No.565) authorizing the circuit and district courts of the U.S. to remit or mitigate forfeitures, fines, and disabilities accruing in certain cases; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance.
Mr. TRUMBULL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.566) to enable States to select swamp and overflowed lands within their limits, omitted to be selected under the act of Congress of 28th September, 1850; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the 'ComPubLands.
Mr. HENDERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.567) to authorize and provide for the construction of a military and postal road from Galveston, in the State of Texas, to Fort Gibson, in the Indian Territory, with a branch to Little Rock, in Arkansas; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPacificRR. TRAINS ON THE OVERLAND ROUTE.
Mr. MORRILL submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the SecyWar be directed to communicate to the Senate whether any order has been issued by Lieutenant GenlSherman in regard to the protection of trains on theOverlandroute, socalled, and if so, what. CHARLESTown NAVY YARD.
Mr. SUMNER submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComNavAffrs be instructed to inquire into the recenttransactions at the navy yard at Charlestown, and, oas certain if through negligence or design, anyship has been sent to sea or is now about to be sent to with rotten planks or timbers, sea so as to endanger its safety. PROCEEDS FROM COTTON SALES.
Mr. WILSON submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyTreasury be directed to report for the information of Congress what amount of moneyhas beenreceivedfrom sales of cotton or other property turned over to ury Dept the Treas under the severallaws of Congress, and what disposition has been madeof the same whether any of themoney has beenpaid or refunde to claimants, and if so, the namesof such claimants, itthye amountsseverally paid, and under what author of law and upon what evidencesuch payments have been made. soldiens' discil ARGE PAPERs.
Mr. KIRKWOOD submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved. That the ComMilAffrs the Militia be instructed to inquire what further legislation, if any, is necessaryfor the reliof of sooldiers and, sailors, who have lost their discharge and that said committeehave leave to report y bill or otherwise.
Skip Skip Ibill, S BECOME LAWS. A message from the POTUS, by Mr. W. G. MooRE, his Secretary, announced that the President had approved and signed on the 31st of January the following bills: A bill (S.No.16) for the relief of Josiah O. Armes; A bill (S.No.253) to incorporate the 1st Congregational Society of Washington; A bill (S.No.380) to incorporate the Washington County Horse Railroad Company in the DistCol; A bill (S.No.410) for the relief of Solomon P. Smith; A bill (S.No.446) for the relief of George W. Fish; A bill (S.No.454) for the relief of Matilda Harmon, of the county of Greene and State of Tennessee, widow of Jacob Harmon; A bill (S.No.455) for the relief of Barbara Frye, widow of Henry Frye; A bill (S.No.479) for the relief of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased; and A bill (S.No.511) for the relief of Mrs. Mary E. Finney, widow of 1st Lieutenant Solon H. Finney, late of the 6th regiment Michigan cavalry. _o The message further announced that the President had approved and signed on the 5th of February the following bills: A bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions; A bill (S.No.218) exempting certain property of debtors in the DistCol from levy, attachment, or sale on execution; all d A bill (S.No.479) to punish illegal voting in the DistCol, and for other purposes. CLAIMS IN INSURRECTIONARY STATES,
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate Kro.ceed to the consideration of House, bill 902. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (H.R.No. 902) to declare the sense of an act entitled “An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermasters' stores and subsistence sup: lie.s"furnished to the Army of the U.S. It proposes that the provisions of chapter 240 of the acts of the 38th Congress, 1st session, approved July 4, 1864, shall not be construed to authorize the settlement of any claim for supplies or stores taken or furnished for the use of, or used by the armies of the U.S., nor for the occupation of or injury to real estate, nor for the consumption, appropriation, or destruction of or damage to personal oby the military authorities or troops of the States, where such claim originated during the war for the supPression of the southern rebellion in a State declared in insurrection by a proclamation of the POTUS, or in a State which by an ordinance of secession attempted to withdraw from the U.S. Government; but nothing herein contained is to repeal or modify the effect of the JtResolution of Congress passed July 28, 1866, extending the provisions of the act of jui 4, 1864, to the loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee. The ComJudiciary reported the bill with various amendments. The 1st amendment was in line 13, after the word “State, ” to insert “ or part of a State;” so as to read “in a State or part of a State declared in insurrection.”
Mr. HOWE. I wish to suggest to the Senfrom Illinois whether a better form of exPression would not be, “in a State which or any part of which was declared to be inrebellion.”. ”
Mr. HOWE. Very well; I will not urge the point just now.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in line 14, to strike out “a” and insert “the, ” and in line 15 to insert “dated July 1, 1862;” so as to read, “declared in insurrection by the proclamation of the President dated July 1, 1862.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest to the Senfrom Maryland that there are other amendments of the committee not yet passed upon.
Mr. JOHNSON. I will postponemy amendment until they are passed upon.
The Secretary read the next amendment of the ComJudiciary, which was in lines 19 and 20 to strike out the words “the JtResolution of Congress passed July 28, 1866, ” and insert “any act or JtResolution;” so as to read: That nothing herein contained shall repeal or modify the effect of any act or JtResolution extending the provisions of the said act of July 4, 1864, to the loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee.
Mr. FOWLER. Do I understand that the committee propose to strike out the provision as to the JtResolution of July 28, 1866?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment proposes to strike out certain words and insert other words in lieu of them.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I will state to the senator, from Tennessee that it leaves the JtResolution in relation to Tennessee in full operation.
Mr. FOWLER. That is all I wished to now.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It only alters the language so as to bring in WestVirginia, too.
Mr. FOWLER. I have no objection to the amendment.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment of the committee was to insert after “Tennessee” at the end of the bill the words “ or of the State of WestVirginia or any county therein.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendments reported by the committee having been disposed of the question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Maryland.
Mr. JOHNSON. My amendment is to insert after “ 1862, ” in line 15, the words “ or which at the time the property was taken was within the military occupation of the U.S and so remained to the close of the T.
Mr. JOHNSON. I was aware that the honorable member was in favor of paying all claims of this description made by men who were loyal at the time the claims originated, and I supposed because he was in favor of that principle that he would not object to the amendment which I suggest. Now, as I understand the action of the commissary and quartermaster’s depts, independent of i. what the honor member states, they have held that under the act which this bill proposes to explain and construe no claim of a loyal citizen could be aid if his State as a State was declared to F. in rebellion by the President's proclamation. This bill does not confirm that ruling, if I understand it. They supposed that excepting from the proclamation declaring a State to be in insurrection any portion of the State still left the claimant without remedy, because the parts excepted were a part of the State declared to be in rebellion. Now, this bill provides that claims due to persons that were residing in a part of a State excepted from the proclamation of insurrection did not fall at all within the true meaning of the original act. The Senate, I am sure, are aware that in the very proclamation referred to specifically in the amendment of the ComJudiciary to this bill various counties in Virginia were excepted from the operation of the proclamation.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Not one that is not in WestVirginia.
Mr. WILSON. I have opposed the payment of these claims when the F. been brought up here, and opposed the bill which was before us at the last session of Congress. I agree with what has been said by the Senfrom Pennsylvania, and have prepared a measure which I intend to move as an amendment to the bill which was before us at the last session whenever it shall come up. That proposition, which I have drawn approvides for the appointment of a commission for each one o these States to make the examination now, under Prescribed rules, and regulations, and lay the facts before Congress and the country. V hope such action will;. taken, for I agree that that is a question which we should meet, and meet now, so as to know precisely what we have got to do, for as time goes on these claims will increase. This, however, is simply a measure to prevent money being paid out until we have some general policy. I hope, therefore, the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Maryland will not be adopted, and that no money will be paid out in the rebel States for these claims at Present, but that Congress will adopt a general plan by which we can do justice to the really loyal men in that section of country and prevent the millions of frauds that will be attempted. The amendment was rejected. The bill was reported to the Senate, as amended, and the amendments made as in ComWhole were concurred in. It was ordered that the amendments be engrossed and the bill read a 3rd time. The bill was read the 3rd time.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Upon the passage of the bill I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were not ordered. The bill was passed. ORDER OF BUSINESS,
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HAR RIs in the Chair.) The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday, which is the bankrupt bill.
Mr. WADE. I move to postpone that bill and all prior orders, and proceed to the consideration of the JtResolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. imposing a restriction upon the Presidential term.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Letus finish the bankrupt bill 1st.
Mr. WADE. We shall never finish it as we are going on.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think we can finish it today.
Mr. POLAND. I hope this motidh will, not prevail. I think in all fairness I am entitled to have the bill now before the Senate considered and finished. I think the Constitution will keep for one day longer.
Mr. WADE. I suppose the Constitution will keep a good many days just as it is, but I do not think it is the best way to have it continued. Now this bankrupt bill has passed the House; it is here, and can probably be finished, though I do not know about that. Yesterday we were all day upon it, and I believe took no votes upon it at all, and I do not suppose we shall today, for theingenuity of men can invent as many fancies over a bill as they please, and they debate each one for a day and no progress is made. But as it is a measure that has passed the House, there is no doubt about its passage here at some time during the session; it probably will be finished when the time comes that we cannot talk any longer upon it. The JtResolution which I propose to take up, however, has got to pass i. bodies, if it is to be acted upon at this session. I do not believe, from what I understand by conversing with many members, that it will lead to very much delay or debate. I believe it meets the approbation of almost every senator, and has no relation to any party matter whatever. I am very anxious to have it taken o and passed upon now, because most, if not all of the State Legislatures are in session, and if we delay it for other business they will have adjourned and the thing will have to lie along a great while. I hope the Senate will consent to take it up and pass it without debate. I promise myself to make no speech about it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I really hope that this bankrupt bill will not be interfered with. We have had it o under consideration for several and have now almost got through with it. When the Senator says that we made no prog ress yesterday I think he is mistaken. I think there was a great deal of progress made. We acted on all the remaining amendments of the committee and took several votes, but did not quite finish the bill. I think it may be finished today. In my opinion it is very poor policy to follow”up a measure almost to completion and then drop it for some new measure, which will undoubtedly create considerable discussion. As to the State Legislatures, they will be in session longer than we shall, undoubt edly. They sit ordinarily later than the 4th. of March, so that there will be time enough to act on this other question. But my great objection is in regard to the mode of doing business. We had better finish one thing at a time, especially when an important measure is under consideration. I hope we shall finish the bankrupt bill, and then I shall have no objection to proceeding with the other meas. alte. “
Mr. WADE. I am perfectly satisfied that if we do not take up this JtResolution now the Senator will come in in a day or 2 with his financial measures, that every thing else must give place to, of course, and in my opin.we do not take it up now it will get the o py.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques.tion is on the motion to postpone the bankrupt bill and all prior orders, and take up Senate JtResolution No. 33, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.
Mr. WADE. I ask for the yeas&nays on that motion. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. SUMNER. As the yeas&nays are ordered, I desire to make one remark. "I am as earnest for the proposition of the Senfrom Ohio as he can be. It ought to be adopted, and I do not allow yoff to doubt that it will be adopted. But I agree with the Senfrom Maine. We are already launched in one important business; let us get through with it. f think we can go through with it to day. Let us finish the bankrupt bill, and then : up the proposition of the Senfrom 10. There is another reason why we should proceed with the bankrupt bill in preference to the proposition of the Senfrom Ohio. A constitutional amendment does not need the signature of the POTUS We may, therefore, act upon that proposition even down to the last day, whereas an act of legislation does require the signature of the President. There is a difference between the 2 cases.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to say that I will vote on some other occasion to take up this resolution. Yesterday, however, when we adjourned, it was understood among members that today was to be given to the Senfrom Vermont for the conclusion of his bill. I consider myself, having acquiesced then, bound in good faith to stand by that understanding. Tomorrow, or any other occasion when it is proper, I will vote with the Senfrom Ohio to take up his resolution. I think it is a very important and very interesting measure, and I desire to propose some additional provisions to it, for which, when the time arrives, I shall ask the attention and discussion of the Senate.
Mr. WADE. If the friends of the JtResolution think that it had better go over I shall not quarrel with them about it; and if I may be permitted to do Iso will withdraw the call for the yeas&nays, and also the motion to take it up; but I give notice that I shall Press it tomorrow if this bankrupt bill is out of the way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion can be withdrawn by the unanimous consent of the Senate. The Chair hears no objection, and the motion is withdrawn.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills and JtResolutions, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: A bill (H.R.No. 1130) to amend section 12, chapter 229 of the laws of the 1st session of the 39th Congress; A bill (H.R.No. 1131) to authorize the SecyWar to convey certain lots in Harper's Ferry, WestVirginia; A bill (H.R.No. 942) donating a portion of the Fort Leavenworth military reservation for the exclusive use of a public road; A bill (H.R.No. 1125) granting an additional pension to Samuel Downing, one of the last surviving soldiers of the revolutionary war; A bill (H.R.No. 1127) to fix the pay of poor the sergeant of the battalion of ngineers; A bill (H.R.No. 1128) to authorize the payment of prize money to certain officers and enlisted men of the Signal corps of the Army; A bill ( H.R.No. 1129) providing for the issue of certificates of service to officers and soldiers of volunteers; A JtResolution (H.R.No. 261) for the relief of Stephen E. Jones; A JtResolution (H.R.No. 262) for the payment of F. Captain James Kelley, 16th States infantry; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 263) for the purchase of Davids island, NewYork harbor. BANKRUPT BILI. The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 598) to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the U.S., the pending question being on the motion of Mr. HEND Ricks to strike out the proviso to the 30 7th section.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand that the Senator having the bankrupt bill in charge desires to amend the proviso which I moved to strike out yesterday evening, and with the permission of the Senate, in order to. allow to move his amendment, I will withdraw the motion which I made to strike out the proviso.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion of the Senfrom Indiana is withdrawn.
Mr. POLAND. I will move an amendment to this 37th section, which I think will obviate the objection which was made by the Senfrom Indiana, and also the objection of the Senfrom Michigan, to this section. I o to amend the section in the 2nd line y inserting after the word “all” the words “moneyed and business” so that it will read: That the provisions of this act shall, apply to an cmoomnpeayneides and businesscorporations and joint stock &c.
Mr. HOWARD. Let me suggest as a substitute for the word “business” the word “com. mercial.” It seems to me that the word “business” is a little more comprehensive than the word “commercial, ” and may be construed to include all corporations to carry on any kind of business, even the business of distributihg charities or the business of employing teachers in schools, or of conducting religious exercises. Certainly the Senfrom Vermont does not design to include such corporations. I wish to remove as far as possible all chance for caviling interpretations of the statute, all doubt and uncertainty. I merely make the suggestion to him. I think the word “commercial” would be preferable to the word “business.”
Mr. POLAND. I desire to obtain precisely the same result by this amendment that the Senfrom Michigan desires, if we can only Eagree.upon the exact word. My amendment to limit this section to moneyed and usiness corporations, and the Senfrom Michigan proposes the word “commercial” in stead of the word “business.”
Mr. HOWARD. Then I will suggest to the Senator to add the word “commercial, ” so that it will read, “moneyed, business, or commercial corporations.”
Mr. POLAND. I accept that. The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. POLAND. I now propose to amend the proviso to this 37th section by striking out in lines 27, 28, and 29 the following words: such docreeof bankruptcy shall work a forfeiture of all the franchises of such corporation, and the affairs of such corporation shall be wound up. And inserting in lieu thereof: All its property and assets shall be distributed to the creditors of such corporation. So that the proviso will read: Provided, That whenever a corporation, by proceedings under this act, shall be declaredbankrupt, all its property, and assets shall be distributed to creditorsof such corporation the in the mannerprovided in this act in respect to natural persons.
Mr. HOWARD. I made a motion yesterday to strike out the whole of this section, upon which I believe no vote has been taken. For the reasons which I gave yesterday I entertain very strong doubts of the constitutionality of the whole section; in other, words, I entertain doubts as to the applicability of the bankrupt power in the Constitution to State corporations, and in order to test the sense of the Senate upon that, to me, very grave question, I hope the vote will be taken on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is upon the motion of the Senfrom Michigan to strike out the 37th section of the bill.
Mr. HOWARD. On that question I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. POLAND. I do not desire to take up any time in arguing this constitutional question. Under the provision of the Constitution authorizing Congress to establish uniforia laws on the subject of bankruptcy, I understand that they are invested with power over the relation of debtor and creditor to the fullest extent; and that, although these corporations are arti ficial persons, created by laws of the State, the relations of debtor and creditor that they hold with other persons are as much within the juris diction. ' within the power of Congress in the establishment of a bankrupt law as the relations of any other class of creditors and debtors; and I think it is very essential, in order to the well working of any bankrupt system that it should include this class of persons, debtors and creditors, as much as any other class. The obeing taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 9, nays 23; 20. So the motion to strike out did not prevail.
Mr. FOGG. I move to amend the bill on age 15, section 13, line 5, by insert:ing after the word “value” the words “and in number, ” and by striking out all after the word “debts” in the 6th line to the end of the 10th line, in these words: A Provided, That when the number of creditorsPres the wnot, amountsto 5 and less than ten, the votes of at least, shall be necessaryfor a choice, and when the number of creditors amounts to ten or more, the votes of 3, at least, shall be necessary for a choice. So that the section will read: That the creditors shall, at the 1st meeting held, after due notice from the messenger, in Presenceof a register designated by the court, choose one or moreassigneesof the estate of the debtor, the choice tobe made by the greater part in value and in number of the creditors who have proved their debts, &c.
Mr. POLAND. I hope that amendment will not prevail. The choice might be controlled by a number of creditors whose debts in the aggregate amounted to but a very small sum. Their interest might be but one 10th of the interest that was held by the minority. It appears to me that the control of the appointment of the assignee should be regulated by the amount of interest. This is the principle that applies in all corporations in voting, in electing officers, in controlling corporations by a stock vote; and it should be so in reference to the control of these proceedings. So far as the control is given to creditors, it should be regulated by the amount of their.interest, and not by the number of persons in whom those interests are divided.
Mr. FOGG. The honorable Senator, I think, does not understand the effect of the amendment which I propose. The amendment is that this choice. be made by the greater part in value and number, which requires that the majority in number of the creditors shall also rePresent a majority in value of the debts. I offer the amendment because I think under many circumstances 2 creditors might come in and overslaugh the great number of credit ors. There. no difficulty if there should be a failure to choose, because the remainder of the section provides for that very contingency. I do not expect to be able to vote for the bill, but I wish, if the bill does pass, that it shall be as unobjectionable to the people of this country as possible.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator be kind enough to say how it changes the section? I do not understand it.
Mr. FOGG. As the bill now stands when only 5 creditors are Present, 2 rePresenting a majority of the debts in value may choose the assignee, and if there are not over ten Present, 3 rePresenting a majority of the debts may choose the assignee.
Mr. FOGG. I propose in the choice of an assignee to, require the concurrence of a majority in value of the debts and a Majority in number of the creditors; that is, a majority 3.: creditors rePresenting a majority of etxts. the
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to.another amendment, to of the 3sec following proviso: 32nd section the: That in relation to all and existing prior le tract to the passage of :.o:. asso charge shall be granted or be valid unless with the assent in writing of 3/4ths of the creditors of the bankrupt who have proved claims in having jurisdiction of the proceedings. the court
Mr. JOHNSON. The principle of that amendment has, I think, been discarded by almost every State in the Union. The provision which it proposes to make was found in nearly all the original insolvent systems, (and they were bankrupt laws in point of effect;) but experience was supposed to have proved that it operated very unjustly against the insolvent and that it warred with a principle which would Seem. to be of universal application, that no man should be a judge in his own case. It places the debtor in the hands of his creditor. It makes the creditor the judge whether the debtor shall be discharged or not, instead of making a disinterested tribunal the judge. I do not think that I am in error in the fact which I have stated, that it is not now to be found in many, if in any, of the States of the Union. The provision is, if I understand it as read from the desk, that no man is to be discharged under this law except with the assent of 3/4ths of his creditors; that is as much as to say that 3/4ths of his creditors are to decide
Mr. FOGG. The provision is in relation to debts contracted before the passage of this act.
Mr. JOHNSON. I understand it: that 3/4ths of the creditors are to decide whether the bankrupt shall have a discharge from his debts. Now, the honorable member, as I judge from the particular phrase he has adopted in the amendment and from his calling my attention to it now, supposes that there is a distinction between cases of bankruptcies already existing and those which may subsequently arise; or rather, to speak according to the tenor of the amendment, between debts now contracted and debts which shall hereafter be contracted. The principal object of this bill is to provide for existing bankruptcies. If it be indiscreet or wrong in principle to subject a subsequently occurring bankruptcy, because of debts which may be contracted hereafter, when the law shall have passed, to the restraints of such a provision, it is equally improper, as I respect ully submit to the honorable member from NewHampshire, to make it depend at all upon the will of creditors whether the party is to have his discharge or not.
Mr. MORRILL. Traders of a SCription. certain de
Mr. JOHNSON. No; traders of almost every description. They make everybody trad ers. They go on to define who are traders; but the definition includes everybody. Nobody ever doubted, as I submit to my honorable friendfrom NewHampshire, that Parliament might pass a law comprehending every class of debt ors, whether they called them traders or not, or whether in the general acceptation of the term they were considered as traders; and the power which Congress has is to be considered with reference to the power which Parliament has. The extent of that power does not de upon the actual exercise of the power y England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but depends upon the character of the power, what power had England over bankruptcy, and the moment that we ascertain what that power was, then when by general terms, as general as the language affords, that power was conferred upon 8.we have it. We are therefore to compare the 2 pow ers, and when upon that comparison we find that one was intended to be equally coetensive with the other and find that the other might be used so as to incorporate every kind of in debtment, it follows that ours was intended to apply to every class of debtors without reference to the character of the class.
Mr. POLAND. My friendfrom NewHampshire very frankly acknowledges that he is hostile to this bill, and that if his amendment prevails he does not expect to vote for it.
Mr. FOGG. No. The honorable Senator mistakes me. I said that I did not expect the amendment would be adopted so that I could vote for the bill. I did not say that if my amendment was adopted I should not vote for the bill.
Mr. POLAND. I perhaps stated the Senator's language a little too strong; but he certainly avows himself very strongly opposed to the principle upon which this bill is founded.
Skip Skip Mr. FOGG. I ask for the yeas&nays on my amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 6, nays 24; 22. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOWARD. I move to amend the bill by striking out in lines 27, 20 8, and 29 of section 13, on age 16, the words “manner provided by law o the prosecution of marshals' or other bonds given to the U.S., ” and insertin “name and for the benefit of any injure party;” so as to make the clause read: The bond shall be approved by the judge or register by his indorsement thereon, shall be filed with therecord of the case, and inure to the benefitof all creditorsproving their claims, and may be prose; cuted in the name and for the benefitof any injured party. So as to give the injured party, whatever may be his relation, the right to sue upon the official bond given by the assignee, in his own name and for his own benefit. The bond, it will be observed, is to be given by the assignee to the U.S., and strictly, according to the rules of law, upon any breach of the conditions of the bond the U.S. only would have the right to sue. My amendment is to enable any creditor or any injured party, whether the U.S or any individual, to bring suit upon that bond in his own name and for his own benefit, so far as he may be interested.
Mr. SUMNER. I offer an amendment, to come, in on page 13, after the word “bankrupt, ” in line 31 of section 11: Propided. That the judge shall not proceed to consideration of anysuchpetition until the petitiotnheer has taken and subscribed the oath Prescribedby the act of Congressapproved2dJuly, 1862. On this I have simply one remark to make. I have heard it said that certain persons at the South were moved to go into rebellion on the idea that in that way , would wipe out their debts to northern creditors. I do not doubt that that was the case with some persons. How extensively rebels acted under that motive I have no means of knowing; but it seems to me that we ought not to.". them the means of wiping out their debts to northern creditors. herefore, I propose that we shall require of them that they shall take what is usually known as the test oath before their petition is proceeded with. That is the object of my amendment.
Mr. DIXON. I ask for the reading of the oath referred to on the amendment.
The Secretary read the oath Prescribed by the act of July 2, 1862, as follows: I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm)that I have nSetavteers since voluntarily borne arms against the U.S. I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, counsel, countenance, or encouragement to personsengaged in tility thereto; armed hos that cepted, have neither sought nor ac nor attempted to any exercisethe functions of office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the U.S.: that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the U.S., hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm)that, to the bestof my knowledgeand ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the dutiesof the office on which I am about to enter: So help meGod.
Mr. CONNESS. As I understand the object and purpose of this bill, it is to furnish a mode of relieving citizens who are hopelessly in volved from the condition of the thrall which circumstances have placed upon them, and to enable them to enter again into the world of business, and not only for the purpose of giving relief to the persons as individuals, but for the additional purpose of giving the benefit of their industry and their efforts and their ener gies to society. If that be the purpose of the act, it is equally as important to relieve a man who was a rebel, a man who is ready now to labor and to work, as it is to relieve a loyal man. I am willing to apply what is called the test of loyalty where it may be properly done; but I would as soon think of introducing iit, will not now say where, as to introduce it in connection with this bill. I think that test oaths perhaps, have their degree of usefulness, and will for a time to come, but I do not think that this is the sphere of their usefulness, and therefore I cannot vote for the amendment.
Mr. SUMNER. I submit that this is the “sphere of their usefulness;” at least for the Present. The time will come I trust, and very soon, when there will be uo occasion for test oaths. I shall welcome that time as cordially as the Senfrom California or any other Senator on this floor. Suffice it to say that hour has not yet sounded. There is not a mail which does not bring us reports of the grossest insubordination in this rebel region, of injustice to neighbors, of cruelty to freedmen. The rebellion is not yet completely supPressed. When that time is reached, then let us open this Chamber and open all our courts, as we shall freely open all our hearts; but that time has not yet come. Until then we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the country to fix all possible safeguards; and now as you are about to pass this important measure, which is going to readjust the relations of debtor and creditor throughout the country, I submit that you must teach hard hearted men that they cannot come forward and claim the benefits of this act unless they can show that they are loyal citizens, and we have no other way of bringing them to that test except by requiring the oath which Congress has already prescribed in many other cases.
Mr. POMEROY. If the Senfrom massachusetts would modify his amendment so as to require the test oath so far as it may be applicable to a debtor of this kind I would not. to it, and I think that modification will secure some votes for his amendment; it will certainly secure mine. The oath as it now stands is made to apply to persons who are about to enter on the discharge of the duties of some office.
Mr. CONNESS. The Senator will excuse me for asking him to suggest, before he takes his seat, how he thinks the oath can possibly be made applicable to this case.
Mr. POMEROY. I have not got that far et. I was about to say to the Senfrom assachusetts that I think it would strengthen this bill if it was somewhat restrictive in its operation. I said yesterday that now for the 1st time in the history of the country a period had come when perhaps a bankrupt bill could be sustained. poor. heretofore have supposed that one of this character could be made popular and sustained in the States; but it will strengthen it amazingly if leading and notorious rebels can be excluded from the operations of the act, at least until restoration or reconstruction has been made complete. I would not have it apply in such a way that they should be forever, eternally excluded; but until some system of restoration has been agreed upon, until the status of the people of the f States has been established in this country and under this Government, so that we may know what their relations to the government are, I am not for letting them in to take the benefit of this bankrupt law. I would not say that they may not come in next year or within 3 months; but just at this particular time, before we have any method adopted that promises peace and union to these States, I am not prepared to send this law down there for execution and application to such men. I am willing to apply it to loyal men, those even whose honest purpose is to become loyal and good citizens in the future. Unfortunately, owever, there are many men in the South, and they are the rich and the wealthy men of the South, who will make no promises for the future even of loyalty and devotion to this Government. I do not propose to let those men up if they are bankrupts. I have got no motive for doing it if other Senators have. And yet I would not exclude all the South by any means. In our constitutional amendment we only struck at leading rebels, those who had added perjury to treason, and said they should not hold office. We did not apply it to everybody.
Mr. SUMNER. I accept very cheerfully the suggestion of the Senfrom Kansas. supposed that in administering the oath the change would naturally be made. But I will modify my amendment by adding these words at the end of it: “ omitting such words thereto as refer to the duties of any office, ” and then only that part of the oath which is peculiarly in the nature of a test will be administered.
Mr. POMEROY. I shall vote for the amendment with that modification, and will only add to what I have already said this remark: that I hope the time may soon come when the status and condition of these States will be so established, and their relations to this government will be so cordial, that we may extend to all their citizens the same laws and the same provisions of law in all respects that we extend to all other citizens.
Mr. HOWARD. The honorable Senfrom Nevada objects to the amendment offered by the Senfrom Massachusetts, that it is unconstitutional. What is the amendment? In legal effect it is this: that it excepts and excludes from the operation of the bankrupt bill before us that large class of persons who have participated in waging war against the U.S. They are not to receive the benefit of the act according to the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts. But does this exclusion render the bill unconstitutional? Will the Senfrom Nevada say that the bill would be unconstitutional if it were confined exclusively to merchants and traders? I think he would not. I think he would concede at once the power of Congress to pass a bankrupt act to apply only to traders and merchants.
Mr. STEWART. Right there let me ask a question. Suppose it included some merchants and excluded others, would not that be unconstitutional for want of uniformity?
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, like my friendfrom Vermont, [Mr. Poland, JIwas a little surprised to find that the rebellion was to be brought in this debate. In answer to the concluding remarks of the honorable member from Michigan, I do not know that the citizens of the South are the parties who are asking for the passage of this act. I rather think the application comes from citizens of States that are called loyal. Certainly no rePresentative of the southern States that were in the rebellion is here or in the other House. The whole legislation, therefore, upon the subject has been the result of the judgment of the rePresentatives of the loyal States and for the benefit of their people. What made the citizens of Michigan, such of them as are unfor tunately in that condition, bankrupts in fact? I suppose it was misfortune of one kind or other. In the South many became bankrupt perhaps because of the war, and perhaps because of other circumstances. But I should like to know of the honorable member from Massachusetts, and of the honorable member from Michigan, if they propose to except from the operation of this law all southern debtors. Do they mean to deny the creditors in the loyal States the right to proceed compulsorily against i. debtors in. disloyal States under this aw?
Mr. HOWARD. I do not know that the amendment of the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts covers that case.
Mr. SUMNER. Certainly not. It is not applicable to that case.
Mr. JOHNSON. I understand it perfectly, and I have asserted it so. It is not proposed. Well, will he not apply, and if he does apply, is it suggested that the effect of the discharge is not to be as absolute of such a debtor as it will be of a debtor in the loyal States? And if it is to be, why is it to be? Only upon the ground that he who surrenders either by comulsion or voluntarily all his estate ought to F. discharged from his debts.
Mr. SUMNER. I will merely make one remark in reply to the learned Senfrom Maryland. says that he understood the proposition. I doubt not that he did, but I aminclined to think, nevertheless, that the senate may perhaps have been he will pardoh me the exPression a little befogged by the remark qf the Senator. I. wish, therefore, that the Senate should distinctly understand that my amendment is simply applicable to a voluntary petitioner for the of this act who himself has been a debtor. It is not aplicable to any adversary proceedings against
Mr. SUMNER. I know the Senator said so. It is not applicable to any adversary proceedings against a bankrupt: it is only applicable to the case of the bankrupt himself seeking the benefits of this act; and the question is then Presented whether at this moment, this day, in the Present condition of things in that whole rebel region, you are prepared to allow disloyal persons, in other words persons who cannot take the test oath, to come forward and share the benefit of this great act of mercantile and commercial amnesty; for that is the character of the bankrupt act? The day for am nesty, whether it be mercantile or political, has not yet come. There is no one who is more anxious for that day than I am, or who will welcome it more sincerely; but it has not yet come; and it cannot come until all the foundations of security are fixed throughout that whole region; it cannot come until the existing governments in that region are entirely brushed aside as having no f or constitutional existence. They are the creatures of a usurpation; that is all. They ought not to exist; and until they are brushed aside and until you have security in that region there is no. 9pportunity for amnesty.
Mr. POLAND. I should like to inquire of the Senfrom Massachusetts how those things are to be bettered by preventing people going into bankruptcy?
Mr. SUMNER. am coming to that. Security, I say, is what we require there. Security from whom? From rebels, from persons who cannot take a test oath. Those people must be made to feel that they are no longer masters. The rebel spirit must be broken down. Now, I know no better way to break it down for the Present, during this transition period, than by excluding them from these Chambers, by excluding them from office, by excluding them from the benefits of a great act of legislation like that which you are about to adopt. This is my reply to the Senfrom Vermont. Let us do all we can to break down the rebel spirit, and let us tell Unionists, without distinction of color, (if I may be pardoned the exPression by o friendfrom Maryland,) let us teach them all that, so far as we can, we mean to protect them and save them harmless from their oppressors. I say, then, let us break down the rebel spirit. Do not give them any additional strength. othey are now too strong. There is an old maxim of law which both of my learned friends [Mr. Poland and Mr. FEssenden] will remember well, to this effect: that whose would have equity must do equity., Let these rebels do equity, and how go shall we do every equity to them. Then they will not ask to come into these Halls or to come into the courthouse proto come into the privilege of the bankrupt act; every thing will be open to them; but while they continue to do wrong to those to whom we owe protection I cannot consent to relax any of that austerity or rigor, if you choose to call it so, which is important in the support of human rights. I believe that human rights are of some value, and I do not think that men who trifle with them are to be lightly taken by the hand or to be accepted into our fraternity.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, and therefore I would not extend it.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator says it is hard and therefore he would not extend it. To that let me reply, that the principle which governs in the one case should govern in that now before us. If the oath is proper in the other cases it is proper in Wolf this. But the Senator says he not extend this principle. Let me say that the true Unionists at the South, so far as I have conversed with them, have always been anxious that you should not in any way im air the efficacy of the existing test oaths. hey saw in them how much of safety and protection there was for Unionists. I will not proceed any further. Senate will adopt the amendment.
Mr. HENDERSON. The Senfrom Massachusetts will see by referring to the 9 I hope the teenth section of the bill that after proceedings in voluntary bankruptcy have been commenced the creditors must file their claims before the register or before the court. I, desire to ask him before voting on this proposition whether, if his amendment be adopted, he intends to apply it also to the creditors, so that no cred itor shall have his claim allowed until he takes the test oath.
Mr. SUMNER. I had not so intended. I had intended to meet simply the case of a vol. untary bankruptcy and to require the oath of the petitioner himself. There I stop.
Mr. HENDERSON. If that be the case I cannot vote for the proposition. However proper it might be as applied in the case of a debtor, it surely must be applied to the cred itor in order to make it anything like equal. I think it would be but proper to make the creditor in a case of no, bankruptcy to which the Senator says he does not intend his amendment to apply, take the oath. Otherwise you enable rebel creditors to push to bankruptcy a fellow rebel and even a loyal debtor without taking the oath. The Senator, I understand, does not propose to require the rebel creditor to take the oath even when he pushes to bankruptcy a loyal man.
Mr. SUMNER. Allow me to make a suggestion to my friend. I have moved this proposition with reference to voluntary bankruptcy. The Senator of course can move his proposi tiroonpowshiteionnmine has been acted upon. The which hemakes now would not come in the place where mine is moved; it would comein another part of the bill. Let the senator move his proposition, and I shall be ready to act upon it.
Mr. HENDERSON. I merely desired, not to offer the proposition, but to know to what extent the Senator wished to carry his amendment. It seems to me that in cases of voluntary bankruptcy, if it is applicable to the debtor, it ought to be to the creditor, and that no creditor should be permitted to prove his claim unless he takes the test oath. The Senate will see at once that if the 2 propositions together be carried in the southern States, so far as debts are confined to the southern States, it would be utterly impossible to get a case of voluntary bankruptcy under the act. I misunderstood the Senator in reply to a question propounded by the Senfrom Maryland as to his desire to make the requirement apply to a case of involuntary bankruptcy. I understood him to say that he did not propose to make it obligatory upon the debtor in a case of involuntary bankruptcy before he obtained a discharge to take the test oath. In that view, both in regard to voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy, the adoption of this proposition would work very harshly indeed. I cannot therefore consent to vote for it.
Mr. POLAND. I move to amend section ten, which is the section authorizing the Chief Justice and 2 associates to frame rules. The Supreme Court will be in session in the spring, have an adjourned term, and I move to amend the section by striking out the word “chief” in the 1st line, then changing the word “justice, ” in the 2nd line, to “justices, ” and after the words “ U.S., ” in the same line, striking out the words “with the assistance of any 2 of the associate justices of the Supreme Court, to be selected by said justice;” so that the section will read: That the justices of the o Court of U.S., and subject the to the provisions of this act, shall framegeneral ordersfor the following purposes, &c.
Mr. POLAND. I hope we shall now be allowed to get a vote on the bill.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to insert the following proviso in the same section in which the proviso offered by the Senfrom Massachusetts was proposed to be inserted; it is to come in after the word “bankrupt” on page 13, section 11, line 31: Provided, That all citizens of the U.S. petitioning to be declared bankrupt, shall, on filing such petition and before, any proceedingsthereon, take and subscribean oath of allegiance and fidelit to the U.S.; which oath, shall be filed an recordedwith the proceedings in bankruptcy. The object of this amendment is to apply to these persons who have been rebels jo. still ought to be entitled to petition in bankruptcy if they are willing to return to their allegiance. The Government has so far always required when any of those persons have been admitted to rights of citizenship again a fresh oath of allegiance, because the fact is well known that in most cases they have taken an oath of hostility, that is an oath in favor of the confederacy. The simple effect of this amendment is to require every citizen who is to take the benefit of the act to readhere, if he has been a rebel, to the U.S. I am sure there can be no objection to that.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure that I understand the amendment. Is it made to apply to all persons who may seek the benefit of the act, or only to citizens
Mr. HENDERSON. On page 12, section 11, line 4, I move to strike out “ 300 ” and to insert “ 1,000;” so as to read: That if any go residing within the jurisdiction. of the U.S., owingdebtsprovable underthis : joins the amount of $1,000s, hall apply bype ition, &c.
Mr. POLAND. It seems to me this amendment ought not to be adopted. There is a very large class of debtors who owe less than $1,000 who have no means of paying, whose condition requires the aid of a bankrupt law as by the act of 1849 or since that time. much as those who owe larger amounts. It would operate as a very great hardship upon a very large class of persons, who are intended to be benefited and relieved by the provisions of this act, to have it limited to those whose debts were more than $1,000.
Mr. FOGG. I move to insert $500 instead of $300 in that clause.
Mr. POLAND. I desire merely to say that in the English system of bankruptcy, which is the one we fashion after more than any other, the one we know the most about, the one that has been longest in operation, where they have had the benefit of more experience than any where else, the sum is still smaller than that named in this bill. 50 pounds is the limit in. the English bankrupt laws. It seems to me there can be no harm in leaving this" amount where the House left it.
Mr. HENDERSON. Permit me to ask the Senator if the English laws allow voluntary bankruptcy at all?
Mr. HENDERSON. I was under the impression that they did not. They did not until the last few years I am satisfied, unless it was Before that I am sure under the English laws there was no such thing as voluntary bankruptcy.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It is a very recent act, then.
Mr. FOGG called for the yeas&nays on the amendment and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 19, nays 20; 13. So the amendment was rejected. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will take the question on the amendments collectively unless some Senator asks for a separate vote on some particular amendment. any amendment excepted?
Mr. SUMNER. I except the one on page 46.
Mr. SUMNER. I understand my colleague's amendment was not agreed to, but the committee's amendment was agreed to; words were struck out on page 46. It is at the bottom of page 46, line ten to line 17 of section 33. The committee's amendment to strike out was agreed to. I wish to have another vote on that.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That will be excepted. Is any other amendment asked to be excepted? The question, then, will be on the residue of the amendments made as in ComWhole. 1nT. he remaining amendments were concurred
The Secretary read the excepted amendment, which was on page 46, section 33, line ten, after the word “otherwise” to strike out the following words: And in all proceedingsin bankruptcy commenced oapfteerratoine en year from the time this act shall go into no discharge shall be granted to a debtor waghaoisnesat shsisetsedsotanteo, tupnaleyss the pearssceenntti, nofwtrhiteincglaoimf as majority, in number and value, of his creditors who hbaevfoereptrhoevetidmteheoifracplpaliimcastiiosnfifloerddiinsethhaergcea.se at or
Mr. SUMNER. On concurring in that amendment I should like to have the yeas and may8. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. POLAND. In relation to that amendment I have merely to say that the committee had this bill under consideration, and they were entirely unable to see any reason for making this distinction: why the assent of a majority of the creditors should be required to a discharge when the proceeding was commenced more than a year after the passage of this act, when it was not in case the proceedings were commenced within the year. If the Senfrom Massachusetts can give any reason he c, an give what we were not able to discover.
Mr. CONNESS. There is always a difficulty when you undertake to regulate a general principle by an individual case. The Senator tells us that he knows of some cases
Mr. WILSON. Will the Senator allow me to say a word 2
Mr. WILSON. I hope the Sewator does not undertake to say that because I mentioned a particular case I therefore govern my action on this subject by that case. It is the principle we are adopting, and it was only to illustrate it that I referred to the case of particular men.
Mr. CONNESS. If the honorable Senator had heard me out he would have understood that there was nothing in my allusion that would misrePresent or misplace him. I said that there was always a difficulty where we undertook to try a general principle by an individual case. Is there any objection to that form of illustration by the Senator? The senator stated that he knew of cases where injustice would result if this provision was not retained as it occurs in the bill originally. Now, Mr. President, my objection to retaining the provision is, that it is in violation of the very purpose of the act, the purpose sought to be obtained by its passage; namely, it proposes that the bankrupt shall not be released unless his creditors consent in certain cases. If that is to be the case you may as well not pass this law; you gain by it nothing but that a man who is able to pay 50 cents on the dollar of his indebtedness may be released; but if he is unable to pay that and his creditors will not consent, he may not be released, and therefore, so far as he is concerned, he cannot have the benefit of this act. Well, sir, I apprehend that that would go to the uniformity of the act or the operation of the act. If there may be cases where persons may obtain by fraudulent proceedings a discharge from their obligations under this act, it is our business as law makers to so fashion the law that that may be prevented; but we must not go to the violation of the very principle of the act we pass for the purpose of defending the community against injustice of the class spoken of I hope, Mr. President, that this course will not be taken, and that the amendment made in ComWhole will be affirmatively voted by the Senate.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Vermont asked if there was any good reason for this clause which I have moved to retain. I reply to him very easily: there is a reason, and the reason is found in the 1st place in the reason of the thing, and in the 2nd place in expe rience. In the 1st place, in the reason of the thing, my colleague has already explained that; he has shown the essential equity of the proposition. Can anyone show the contrary? The proposition is, that no discharge shall be ranted to a debtor whose assets do not pay 50%. of the claims against his estate unless the assent in writing of a majority, both in number and in value, of his creditors is filed in the case before the discharge. Is not that equity? Does it Present any serious embar rassment to an honest debtor? I submit not. pay 50%., then there is the other do that a majority of his creditors may make the concession of his discharge. t And is it possible to suppose that if a debtor is honest the majority of his creditors will not make the concession of a discharge 2Isub mit that there can be no doubt on that point, therefore the proposition is reasonable in itself. Then I say it is also sustained by experience. Remember the oft quoted saying of Patrick Henry, when he exclaimed that he had but one lamp by which his feet were guided, and that was the lamp of experience. Now, a Massachusetts Senator imay be pardoned for inclinin to this cause, following simply the lamp o experience. In the State of Massachusetts we have a well considered bankrupt system, in which this principle has obtained a place. It has been found to work well. The experience of Massachusetts is therefore in its favor. I conclude, then, that you have on the side of this proposition both reason and experience.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to amend the proposition by omitting the words “commenced after one year from the time this act shall go in operation, ” in the 11th and 12th lines. I move to amend the text by striking out these words before the vote is taken upon the amendment made in committee. The protempore. As an amendment to the amendment the Senfrom Pennsylvania moves to strike out the words named by him.
Mr. POLAND. This is precisely the proposition that has been made once before in committee at least, and 2 or 3 times in substance; that is, to make the discharge of the debtor in all cases depend upon the assent of the creditors. It has been voted down 3 or 4 times. In relation to the proposition to strike out this part of the section the committee reported in favor of striking it out because they were unable to see any reason for it, and I have hardly heard any, except the Senators from Massachusetts say that they have such a provision in their State and it has worked well, and they have had it for many years. My friendfrom Massachusetts seems to suppose that there is to be a different state of things after the passage of this bankrupt law; business is going to be done upon a different principle; men are not going to be likely to fail and become bankrupts, as they have been here tofore. I expect no such thing. I suppose the world will go on very much the same; trade will go; men will be unfortunate; men will fail after the passage of this bankrupt law, as they have done before. Why a man who be comes.a bankrupt after the passage of this law and has occasion to apply for the benefits of it should stand upon any different principle, why any different rule should be applied to him, why he should not be entitled to his discharge upon precisely the same ground as the man who has already become bankrupt before the passage of the law or within one year after its passage, is more than the committee were able to see, and more than I am able to see, with all the light that has been cast upon it by both the Senators from Massachusetts.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I made this motion for the very reason just stated by the Senfrom Vermont, that I can see no reason for applying a different rule to applicants who may come into court after the 1st of March say of next year and those who may come into court during the one year which will elapse from the passage of this law. If there be any reason for the discrimination based upon time I have failed to perceive it. If my amendment prevails, then the question will come up generally as to all applicants, whether the consent of a mojority of the creditors shall be required for their discharge or not, and we can get a distinct and fair vote on that proposition. on.” The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is on the amendment, and on that question the yeas&nays have been ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN. The amendment is to strike out?
Mr. HOWARD. The amendment is to strike out the clause, and those who are in favor of striking out the clause will therefore vote “yea.”
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understand the question is whether we shall concur in the amendment made in the ComWhole.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That is the question.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Then those who are in fkaivor of the amendment striking out will vote ea.”
Mr. SUMNER. Those who are in favor of retaining the provision will of course vote “nay;” that is, they will vote against the amendment of the committee. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 31, nays 10; 11. So the amendment was concurred in.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the amendments made by the committee are disposed of, I have oneamendment to suggest.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The billis beforethe Senate and still open to amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON. I concur with the honorable member from Indiana that it would be exceedingly injudicious to retain this provision in the bill. We have a district court in Oregon, a district court in California, at an im mense distance from the Chief Justice. It is impossible for him to know the lawyers in Oregon or the lawyers in California, such of them as would be likely to be selected. it occurs to me there is a constitutional difficulty in this provision. The Constitution provides that all officers whose appointments are mentioned in the Constitution shall be appointed upon the nomination of the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but that Congress may with reference to other officers vest the appointment in a head of a Dept or in a court. There is no authority to vest it in any individual member of a court; but this clause, so far from vesting the appointment in the courts who are mentioned in the section, gives them mere ly a negative upon the nomination of the Chief ustice. It makes him as much a constituent part of the nominating power as the President is in the cases in which the President, by the Constitution, is to nominate, and the appointment is to be made by him only with the advice and consent of the Senate. I am opposed to it, therefore, because I think it is perhaps liable to that constitutional objection; but principally because the duty itself is one which, in my judgment, the court is much more able to perform than the Chief Justice of the U.S. can be. If he is situated here, or wherever may be his locality, he does not go into the circuits, except in his own circuit; he has no knowledge at all of the districts where these officers are to discharge their functions, and he can only know upon recommendations made to him at a distance; and very likely (although he would not, I am sure, tolerate it if he knew it) it might be made a political matter, to the injury of the particular service for which the officer was appointed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I intended when I rose up to say that the amendment which I now propose was recommended by. the Judiciary It is the amendment of the committee.
Mr. JOHNSON called for the yeas&nays on the amendment, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 21, nays 21; 10. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SUMNER. I shall vote for the bill, but with great reluctance. 2 votes of the Senate today have gone very far to diminish my interest in the measure, which I have watched with the profoundest sympathy from its 1st introduction into this Chamber. The vote by which this bill is opened to rebels is one; the other is the vote on which my colleague has commented, which seems to me in its nature improvident at least, if not inequit able. It was only a little while ago that I had the privilege of conversing with 2 different gentlemen, each of whom I regard as more than respectable authority on this subject. One was a professional gentleman of NewYork, said: I would vote against the bill. I am who had recently visited every one of the rebel States; the other was a very distinguished and philanthropic merchant of the North, who had debts in the South to the amount of a great many tens of 1000s of dollars. Both of those gentlemen concurred in recommending the 2 provisions to which I now allude. Both insisted that this bill, in order to be made properly efficacious and beneficial, must exclude the rebels from its benefit; and they also insisted that a discharge should not be given without the consent of a majority of the creditors where there were not assets to the amount of 50%. These gentlemen spoke from great knowl edge and experience. My own judgment has been in harmony with what I may call their testimony. It is in that spirit that I have acted. I have sought to amend the bill in good faith. I have failed, and for the moment shall yield. I regret very much the votes of the Senate. I am sure that if the bill becomes a law those votes will impair its value very much; I might almost say incalculably. I do not know that they will not make us regret its passage.
Mr. POLAND. I desire to say one word with reference to what has been said by the Senfrom Massachusetts. In relation to his objection that we have failed to incorporate into this bill the test oath, I have no doubt but what the gentleman will change his mind upon sleeping upon it. I cannot believe that that idea will last him 24 hours.
Mr. SUMNER. I have slept upon it a great many weeks and months.
Mr. POLAND. In relation to the other question, the objection that the bill does not contain the provision of the Massachusetts insolvent law, of which we have heard so much, I do not regard that as vital; and if it be true, as has been stated, that the members of the House from Massachusetts were induced to vote for the bill because it contained this provision, and the House should non-concur in this amendment of the Senate, I cannot.ose that on the part of the Senate that would be made a division between the 2 Houses upon which the bill should fail. It certainly would not so far as I am concerned. The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 3rd time. t was read a 3rd time.
Mr. GitHMES. I ask for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas&nays were ordered. The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COWAN (when his name was o1r off, however, with the Senfrom RhdIsl and, [Mr. ANTHoNY] who would vote for the bill, he not being able to come to the Chamber.
Mr. HARRIS, (after 1st voting in the af. firmative.) I desire to change my vote. I vote “nay.” The result was announced yeas 20, nays 22; 10. So the bill was rejected. co; CHANDLER and others addressed the air.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Sena. tor from Michigan.. to recognizing any Senator, however, the Chair, with the permis.sion of the Senate, will lay before the Senate a message from the POTUS
Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. WILSON, and others, addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will not offer the messages if Senators insist on submitting motions. in, Davis,
Mr. SEIERMAN. I have no objection to the messages being laid before the Senate.
Mr. WILSON. I wish to enter a privileged motion. I wish to enter a motion to reconsider the vote on the bankrupt bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion to reconsider will be entered.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 344, the bill to construct the Niagara ship canal.
Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the executive usiness.
Mr. GRIMES. I move that the Senate do now adiourn. The motion was agreed to, there being on a division ayes 25, noes 13; and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, February 5, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNToN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. INVESTIGATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.
Mr. WINDOM. The ComIndAffrs, who were instructed by the House to make an investigation in regard to the administration of the Indian Bureau, have directed meto make a report. I move that it be recommitted to the committee and ordered to be printed. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WINDOM. I also Present a minority report on the same subject. I move that the same disposition be made of it. The motion was agreed to. JOHN FOWLER AND COMPANY.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution for the relief of John Fowler & Co.; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays find Means. TARIFF BILL.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution: Resolved.That the ComWays&Means be instructed to report the tariff bill as amendedby the Senate, in such a manner as to exhibit the rates of duty imposed on the several articles under the tariff in force on the 1st day of April, 1861;on the 1stday of January, 1865;and therates proposedby Housebill No. 718, as amendedby the Senate.
The SPEAKER. The ComWays&Means are in session on the tariff bill, and not one of the members is now Present.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. This is only for the convenience of members when they come to consider the bill.
Mr. JENCKES. I object. MATILDA WICTOR. On motion of Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, leave was granted for the withdrawal from the files of the House of the papers in the case of Matilda Victor, on condition that copies of them were left. FRANKING PRIVILEGE.
Mr. FINCK, by unanimous consent submitted the following report; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed: the comPostOffice, to whom was referred the following resolution:." Resolved, That the franking privilege, be continued to the members of the 39th Congress, thesame as if the 40th Congressdid not meetuntil the 1st Monday in December next.” Report that they have duly considered the subject. The 42nd section of anact to amend the laws relating to the Post. Office Dept, provides that the authority to frank, mail matter is upon conferred and limited to the of persons;., 1. The POTUS, by himself or his Private Secretary. The VEEP 3. The chiefs of the several Executive Depts. 4. such principal officers, being heads of bureaus, or chief clerks of eachExecutive Dept, to be used only for official communications, as, the PostMGenl shall by regulation Prescribe. 5. Sens&Reps in the Congressof the U.S., including Delegatesfrom Terri tories, the SeySenate and Clerk of the HoRep, to cover correspondence to and from them, and all printed matter issued by authority of Congress, and all .proceedings, and debates in Congress, and all printed mattersent to them; their franking privilege to commengewith term for which they are elected, and to expire the 1st Monday of December following such term of office, &c. And it is further provided in said section: “That the franking, privilege heretofore granted shall be limited to packagesweighing not exceeding 4 ounces; except petitions to Congress and congressional or, executive documents, and such publications or books as, have or may be published procured, or purchasedby order of either House o Congress or a JtResolution of the 2 Houses which shall be considered as public documents, and entitled to be franked as such; andexceptalso seeds, cuttings, roots, and scions, the weight of the package of which maybefixed byregulation of the PostMGenl.”
Mr. FINCK. By this section the franking privilege to Sens&Reps in Congress, &c., does not expire until the 1st Monday of December following such term of office. The committee are therefore of opinion that no further legislation, such as is contemplated by said resolution, is necessary, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. RECEPTION OF GENERAL PHILIP H. SHERIDAN.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of announcing to the HoRep the Presence in this Hall of !, E. Sheridan, ” whom every man writes down “a soldier.” [Great applause upon the floor and in the galleries] I move that he be introduced to this House by the Speaker, and for that purpose the House take a recess for 5 minutes. The motion, amid applause, was unanimously agreed to. A recess was accordingly taken, and Major General Philip H. Sheridan, U.S. Army, in company with General U. S. Grant, was escorted by the Speaker and Mr. SchExck to the Speaker's stand.
The SPEAKER. Gentlemen of the HoRep, it affords me peculiar pleasure by your order this day to introduce to you Major General Philip H. Ajo. Sheridan. While this country will cherish in the heart of hearts of all loyal people the achievements upon fields of danger and of death of all its glorious defenders, they can never forget one who was brave among the bravest, true among the truest, and the recol lection of whose deeds will survive as long as history shall endure. I Present to you General Philip H. Sheridan. [Great applause]
General SHERIDAN. Gentlemen, I am much obliged to you for this very kind and unexpected reception. [Renewed P. The Speaker then Presented individually the members of the House to GenlGrant and Major GenlSheridan. The time for the recess having expired, the Speaker resumed the chair, and called the house to order.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, notifying the House that that body had passed a bill (S.No.461) for the grant of land to the State of California to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. It further announced that the Senate had in definitely postponed House bill No. 84, to reg: ulate the time and place of holding the district court of the to. States within and for the district of Maine. sAMUEL Downing.
Mr. McINDOE, by unanimous consent, from the ComRevPensions, reported a bill granting additional pension to Samuel Downing, the last surviving soldier of the revolutionary war; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Samuel Downing, the last surviving soldier of the revolutionary war, upon the pension roll for additional pension at the rate of $500 per annum from the 3d of September, 1866, to continue during the remainder of his life.
Mr. MARWIN, Mr. Downing resides in Saratoga county; he is 1five years of age, and is the last surviving soldier of the Revolution now on the pension roll. I am personally acquainted with him, and know him to be a worthy man. He deserves of his country this small sum as a testimonial of the respect and veneration in which he is held by a grateful people a testimonial to one who fought with Washington for our independence. I trust there will not be a dissenting voice in this House against this act of justice to this old man.
Mr. McINDOE moved the previous question,
Mr. ANCONA. I would like to suggest an amendment to this bill. This House passed a bill a few days ago for the relief of the last surviving soldier of the revolutionary war, and I think this should be amended so as to read, “one of the last surviving soldiers.”
Skip Skip The amendment was accordingly made. The main question was ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and engrossed, it was accordingly road the thi time, and passed. Mr. McINDOE mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. STEVENS, from the ComAppropriat, reported a bill making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes; which was referred to the ComWhole on the state of the Union, ordered to be printed, and made the special order for Saturday next after the morning hour, and from day to day till disposed of. WACANCY ON A COMMITTEE.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints to fill the vacancy on the comPostOffice, occasioned by the death of
Mr. JOHNson, the Gentfrom Tennessee, [Mr. CAMPBELL] fortification BILL.
Mr. ROLLINS. I call for the regular order. The House resumed the special order, being the consideration of the bill pending at the adjournment last evening, (H.R.No. 919,) making appropriations for the construction, Preservation, and repairs of certain fortifications and other works of defense, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, the pending question being on agreeing to the report of the ComWhole, recommending that the enacting words be stricken out. The question being taken, there were ayes 67, noes 44.
Skip Skip Mr. LYNCH demanded the yeas&nays; and tellers on ordering the yeas&nays. Tellers were ordered; and the Chairappointed Messrs. LYNch and Scofield. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 28. So the yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 87, nays 66, not voting 47;. So the enacting clause was stricken out. Mr. SCOFIELD mtRtv taken; on the table. agreed to. PAY OF A DECEASED MEMBER.
Mr. ANCONA, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms be directed to pay to Mrs. M. E. Johnson widow of Philip Johnson, the late Hon. the remainder of salary that would have been due him up to the 4th of March, 1867.
Mr. ANCONA mtRtv the resolution was agreed to: on the table. agreed to. postoffice AND CUSTOMHOUSE, NASHVILLE.
Mr. CAMPBELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComPostOfficeRoads be instructed to inquire into the expe diency of reporting a bill 'off for the erection of a building in the city of Nashville, State of Tennessee, suitable for the accommodation of the postoffice, the Federal court, and the customhouse in said city. JAIL IN THE DISTCOL.
Mr. DARLING, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComDistCol be requested to conter with the SecyInterior as to the propriety of adopting the plans of the new jail for the District which were recommendedfor adoption by the threeofficialsdoing business in the interior Dept, and also to inquire the reasonwhy a specification has not been submitted with the plans for contractors to on, estimate astee, the act requires; and that the said commit be authorized to send for persons and papers, and report by bill or otherwise, as necessary, they shall consider so as to insure a properjail for the District.
Mr. DARLING mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to." CHANGE OF Ireference.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I desire to ask the consent of the House to withdraw from the ComClaims the memorial of Mr. Dainese, which I referred to it some days since, and to ask that it be referred to a special committee of 5.
Mr. COBB. I object. DEATH OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN.
Mr. BANKS. I Present the correspondence of the State Dept with the Government of Brazil in reference to the death of President Lincoln. I move that it be printed, and referred to the ComForAffrs. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ROLLINS. I demand the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER. The regular order of business proceeds with the call of the committees, resuming the call where it was suspended yesterday, with the ComMilAffrs. STEPHEN E. Jon ES..
Mr. BLAINE, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a JtResolution for the relief of Stephen E. Jones; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution was read. It directs the PayMGen to pay to Stephen E. Jones full pay and allowances as a 1st lieu tenant of cavalry for the period during which he actually served as aid decamp on the staffs of General Nelson and General George H. Thomas, prior to the time when he was mustered into the service of the U.S.
Mr. BLAINE. I move the previous question on the JtResolution.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly road the 3rd time.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I call for the reading of the report, if there be one. The JtResolution only discloses the fact that this gentleman served on the staffs of 2 generals.
Mr. BLAINE. He actually served and never received a cent of pay for the better part of a year, as the report will show. The report was read. It sets forth quite briefly that Stephen E. Jones was appointed on the staff of General Nelson when that officer was ordered to Kentucky in 1861, under a misapprehension of the power of the commanding officer; that he was subsequently transfored to the staff of General Thomas whom that officer relieved General Nelson, and was finally appointed an additional aid decamp by the President, with the rank of captain, but has never been paid for the 11 months which he actually served prior to muster into the U.S. service.
Mr. CLARK, of Ohio. Will it be in order to refer the resolution to the ComClaims?
Mr. BLAINE. I decline to yield, Mr. Speaker, for any such motion. T. resolution, I think, explains itself, and the report which has just been read leaves nothing to be said. The case on all grounds of equity is complete. In framing the resolution and drafting the report I was guided simply by the official papers which I obtained at the War deonot allowing myself to be governed y any personal knowledge or prepossessions in regard to the gentleman in whose behalf the resolution is submitted. It is perfectly fair, however, to say, in support of that resolution and report, that I know something personally of Captain Jones, and his record in the war is one in the highest degree honorable to him as a gentleman and a patriot. The papers in the case show that he earned the esteem and confidence of all the officers under whom he served, and among them were some of the 1st in the American Army. Before moving the previous question on the final passage of the resolution it may be proper to say that, on grounds of general equity, Mr. Jones ought to receive the pay of captain for the time specified; but the law would only allow the pay of a 1st lieutenant of cavalry, that being the highest grade to which an aido of General Nelson could be commissioned. I now demand the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was passed. Mr. BLAINE mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. EQUALIZATION OF BOUNTIES.
Mr. SCHENCK. The ComMilAffrs have instructed me to report back a number of memorials on the subject of equalization of bounties and ask that the committee be discharged from their further consideration, and that they be laid on the table; the committee having reported a general bill upon that subject. The motion was agreed to. ARMY SUTLERS.
Mr. SCHENCK. I am also instructed by the ComMilAffrs to report back a JtResolution to repeal section 25 of the act to increase and fix the peace military establishment, and ask that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table. This is a proposition to repeal that portion of the Army bill passed at the last session of this Congress which provides for dispensing with sutlers in the Army, and also providing that what have hitherto been the duties of sutlers in supplying soldiers shall be performed through the subsistence dept. The motion was agreed to. ENGINEER QUARTERMASTER SERGEANT.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a bill to fix the pay of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill was read at length. It provides that from and after the passage of this act the pay and allowances of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers of the Army of the U.S shall be the same as those allowed by law to the sergeant major of that battalion.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. VOLUNTEER SERVICE CERTIFICATES.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a bill providing for the issue of certificates of service to officers and soldiers of volunteers; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill was read. The 1st section provides that the POTUS shall cause to be furnished, upon application, to every officer who has been regularly mustered into the volunteer service in either the Army or the Navy of the U.S. during the late war for the supPression of the rebellion, and who has been honorably discharged therefrom, a certificate neatly engrossed on parchment, which shall set forth the date of the entry of the officer into such service, his rank, and the date of his discharge therefrom. The 2nd section provides that in case of the death of any such officer his legal representatives shall be entitled to receive a cer tificate as aforesaid. The 3rd section provides that in any case where clear and full proof shall be made to the SecyWar to his satisfaction, and in such form as shall be Prescribed by him, by any enlisted man who was mustered as a volunteer into the Army of the U.S and afterward honorably discharged therefrom, having served any time between the 19th of April, 1861, and the 12th day of April, 1865, that his discharge has been lost without fault of his own, the Secretary shall cause to be issued to such person a certificate in lieu of such discharge, which certificate shall not however be competent to be used as evidence in support of any claim against the Government; and such qualifications restricting the use of such certificate shall be distinctly exPressed in the body of the certificate. Section 4 provides that in like manner and under the same conditions and restrictions as are contained in the foregoing section, a certificate may be issued in the case of any soldier who is deceased on application made by his proper rePresentatives. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. SCHENCK. If it is desired, I can explain in a few moments the object of this bill. A great many volunteer officers have left the service, indeed I may say all of them have left the service, with simply an acceptance of their resignations or some record in the War Office .anything in a permanent form to show they have served the country. A JtResolution was referred to the committee providing for giving a small certificate, neatly engrossed on parchment, to those officers, to be Preserved by themselves and their families. The committee have deemed it proper to report a bill embracing not only the provisions of the JtResolution, but the further provision that where a soldier has lost his discharge he also shall have some certificate given to him in lieu of the discharge, that cer tificate, however, not to be used for any other purpose. e committee have been opposed entirely to the issuing of duplicate discharges or cer tificates in lieu of discharges, to be used for the purpose of collecting bounties, pensions, or anythingof that kind, because of the door that wouldbe opened for fraud. But the committee have, in another bill, provided that upon application made for bounty, when the discharge is lost, proof to supply the absence of the discharge shall be admitted to sustain the claim. Thus the soldier may collect his bounty hereafter, as he collects his pension now, upon proof of his identity and of the loss of the discharge. This bill relates to an entirely differ entsubject, and is designed to give to the soldier a permanent parchment certificate as a memorialof his honorable service.
Mr. STEVENS. Is this certificate to be of anyavail to the soldier except as a mere memorandum?
Mr. STEVENS. The difficulty now occur ring, as I know, almost every day, is that where soldiers have lost their discharges, as many have, although they are recorded in the proper archiveshere, the authorities refuse to furnish the soldiers copies or to allow them access to the records, so that they may be enabled to recover what is due them by He Government. I trust that this difficulty will be provided for.
Mr. SCHENCK. I have already explained to the House that it is fully provided for in o. its place. If the gentleman will look at the bounty bill, which is now a special order and will come up immediately after the civil fservice bill, he will find that the 9th section for that whole matter. But this bill as a different object to give the soldier something to Preserve as a memorial of his service.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. AMENDMENT OF PENSION LAWS. On motion of
Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the memorial of James W. Webb, asking for an amendment of the pension laws; and the same was referred to the ComInvalidPens. LOST DISCHARGES. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the “petition of Bernard Quinn and others, for some legislation upon the subject of lost discharges; and the same was laid on the table. DUPLICATE DISCHARGES. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Lucius E. Mar shall, of Harrisville, Wisconsin, asking for the passage of a law to provide for the issuing of duplicate discharges; and the same was laid on the table. PAY OF DISCHARGED OFFICERS. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of citizens of Jefferson county, Pennsylvania, for a modification of the law giving pay proper to certain discharged officers; and the same was laid on the table. ABOLITION OF SUTLERS. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the remonstrance of J. D. Stevenson against the abolition of sutlers in the Army; and the same was laid on the table. " ADDITIONAL BOUNTY.
Mr. SCHENCK. The ComMilAffrs, to whom was referred the petition of soldiers of the 6 3rd Ohio volunteer infantry, asking for additional bounty, have directed me to report it back, and move that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table, as the matter is already provided for in the general bill reported by the committee. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MAYNARD. I desire to ask the Gentfrom Ohio, a question: whether his committee expect during the Present session to bring in an adequate bounty bill?
Mr. SCHENCK. such a bill has already been reported, has been printed twice, with and without amendments, and is the 1st business in order after the civil service bill.
Mr. MAYNARD. Do the ComMilAffrs intend to Press that bill to its passage?
Mr. SCHENCK. We do intend to Press it as strongly as we can. IMPRISONED UNION SOLDIERS.
Mr. SCHENCK. The ComMilAffrs have directed me to report back a JtResolution for the relief of Union soldiers now in prison in the U.S. for mine r offenses, together with a communication on the subject from the War Dept. The committee think no legislation necessary, and have directed me to move that they be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, and that the JtResolution be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. Bounty, Etc.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, also reported back sundry bills, petitions, &c., in regard to the bounty law, &c., covered by general law; which were laid on the table. FORT LEAVENWORTH MILITARY RESERVATION.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, reported back House bill No. 942, donating a portion of the Fort Leavenworth military reservation for the exclusive use of a public road, with the recommendation that it do pass. The bill provides that a strip of land, 100 feet in width along the southern boundary of the Fort Leavenworth military reservation, in the State of Kansas, extending from the Missouri river to the western bound ary thereof, shall be set apart for the perpetual and exclusive use of a public road.
Mr. SCHENCK. The committee have reF. this after an investigation of all the acts and papers in the case.
Skip Skip The bill was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. TRANSFER OF INDIAN AFFAIRs.
Mr. SCHENCK. I am instructed by the ComMilAffrs to report back House bill No. 960, to restore the jurisdiction of Indian affairs to the War Dept. The House havin already passed an amendment to another bill covering this subject, I move that this bill be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was laid on the table; on the table. agreed to. PRIZE MONEY FOR SIGNAL CORPS MEN.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee reported a bill to authorize the payment of prize money to certain officers and enlisted men of the Signal corps of the Army; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to pay to the officers and enlisted men of the Signal corps of the Army who performed duty in the ‘. under the command of Admiral Farragut, while that fleet was engaged in action in Mobile bay on the 5th of August, 1864, from any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sum or sums of prize money to each respect ively as will be equal to what has been allowed in distribution to officers and sailors of the Navy of corresponding rank, the same as if their names i. in any case been borne upon the ship's books:
Mr. BOUTWELL. Does this appropriation come from the prize money, or is it an additional a optiotion from the Treasury?
Mr. SCHENK. It will probably come out of the prize money which has accumulated at the Treasury Dept. We consulted the 4th Auditor's office, and it is not exactly join how the prize money has been distributed. I will say that several officers and men belonging to the Signal corps were detailed at the request of Admiral Farragut to serve on the vessels in the action in Mobile Bay. In the naval operations these officers and men exposed themselves, doing good service and received the thanks of the naval commander. When the prize money came to be distributed they were left out, because the law provides prize money shall only be distributed to those who are borne upon the ships' books. The committee at 1st were not disposed to regard the equities in the case, or to report supposing it to be the 1st instance of the and would be establishing a precedent, but it appeared afterward, in the case of admiral Porter's squadron, payment had been made to signal officers ifmen serving with that squadron, the precaution having been taken to enter their names on the books, which was not done in this case. Prize money also was paid to the officers and soldiers of Harri son's army who served in 1812–15, with Commodore Perry upon Lake Erie. The commit: tee looked into the facts of the case, and recommend the passage of this bill.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it accordingly was read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ADWERSE REPORTS.
Mr. KETCHAM, from the ComMilAffrs, made adverse reports on the following cases; which were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed: Resolutions to consolidate the Census Bureau and Provost, Marshafs Bureau; petition of Edward Kunkle; memorial of W. A. Howard; and petition of Selina Coe, widow of S. B. R. Coe. JAMES KELLEY.
Mr. KETCHAM, from the same committee reported a JtResolution for the payment of Captain James Kelley, of the 16th U.S. infantry; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution directs the payment of a sum equal to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of captain of infantry in active service from the 24th of June, 1864, till the 81st of October, 1866, in full settlement of his claim.
Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork. If there is a report in this case I would like to have it read.
Skip Skip The report was read. The JtResolution was order engross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. KETCHAM mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. JUDGE Advocate’s Corps.
Mr. BLAINE, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a bill to amend section 12, chapter 299, of the laws of the 1st session of the 39th Congress; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill amends the section aforesaid by repealing all after and including the words “until otherwise provided by law, ” so as to place the judge advocates thereby authorized to be retained in service upon the same footing in respect to tenure of office and otherwise as other officers of the Army of the U.S.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would like to know what this is about.
Mr. BLAINE. I will send to the desk a communication from the Judge Advocate general to the SecyWar, which explains the whole matter.
Mr. ROSS. I would ask if this is regarded by the Military Committee as one of the necessary steps to make a military despotism in this country?
Mr. BLAINE. The report just read is very clear and explicit, and nothing I can say will add to it. If gentlemen will not listen to what the judge advocate writes, I am sure they will not listen to what I may say. I move the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the itime, and passed. Mr. BLAINE mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ADVERSE Report.
Mr. SITGREAVES, from the ComMilAffrs, made an adverse report on the memorial of Robert A. Constable, of the Ohio volunteers; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. goverNMENT LAND AT HARPER's FERRY.
Mr. BINGHAM, from the ComMilAffrs reported a bill to authorize the SecyWar to convey certain lots in Harper's Ferry; which was read a 1st and 2nd time.. The bill, which was read, authorizes the SecyWar to convey by deed in fee simple the lots of ground in Harper's Ferry, in WestVirginia, which have heretofore been granted for the use of churches and for charitable purposes, so as to secure their permanent use and possession for the same purposes and no others.
Skip Skip The bill was. to be engrossed and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. BINGHAM mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PURCHASE of DAvid's Island.
Mr. BINGHAM, from the same committee, reported a JtResolution for the purchase of David's Island, NewYork harbor; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution authorizes the SecyWar to purchase for the Government of the U.S. David's Island, in NewYork harbor, for the sum of $38, 500, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease with Simeon Leland.
Mr. BINGHAM, I move the previous question.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I would like to hear some explanation of the necessity of this purchase.
Mr. BINGHAM. I withdraw the previous question and will explain it to the gentleman very briefly.
Mr. ROSS. I rise to a point of order. I submit that this bill makes an appropriation and must have its 1st consideration in ComWhole.
The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. The bill provides that the SecyWar shall purchase this island, but there will have to be an appropriation made in some other bill to pay for it.
Mr. BINGHAM.. state that this isl and is now in the occupancy, under lease, of the Government of the U.S., as it was deemed essential for the use of the Government, and fixtures have been erected upon it by the Government to the amount perhaps of half the cost of the island under the terms of the lease. A friend tells me that the fixtures amount to more than the entire sum named in the bill. By the terms of the lease the Government of i. U.S. is permitted and privileged to purchase this property at this sum, provided the contract is concluded before the rst day of next April. This bill is recommended by the SecyWar, doubtless on the ground that the purchase is essential for the use of the Government, and on the further ground that unless we avail ourselves of the privileges secured to us by this lease the government will have to pay much more for it.
Mr. TAYLOR, of N. York. Let me state that David's Island is not in the harbor of NewYork. It is on LongIsland sound, 20 miles from NewYork.
Mr. SCHENCK. They call it in NewYork harbor, although I believe it lies on the sound opposite NewRochelle.
Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork. It is not in NewYork harbor.
Mr. SCHENCK. I think it would be well to amend the bill by substituting for “in NewYork harbor”, the words “on LongIsland sound.” I move that amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. With the permission of my colleague, [Mr. BINGHAM, JI will add one word. This island is now in the occupation of the Government, under a lease, and has valu able buildings upon it. Under that lease the Government has the o: of taking it at the appraisement made 5 years ago of $38, 500, which was regarded by all parties as exceedingly cheap. Some newspaper correspondent telegraphed to NewYork that the ComMilAffrs were going to reportin favor of the purchase of this island, and a gentleman in NewYork offered for it twice the price that the Government is to pay under the appraisement of 5 years ago.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I have always been taught during my life time that anything you. not want was dear at any price, and I believe that to be true. This is a proposition for the purchase of an island on which there' is a hospital, which during the pendency of the war was very useful; but now that the war is over I do not consider that a hospital at that point is at all necessary. because somebody believes this island is worth double what the U.S. Government can obtain it for, that is no reason why the Government should speculate in that manner. At this time, when economy is so necessary in the administration of the Government, I do not think we should buy unnecessary islands or any land whatever that we can possibly do jout I alol therefore move that the bill be.
Mr. BINGHAM. No, sir; the gentleman cannot have the floor to make any motion of that sort.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Very well; I want to take no advantage of the court esy of the gentleman; but I want a thorough ventilation of the subject.
Mr. BINGHAM. I have no doubt from what has already transpired that the House is fully advised, from any view that can be taken of this matter, that it is to the peculiar advan tage of the Government to avail itself of the privileges secured to it alone by the existing ease. If the Government shall not need the island hereafter it can sell it, after having acquired the title to it, for twice the amount it will now have to pay for it. We should bear in mind, also, that the permanent structures u.pon the island erected by the Government are twofold the price proposed to be given or it.
Mr. SPALDING. I would ask my col. league [Mr. BINGHAM] if he desires the government to become a speculator in land?
Mr. BINGHAM. ot at all; the Government has use for the island.
Mr. SPALDING. If there is need of the island, that is one thing.
Mr. DARLIN6. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. BINGHAM. I cannot yield now; the ComMilAffrs has much business to dispose of and is limited as to time. I call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded. The question was upon ordering the main question to be now put. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. that the bill be laid on the table. The question was taken; and upon a division, there were ayes 41, noes 47; no quorum voting. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative–yeas 64, nays 73, not voting 53; So the bill was not laid on the table. The question recurred upon ordering the main question; and being taken, the main question was ordered. The JtResolution was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. The question was upon the passage of the I move. Mr. BINGHAM. Upon that question I call the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was passed. Mr. BINGHAM mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired. TEXAS ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS. The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, in answer to a resolution of the House of the 17th ultimo, relative to the accounts of the State of Texas with the U.S.; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. NATIONAL BANK TAXES. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, in answer to a resolution of the House of the 28th ultimo, relative to the amount of taxes annually paid by national banking associations to the U.S and to the several States: which was referred to the ComBanking&Currency, and ordered to be printed. MASSACRE NEAR FORT PHIL. KEARNEY. The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyInterior, in answer to House resolution of January 29, 1867, requesting information concerning the massacre of U.S. troops by Indians near Fort Phil. Kear ney; which, on motion of Mr. WINDoxi, was referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY its Secretary, announced that the Senate ha passed an act (S.No.538) for the relief of the widow and children of Henry E. Morse, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. The message also announced that the Senate had passed with amendments, in which the concurrence of the House was requested, an act (H.R.No. 902) to declare the sense of an act entitled “An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands. quartermas ters' stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the U.S. ” ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. KASSON. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the President's message. I make this motion in order to enable the Gentfrom Massachusetts oHoopert] to speak upon the question of the currency. After he shall have concluded his remarks, I shall ask the ComWhole to proceed to the consideration of the Indian appropriation bill.
The SPEAKER. The committee can lay aside the President's message at any time, and then the special order will come up for consideration.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were ayes 55, noes not counted. So the motion was agreed to. So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. GARFIELD in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the President's annual message.
Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman yield for a reply?
The Clerk read as follows: o TREASURY DEPT, OFFICE of CoMPTRoller of the CURRENcy, AshiNgtoN, January 7, 1867. SIR: In order to avoid discriminating specifically in Prescribing the amount of circulation a bank may have upon its capital, I would suggest a scale like the following as an amendment to commencing the House bill, in line 569: “And, the amount of such circulating notes to be furnished to each association shall not be more in proportion to its paid up capital than asfollows: “On the 1st $500,000 of paid up capital, 75%. of such capital; on the 2nd$500,000 of paid up, capital, 60%; of such capital; on the 3rd $500,000 of paid up capital, 50%. of such capital; on the 4th $500,000 of paid u capital, 40%. of $500,000 such capital; on the fift of paid up capital, 30%. of capital; such on the 6th $500,000 of paid up capital, 25% of such capital; on the 4th and 5th millions of paid up capital, ten%. of such capital, and on all paid up capital overfivemil lions circulation shall be issued upon the bonds deposited, which the lay requires to be urer the U.S., not exceewdiitnhgthoeneTrtehairsd; of the paid up capital.” This schedulewould give circulation upon capital as follows: One bank oftenmillions capital mustdepositbonds to the amount of may $3, 334,000u, ponwhich circulation be issued to the amount of $3,000,000 Very respectfully, H. R.HULBURD, Deputy and Acting Comptroller. Hon. SAMUEL Hooper, Committee on Banksand Ourrency, HoRep.
Mr. PRICE. With the consent of the Gentfrom Massachusetts, I would like to ask him whether a compound interest note is not a legal tender in the payment of any debt for which any other U.S. note is a legal tender?
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I supp. the gentleman means at its face value, or r the amount for which it was issued.
Mr. PRICE. I ask the gentleman whether a $100 compound interest note is not a legal tender in payment of $100, as much so as any other note issued by the Government of the U.S., and whether it is not lawful money?
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I leave it for the lawyers to decide whether it is lawful money or not. In the case of the greenbacks the law declared them to be lawful money and a legal tender.
Mr. PRICE. JMy question is this: if I owed the gentleman $100, payable in lawful money, could I hot compel him to receive in payment a compound interest note for $1007
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. If it had 2 years' interest accumulated on it I would receive it with pleasure.
Mr. PRICE. Whether it had 2 days or 2 years?.I. ask the gentleman to answer.
Mr. PRICE. I could compel you to reeeive it?
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir, for its face value; but whether that would make it lawful money is a question I leave to the lawyers. The Present Chief Justice when SecyTreasury was of opinion that the compound interest notes were not “lawful money.’
Mr. POMEROY. It is a question of math ematics: things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.
Mr. PRICE. Does the gentleman assert they are lawful money?
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I will, to save time and stop this argument.
Mr. PRICE. I wish the gentleman to go upon the record as saying the compound inter: est notes issued by the Government, declared to be lawful money, are not lawful money.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. It would take too much time to explain what constitutes lawful money. What is it in the gentleman's opinion?:;
Mr. PRICE. Lawful money, sir, is anything that will pass from one person to another in payment of a debt; the law says such are compound interest notes, and they are therefore lawful money and legal tenders.
The CHAIRMAN stated that by order of the House the committee would now proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 1039, making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian dept, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending 30th June, 1868. By unanimous consent, the 1st reading of the bill for information was dispensed with.
Mr. BLAINE. Would it not be wise to postpone the further consideration of this bill till after final action on the bill which has passed this House transferring the jurisdiction of Indian affairs to the War Dept?
Mr. KASSON. Not at all, as that bill does not affect these appropriations.
Mr. MAYNARD. Is this more than a bill making appropriations to carry out treaty stipulations?
Mr. MAYNARD. If the bill passed here the other day becomes a law, will these appropriations for agents, &c., be necessary?
Mr. KASSON. It will be left to the discretion of the SecyWar. Where Army officers are placed instead of civilians, of course they will be paid out of the appropriations for the War Dept, and these appropriations will not be called for.
Mr. WINDOM. The Gentfrom Iowa, I suppose, has not the slightest expectation that bill will pass the Senate, and of course thinks it better for us to pass these appropriations.
Mr. KASSON. I have confidence in the good sense and patriotism of that body, and I think they will pass it.
Mr. WINDOM. It is from that confidence, I Presume, he asks this bill be passed.
Mr. KASSON. I move on page 14, line 3 12, to strike out “them” and insert “the Red Lake band of Chippewas;” so it will read: For the 4th of 15 installments for the purpose of supplying the Red Lake band of Chippewas bwliathnkegtisll, isnhgeettwininge, fl, ancontetlosn, prmovaitstieorn, s, cfaalrimcoi, nglintosoelys, and for such other useful articles, and for such other useful purposes as may be deemedfor their best interests, per 3rd article supplementary treaty of 12thApril, 1864$, 8,000.
Mr. KASSON. I move on page 25, line 585, to strike out “seven” and insert “eight;” so it will read: Kickapoos: For 14th installment of interest, at 5%., on $100,00foo, r educationalandotherbeneficial Noes. as per 2nd article treaty May 18, 1854, For 14th installment on $200,000, to be paid in o, per 2nd article treaty 18th May, i. in
Mr. KASSON. I move on page 82, line 763, under heading “Nez Percee Indians, ” to strike out “seven” and insert “eight;" so it will read: For 2ndof 4 installments to enable the Indians to removeand locate upon the reservation, to be expended in plowing lands and fencing lots, as per 1st clause 4th article treaty of June 9, 1863, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, $40,000.
Mr. KASSON. I move on page 40, line 963, to insert the following: Pottawatomies of Huron: For permanent annuity in money and otherwise, as per 2nd article of the treaty of November 17, 1807, $400.
The Clerk read as follows: For the general incidental expensesof the Indian service in Colorado Territory, Presentsof goods, ag ricultural implementsand other useful articles, and to assist them to locate in permanent abodes, and sustain themselvesby the pursuits of civilized life, to beexpendedunder the direction of the SecyInterior, $20,000.
Mr. BRADFORD. I move to amend the foregoing paragraph by adding the following proviso: Provided, That no part of said money shall be disbursedby Alexander Cummings, the Present superintendent of Indian affairs for Colorado Territory.
Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman suggest some one by whom the money shall be expended; if he will I have no objection to giv.ing my consent, so far as I have authority.
Mr. BRADFORD. It must be expended under the direction of the SecyIn terior. I find on examination of the accounts of the Present superintendent that a great deal of the money has been squandered during the past year.
Mr. KASSON. I have no doubt the money in that instance, as in a good many others, has been very badly expended; and I have endeavored during the last few days to convince the House that such has been the fact generally. But when the gentleman proposes that it shall not be expended under the direction of the Present superintendent some other direction must be made, or perhaps he will not only fail in accomplishing his purpose but the money itself may not be expended at all.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself very much befogged as to matters in colorado Territory, and I would inquire if there is, any information before the which will justify it in acting thus invidiously in regard to that Territory as is proposed by the amendment of the Gentfrom Colorado, [Mr. BRADFord] I have seen and heard a deal of controversy about the affairs of Colorado Territory. I am not a partisan for or against the Present Governor of that Territory. I find myself utterly at sea as to accurate information on the subject. The statements of the 2 sides of the question are irreconcilably in conflict and I would like something like definite information before we adopt the proposed amendment. M. BRADFORD. In reply to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, I will state that I find upon examining the accounts of the superintendent of Indian affairs of Colorado Territory. now on file in the office of the ComrIndAff, that a large portion of the appropriation made last year has been squandered by the superintendent. I find that the sum of $1, 800 purports to have been paid to one M. B. Cummings for services as clerk of said superintendency for the year ending December 31, 1866, when it is understood that this M. B. Cummings resides in the city of Philadelphia; and it is a notorious fact that this clerk has not been within the limits of Colorado since May last. I find that the sum of $350 appears to have been paid to one A. Boyd Cummings, as secretary of some Indian council., Who that A. Boyd Cummings iIs am not advised. I find that one item in the account of said superintendent, for the uarte.r ending December 31, 1865, the sum of is inserted as money paid to one John Wanless for transporting 19,600 pounds of freight from Denver to the Middle F. at 12 cents per pound, at an estimated distance of 160 miles, when it is a well known fact that the distance is less than 80 miles. I find many other items in his account equally dishonest; and for that reason I have moved the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows: seFrovrictheinet general Terinrictoidrey, ntparlees expenses of the Indian of goods, agricult ural implements, and other useful articles, and to assistthem to locate in permanent abodes, and susteaxipntehnedmedselvesby the pursuits of civilized life, to be under the directiion of the SecyInterior, $15,000. Mr HOOPER, of Utah. I move to amend the foregoing paragraph by striking out the appropriation of $15,0inserting $25,000. I will state in explanation of this motion, that the estimate of the Dept of the interior for this appropriation was $25,000, and that the Committtee on Appropriations, with a view to economy, I suppose, reduced it to $15,000. In conversing with the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAsson] I explained to him that it was necessary, in order to carry out what was asked for by the superintendent of Indian affairs in the Territory, that we should have $25,000, and that that would fall far short of what we really should have to do for the Indians in Utah. I will state that there is no Territory in the U.S. which has received less in the way of Indian appropriations than Utah, and no Territory has settled so large a colony with so little expense of money. I understand the Gentfrom Iowa has no objection to the amendment.
Mr. KASSON. I will only say that I believe the Indian business of the Territory of Utah is more safely and wisely conducted than that of any other Territory of the Union, and I have been satisfied, as the gentleman has stated, that it was not wise to cut down the estimate.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. If these lands were not subject to settlement by what right are these settlers there now?
Mr. BIDWELL. I believe that all the public lands of the U.S. are subject to settlement.
Mr. DEMING. I rise to a point of order. I submit that a proposition to purchase a val ley for the settlement of Indians is not in order on a general appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks the objection comes too late. The amendment has been offered, and remarks have been made upon it.
Mr. BIDWELL. I will state that a bill reported from the ComIndAffrs has this same object in view. If this amendment be adopted, the 2nd section of that bill may be stricken out, and that will obviate the necessity of having that bill considered in ComWhole. It is for that reason that I ask for the adoption of my amendment. I have no further remarks to make upon this question, unless some gentleman desires to ask questions in regard to it.
Mr. KASSON. As this amendment is in the nature of new legislation, and involves so much consideration, both as to the propriety of the purchase and the amount required for the purpose if the purchase should be made, I F'. entirely unwilling to consent to its being incorporated into this bill. I have outside information that the amount asked for, $100,000, will be altogether inadequate to complete this work if it is once begun. I think such a matter as this should receive the investigation and special report of the ComIndAffrs, or some other committee of this House, before it is incorporated into a bill like this, which our committee has sought to limit to the closest rule of regularity. f.therefore, this amendment will not be Pressed, or if Pressed that it will not be adopted.
Mr. BIDWELL. I will not insist upon the amendment if it is to give rise to very serious objection. But I do say that some such provision as this is absolutely necessary if the government desires to properly maintain and care for the Indians in California.
Mr. HILL. I would inquire of the Gentfrom California [Mr.jwhether, if we make this appropriation for the purpose of purchasing this property, there is or can be any legislation to prohibit persons from settling on this land for the purpose of being bought out by the Government?
Mr. BIDWELL. The valley is now full of settlers: it cannot hold any more. In answer to the objections of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] I will say that I am willing to add to my amendment a proviso that the entire purchase shall not cost more than the sum here named; and if it cannot be made for that sum then none of the appropriation shall be used. I am very anxious to secure this legislation in some bill.
Mr. KASSON. That would not do away with my objection, because it relates to the whole subject of making an appropriation for a matter so little understood by the House, and which before it is introduced here should have the special report of some committee.
Mr. BIDWELL. Iment. will withdraw my amend
The Clerk resumed reading the bill. The following clause was read: Navajo Indians in NewMexico; puFrocrhassuebsistencefor theNavajo Indians, and for the of sheep, seeds, agricultural implements, and other articles necessaryfor breaking the ground on the reservation upon the Pecosriver, $100,000.
Mr. WINDOM. I move to amend the clause just read by increasing the appropriation to $101,000. I do this for the purpose of making an inquiry of the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN] I would inquire of him if these are not, the same Navajo Indians that have been maintained by the military in NewMexico for the last year or two?
Mr. KASSON. I should suppose the chair man of the ComIndAffrs.[Mr. WINDOM] is better acquainted with that subject than any member of Ao the Committee on
Mr. WINDOM. Then I desire to say that these are the same Indians which the War Dept has been feeding for the last 2 years, or at least the last year. Now the War Dept proposes to turn them over to the interior Dept, and this appropriation is in view of that transfer. to. !. War Dept there have been expended during the last year for these Indians the sum of $1,500,000. It is proposed to turn them over to the Dept of the interior, and the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAsson] proposes to give that Dept the sum of $100,000; or only one 15th part as much as the War De par.tment required. I ask the gentleman, considering his vote on the Indian bill the other day, and his justification of the military dept upon the subject of Indian affairs, why he proposes only one 15th as much for the “stealing” Indian Bureau as the military dept required? This $100,000 is for the subsistence of the Indians, for the seeds and agricultural implements for them, and for all other necessary articles, including sheep: while these same Indians cost $1,500,000 last year under the follow improved system for managing Indians.
Mr. KASSON. I propose to answer tomorrow in the House several of the suggestions made the other day by the Gentfrom Minnesota, [Mr. WINDoM,) one of which he has just repeated. I propose tomorrow to give that gentleman an opportunity to substanti ate several of the statements he has heretofore made upon this subject. I could do it in part this afternoon; but the hour is so late, and there is such a necessity for completing this bill today, that I prefer to correct his statements tomorrow in the House. I will say now, however, in answer to his question why we appropriate only $100,000 for the use of the interior Dept for this purpose, that while the War Dept has maintained these Indians without any help, which the gentleman knows much better than he states, in view of the prospect of transfer ring this Indian Bureau to the War Dept we believe $100,000 will be ample under the administration of the War Dept to sustain both the war and the peace expend itures.
Mr. WINDOM. The gentleman now as sumes peculiar honesty, as he did the other day peculiar knowledge of the affairs of the Indian Bureau. He tells the House that this bill has been brought in with a view to turning the Indian Bureau over to the War Dept. I leave the question of honesty for the House to determine.
Mr. KASSON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that my friendfrom Minnesota does not recover more readily from the soreness of his defeat on the bill which we had under consideration the other day. I can assure him there is no soreness anywhere else. I am sorry that the “squaw” still remains on his brain to such an extent as to disturb his equanimity. [Laugh o
Mr. WINDOM. I suggest that the gentle man has the “squaw on the brain” much worse than I have, as he has referred to the matter 3 times where I have alluded to it once. I hope that it is altogether on the brain with him. [Laughter] I withdraw the amendment.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I am sorry that the Gentfrom Iowa, with whom I voted the other day, has not answered the question of the Gentfrom Minnesota. If it is a fact that, under the management of the War Dept, $1,500,000 has been expended on these Indians in NewMexico, the House should know it; and perhaps it might be proper for us to reconsider our action of the other day.
Mr. KASSON. I supposed that members of the House understood very well, as does the Gentfrom Minnesota, that the War dept for a long period of time sustained these Indians from its military rations almost entirely, I believe. This resulted from the necessity of the case. There was some discussion between the War Dept and the Indian Bureau in reference to the management of those Indians; but not being upon the ComIndAffrs, I cannot enter into the details. I have never heard before that it cost $1,500,000 to sustain those Indians. I think my friendfrom Minnesota must have been misinformed on that point. However that fact may be, the appropriation reported here is all that was estimated for. Of course the committee did not increase the amount of the estimates. As to the amount appropriated last year I propose to speak tomorrow. I am disinclined to detain the committee at this late hour. The Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the bill.
Mr. KASSON. I move that the committee rise and report the bill. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the Chair, Mr. GARfIELD reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the President's annual message, had come to no resolution thereon; also that the ComWhole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 1039) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian dept, and for a treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending 30th June, 1868, had directed him to report the same to the House with sundry amendments. MARY J. DEXTER. On motion of Mr. DELANO, by unanimous consent, the ComClaims was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Mary J. Dexter for a pension, and the same was referred to the ComInvalidPens. RETROCESSION OF ALEXANDRIA. On motion of Mr. INGERSOLL, by unanimous consent, the bill (H.R.No. 932) to repeal an act entitled “An act to retrocede the county of Alexandria in the DistCol to the State of Virginia, and for other purposes, ” was ordered to be printed. GLASS AND PORCELAIN COMPANY.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, by unan imous consent, introduced a bill to incorporate the Potomac Glass and Porcelain Company; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, an referred to the ComDistCol.
Mr. DAWES mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL.
The SPEAKER. The o: question is, t Will the House agree to the amendments reported from the ComWhole on the state of the Union to the bill (H.R.No. referred to the joint select Committee on re 1039) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian dept and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending 30th June, 1868? M. KASSON. I call for the previous question.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I hope that will not be sustained. On 2nding the call for the previous question, there were ayes 22, noes 20; no quorum voting.
Mr. KASSON. I will not insist on a vote this evening upon 2nding the call for the previous question. I move that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed t;o and thereupon (at 4 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WEDNESDAY, February 6, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. Robert LAIRD Collier, D. D., of Chicago, Illinois. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. MILLER, by unanimous consent, presented the following resolutions; which were construction, and ordered to be printed: IN The HoRep, TUEsday, January 8, 1867.
Mr. Mann, of olutions; Potter, offered the following res: which were twice read, co and adopted: Resolred, That as all the legislative power of the national Government is vested in Congress, it is the imperatiye duty of that body to provide enactsuch laws, and for the establishment, 9fsuch governments, in the States lately in rebellion as will secure to every loyal 'i.therein full and completeprotection to life, liberty, property, and the enjoyment of equal political rights, to the end that the foundation of such governmentsmay be fixed on principles of etIeternsaollvjuesdt, ice, which will endurefor all time. That the clerk of this Houseberequested to forward a copy of the above resolution to each of the Senators in Congressand membersof the House from the State. [Extract from the Journal of the HoRep of the Commonwealth, of Pennsylvania] ADIN W. BENEDICT, Clerk HoRep. COPYRIGHTS.
Mr. HAYNS, by unanimous consent, from the JtcomLibrary, reported back Senate bill No. 491, amendatory of the several acts respecting copyrights, with an amendment. The 1st section of the bill provides that every proprietor of a book, pamphlet, map, chart, musical composition, print, engraving, or photograph, for which a copyright shall have been secured, who shall fail to deliver to the Library of Congress at Washington a printed copy of every such book, pamphlet, map, chart, musical composition, print, engraving, or pho tograph, within one month after publication thereof, shall, for every such default. be subject to a penalty of 25 dollars, to be collected at the suit of the Librarian of Congress, as other penalties of like amount are now collected by law. The 2nd section provides that every such proprietor may transmit any book, pam phlet, map, chart, musical composition, print, engraving, or photograph, for which he may have secured a copyright, to the Librarian of Congress, by mail free of postage, provided the words “copyright matter” be plainly writ ten or printed on the outside of the package containing the same; and it shall be the duty of the several postmasters and deputy postmasters, when such package shall be delivered to them, or any of i.to see that the same is safely forwarded to its destination by mail, without cost or charge to said proprietor. The amendment of the committee is as follows: Insert in 2nd section, between lines 8 and 9, after the word “postmasters” the words “to give a receipt for thesame if requested, and.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading, and it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. HAYES mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ALLowANCE For TRANSPORTATION, ETC.
Mr. DONNELLY, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution declaratory of the law allowing for transportation, bounty, &c.; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. EMPLOYi’s of THE HOUSE.
Mr. ROLLINS, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Accounts, reported a bill to equalize the pay of the officers and employees of the HoRep and to prohibit the allowance of extra compensation, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and otime, ordered to be printed, and recommitted. MERCANTILE INSURANCE company, NewYork.
Mr. ALLISON, by unanimous consent moved that Senate bill No. 302, for the relie of the Mercantile Insurance Company of NewYork be taken from the Speaker's table. . The motion was agreed to; and the bill was taken up, read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComClaims, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. Boux DARY BETWEEN OREGON AND IDAHO.
Mr. HENDERSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill directing the ComrGLO to cause the bound ary line between the State of Oregon and the Territory of Idaho to be surveyed and suitabl marked at the earliest practicable period; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred, on motion of Mr. BRANDEGEE, to the ComTerritories.
Mr. BRANDEGEE mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. REMOVAL OF WIRECK OFF NEWYORK HARBOR.
Mr. RAYMOND, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved.That the SecyWar be requested to communicate to this House the report of the engineerin relation to the wreck sunk off the entrance . NewYork harbor, northeastof Sandy Hook light house. REPORT OF J. ROSS BROWNE.
Mr. HIGBY, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was, under the law, referred to the ComPrintg: Resolved.That 10,000 copies of the report of J. RossBrowne on mineral resources, &e. in addition to those already ordered, be printed for the cuospeyof the members of this House; and also that a of the rules of at the GLO toaid in the disposal of the mineral lands under the lraewpofortr. that purposebe added to each copy of saidf J. H. RILEY.
Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved. That the sum of $200 be allowed and paid to J. H. Riley for services renderedby him as clerk urtinhge House ComPacificRR ngrest she 1st and 2nd sessionsof the Present
Mr. PRICE mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table.
Skip Skip The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. ALLISON moved to reconsider the several votes on the foregoing bills and resolutions, on which motions were not made to reconsider; and also moved to lay that motion to reconsider on the table. agreed to.
Mr. SCHENCK called for the regular order of business. INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. The House accordingly resumed the consideration of House bill No. 1039, making appropriations for the current and contingent ex. of the Indian dept, and for lfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending 30th June, 1868, reported from d. ComWhole last evening with various amendments.
Mr. KASSON. I move the previous question.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I hope the gentleman will allow me to make a motion.
Mr. KASSON. I would like to hear what the motion is before I allow it to be made.
Mr. SCOFIELD. There is a large amount of these appropriations for the maintenance and benefit of the Indians not called for by tsreatoies, and I wish to make a motion to rethe bill with instructions to strike them Mr. KAsson. There is a certain amount of appropriations made for purposes not provided for by treaties, but they are customary appropriations in anticipation of treaties. I have only to assure the gentleman that the ComAppropriat have endeavored to make the appropriations as small as possible.
Mr. D. I have no doubt the committee are following precedents in making these appropriations. But here are appropriations introduced in the bill, and almost everybody knows that they are wasteful appropriations that never reach the Indians to any considerable extent, and what little does reach them is rather a damage than a benefit to them. I wish, therefore, to instruct the committee not to follow the bad precedents in this case in Tmaking these very large and useless expend itures of the public money.
Mr. KASSON. I agree with the gentleman on the facts of mismanagement, but I do not agree that these appropriations are unnecssary or useless. I hope that the evil of the Present administration of Indian affairs may be corrected.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I would inquire of the Chair whether, if the previous question is not 2nded, my motion will not be in order?
Skip Skip On 2nding the previous question, there were ayes 25, noes 25; no quorum voting. The Chair ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. KAssox and Scofield. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 53, noes 53.
The SPEAKER. The Chair votes in the affirmative; so the previous question is 2nded . The main question was then ordered. The question recurred on agreeing to the amendments made by the ComWhole.
The Clerk read as follows: “The Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAsson] and the Gentfrom Qhio [Mr.SchExck]both opposethis bill Militaanryd defend the amendment emanatingfrom the Committee on the ground of economy. On that point I wish the attention of the Housefor a few moments. The Gentfrom Iowa saysthat when we look at the fearful increase in the appropriations for Indian affairs it is time that weshould pauseand ascertain whether some remedy cannot be found for the extravagance of the Present system. He saysthat the expenseshave increasedwithin a they fewyearsuntil now reach nearly 4 million dollars. The fact, as statedby the ComrIndAff in a letter to the chairman of the ComWays&Means, is that the appropriations in 1866in, stead of being $4,000,00w0, ere $2.468,05foor the entire Indian service. This"included aii payments under treaty stipulations and the providing for and taking care of 300,000 Indians. Mr. Speaker, this is the alleged extravagance of Indian dept.” the
Mr. KASSON. Now, sir, the point of fact was made by the chairman of the ComIndAffrs, [Mr. WINDom,) that the appropriations made in 1866 amounted only to $2, 468,050, and he says his statement is based upon a communication from the ComrIndAff to the ComWays&Means. I do not know what communication he refers to, and I should be glad if he would state it to the House.
Mr. WINDOM. I desire to know of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. Kasson] if he in tends I shall be compelled to answer him from time to time as he proceeds, or whether I shall be allowed an opportunity to reply to he concludes him after . argument. If I am exE. to get up and be questioned and be imited as to time for my answer, then I prefer not to answer at alk. If I am to have time hereafter to answer I will do so.
Mr. KASSON. I will not Press the gentleman. He shall have more time from me than he gave me when he closed the debate on the bill transferring the Indian Bureau to the War Dept.
Mr. WINDOM. That means simply no time at all, for he asked me for no time at all, for I had none to give him. But the gentleman had already had 20 minutes or a half an hour; I do not remember how much it f. was. If the proposes to show to this House that have made any incorrect statements, I demand of the House the right to correct him. I have the document before me now; I am willing to give him the authority which I quoted on this point, and on every point. But I am not will.ing to be called up and examined and be required to answer “yes” or “no” without any opportunity to answer fully. If he will give me time to answer fully I will do so. Upon this point now, I will state that I read from a document dated December 31, 1866. In the excitement of the debate the other day I misquoted only in this particular: I stated that it was a letter addressed to the chairman of the ComWays&Means, [Mr. STEvens] It was in fact a letter addressed by the ComrIndAff to the SecyInterior; being suggested by a letter addressed to the ComrIndAff by the chairman of the ComWays&Means. That is the authority which I read.
Mr. WINDOM. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. WINDOM. I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman wery kindly intimated I might, for the purpose of correcting anything I said the other day, for what I then said was correct as I stated it. But I rise for the purpose of giving him my authority. If that authority was not correct, it is not my fault. I stated what it was at the time. And, by the way, the gentleman now states the amount from estimates. Whether the committee on which he acts always report bills for the entire amount estimated I do not know.
Mr. KASSON. I do not state the amount from the estimates, but from the law as passed, which is contained in the book of estimates.
Mr. WINDOM. The authority from which I quoted the other day states: “Taking, the appropriations of 1866 as a general basis, for the estimate, the following, figures, under. 3 heads last mentionedwill be nearly correct: Fulfillment of treaties. S1, 960,000 Salaries of superintendents, agents, and clerks. 101, 450 Transportation and insurance 27, 368 interpreters, repairs of build various contingencies 91.700 interest on trust funds. 187, 532 $2, 468,050 This is the aggregate as I stated it the other day. If there is an error it is an error on the part of the Dept, not on my part. I quoted my authority at the time.
Mr. WINDOM. The gentleman did not misunderstand me, and if he wants my authority for the statement I will give it to him.
Mr. WINDOM. Will the gentleman yield to me now, or when he gets through?
Mr. WINDOM. This is a question of the slavery of these Indians.
Mr. KASSON. That is a side question from the Indian appropriation bill. About that fact I have no information, nor has the committee, and for that reason it should not be sprung upon us at this time.
Mr. WINDOM. I would be glad to give the gentleman information on that point.
Mr. KASSON. The gentleman says I differ with my authority in regard to the number of these Indians. Let me say, General Carlton, who commands that dept, on page 312 of the same report of the Indian commissioner uses this language: HEADQUARTERS DEPTof NewMexico, SANTE FE, NewMexico, April 24, 1865. GENERAL: I returned yesterday from the Bosque edondo. It will be impossibleto organize into bands and systematically direct the laborsof the 9,000 Indians we have at that point, unless the lands areproperly surveyed. I have written 2 lettersto the secyInterior on the subject. There is my authority for referring to 9,000 Indians as being there at the date of this communication, which is April 24, 1865. The military officer, General Carleton, commanding in that district, puts the number at 9,000. It will be observed that the gentleman's estimate of $1, 700,000 does not rest upon actual figures. So far as transportation is concerned it is merely a statement as to what they suppose the transportation of subsistence would cost, while the fact is, as I learned this morning at the subsistence dept, that the habit has been to give them one pound of wheat and one pound of beef or some kind of carcass as their ration, and consequently a large part of these supplies are obtained in the vicinity and without transportation at all; for one advantage of gathering these Indians at Bosque Redondo reservation was to get them in the vicinity of settlements where supplies could be more cheaply obtained. Consequently the large estimate as to the cost of transportation falls to the ground as a mere conjecture of the Indian Bureau, for the purpose of raising an issue against the economy of the War dept.
Mr. WINDOM. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?
Mr. WINDOM. As the gentleman has read the statement of General Shiras, the commis sary general, giving the cost of subsistence, I desire to ask if that includes transportation.
Mr. KASSON. I suppose every member knows what subsistence means. The statement I have read contains all I know except what I have learned at the subsistence dept, as I have just stated.
Mr. wo Will the gentleman answer my question or not?
Mr. KASSON. I have already stated that I have no other information on the subject.
Mr. WINDOM. I understand the gentleman to say he does not know whether it includes transportation or not. Everybody else knows that it does not.
Mr. KASSON. If there is no other point upon, which the gentleman desires information I will yield to the Gentfrom Tennessee, [Mr. MAYNARD]
Mr. WINDOM. Not now. I have failed to obtain much on that point from the gentleman.
Mr. MAYNARD. When this bill was up yesterday I put an inquiry to the Gentfrom Iowa which he answered very fully and satisfactorily. On further examination of the bill I find it is composed of 2 parts: one consists of appropriations to meet the demands of existing treaties; but there is another, embracing a very large portion of this bill, which goes to general intercourse with the Indians, making in the aggregate something more than $1,000,000. Now, sir, by a very decided vote of this House the other day it exPressed the opinion that the management of the Indians should be transferred from the interior Dept to the War Dept. Should the Senate concur in the action of the House that change will be made, and the act will go into effect at the commencement of the next fiscal year. The existing appropriation for carrying through the affairs of the Indian Bureau for the Present year are made. There is no necessity for any further appropriation until the 1st of July next. If in the mean time the law should be changed and the Indian affairs should be placed under the control of the War dept, it would be better to have these appropriations made upon the basis of estimates furnished by the War Dept rather than estimates furnished by the interior dept. The next Congress assembles on the 5th of March,: It will have ample time to pass an Indian appropriation bill before the commencement of the next fiscal year; and I submit to the gentleman and to the House whether we had not better, as a matter of prudence, suspend any action upon this bill during the Present session, and see whether that change in the management of the bureau is made. If the proposed change in the law is made we may expect a radical improvement in the management of the affairs, and the next Congress will have full opportunity to provide for the wants of the bureau; whereas if we go on and make the appropriations now under Present, estimates and the law is changed, the work will all have to be done over again.
Mr. KASSON. As I stated yesterday, this bill is framed in the usual manner and for the usual object of our annual Indian appropriation. If the bill which has passed this House transferring the jurisdiction of the Indian Bureau shall pass the Senate, prior to the passage of this bill, then in the Senate its provisions can be modified to meet the emergency if necessary, and when it comes back to the House we can concur in the amendments of the Senate. If not, the only effect, as the matter now stands, would be that the appropriations for compensation of civil officers and employees would lapse, and nothing would be taken out of the Treasury. If the bill which has passed the House transferring the entire jurisdiction over the Indians from the interior Dept to the War Dept should become a law, my imPression is that no part of this bill would need to be changed. It would only be a lapse of all the appropriations not called for under the new system. I think it important that we should pass this bill at this time according to custom in order that there may be no failure. There is still some doubt as to how long Congress will remain in session, and it is desirable to have the business disposed of as usual. I will now pass to one other fact touching the Navajoes at Bosque Redondo. I find from a report made by the Commissary General of Subsistence to the SecyWar, that for 6 months of the last calendar year, the amount expended by the commissary dept, not alone for the subsistence of the Indians on the Bosque Redondo reservation, but for all the Indians at numerous posts and places, was $487, 914 49. This was the expenditure, not for the Bosque Redondo reservation alone, but for 52 posts and reservations. I mention this as an important fact in order that the House may not be misled by any exaggerated reports from anybody in or out of expendituthrees. Indian Bureau touching these ow, there remains but a single point more in regard to which I will detain the House.
Mr. SCOFIELD. Will the gentleman allow me 3 minutes before he goes on?
Mr. SCOFIELD. I have made the effort to recommit this bill, not from any hostility to its general purposes. I know very well that this large appropriation must be made, useless almost as it is and wasted as large portions of it always are. But there are appropriations under the head of “miscellaneous” which the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] says he thinks amount to a million.
Mr. SCOFIELD. A portion of these appropriations I think ought to be stricken out; and I wish it to be recommended to the committee for that purpose. Let me call the gentleman's attention to one or 2 items. Here is one: For o;the expenses of subsistenceof Indians the removal and in Oregon and Washington Territory, (not parties to any treaty,) and for pay of necessaryemployees, $50,000. There is no treaty in that case. We have made no arrangement to remove these Indians from their Present location; there is no contract, and the House is not advised that there is any necessity for it; and yet we are asked to appropriate no less than $50,000. Here is the next item: Navajo Indians in NewMexico: puFrocrhasusebsistencefor theNavajo Indians, and for the of sheep, seeds, agricultural implements and other articles necessaryfor breaking the ground on the reservationupon the Pecosriver, $100,000. Now, of that $100,000 everybody who has had anything to do with these Indian transactions knows that $5,000 will never reach the Indians. And of this million of dollars, if it is a million in all, not 5%. will ever fall into the hands of the red skins. Now, I submit that the vote ordering the main question to be now put should be reconsidered, and the House should have the opportunity of saying whether they will not send this bill back to the ComAppropriat with instructions to strike out these worthless and corrupting appropriations.
Mr. KASSON. have already intimated to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Sco FIELD] who knows very well how heartily I sympathize with him in the desire to avoid the mismanagement of this fund, that it is impossiblefor us to get along without appropriations of this kind. . cannot refuse these appropriations without great danger to the interests of the whites in those Territories, by permittin and leaving the Indians to wander abroad an commit outrages upon the whites from time to time, as they always do under such circumstances. There are always stray bands of 20 or 30 or 100 or more each, floating and roaming around through the Indian Territory, committing ravages upon the bordering white settlements. And out of this fund the expenses of collecting these Indians together, feeding them in part, providing them with agricultural implements, &c., are paid, in order to remove them from the vicinity of the whites and locate them upon some reservation permanently or temporarily selected for that purpose. Now the difficulty is that if we refuse these appropriations, and do not allow this to be done, we will soon find ourselves embarked in a war created by the difficulties occurrin between the whites and Indians; and then will arise expenses to the extent of 100s of 1000s and perhaps millions of dollars from that war. Now I should be as glad as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] himself to strike out from this bill every such appropriation if I did not know from my acquaintance with Indian affairs that it would expose us to a war from the contact of the neglected Indians with the whites. The gentleman on my right from Oregon [Mr. HENDERson] no doubt understands the condition of Indian affairs in his State, and I Presume he will concur in the statement which I have made. if I am in error he will correct me, as he is famil iar with the condition of affairs in his own State.
Mr. HENDERSON. The Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAsson] is perfectly correct in his statement. The eastern portion of the State of Oregon is entirely overrun by fractions of tribes, who are engaged in robbing, murdering, and generally committing ravages upon the white settlements. They are so small bands that no treaties ever have been or ever will be made with them by the Government, until there is an expenditure of a considerable sum of money to gather them together and locate them. That is essentially necessary at the Present time for the welfare both of the Indians and the whites.
Mr. THAYER. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for a moment.
Mr. THAYER. It seems to me that the gentleman, in his eloquent peroration, has made the best possible argument against his bill. If Indian wars and Indian atrocities are to be prevented by squandering millions of money upon Indian agents, I desire to ask why this practice, which has so long obtained, has not prevented Indian wars and Indian out rages heretofore? If there is anything in the gentleman's argument, why has not this practice heretofore produced the results which he contends should logically be its consequences? Now, sir, so far as regards such appropriations in this bill as have in view the carrying out of existing treaties, those appropriations must be made. Wee must abide by the treaties we have made. But so far as regards the immense sums proposed to be appropriated for other purposes immense sops which are thrown to these savages to prevent the atrocities which the gentleman has so eloquently described the past experience of the Government shows that this method of treatment is unavailing to prevent the outrages which are annually perpetrated by these savages. I say, therefore, that the proposition of . my colleague [Mr. much in it deserving the attentive consideration of this House, and that those H.; of the bill to which I have adverted, having in view the appropriation of immense sums not required for the fulfillment of existing treaties, should, in my judgment, be stricken from the bill. I hope the House will yet give my colleague an opportunity to make the motion he has indicated.
Mr. KASSON. I wish to reserve time to answer questions put to me. The SPEAKE Except, by unanimous consent, when the gentleman's hour expires, he cannot be allowed to proceed.
Mr. KASSON, I wish to answer the suggestion made by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. There are no such immense sums. general purposes appropriated by this bill as he suggests. Nearly the entire bill is to carry out existing treaty stipulations. We could not discriminate between those treaties broken by the Indians and those that are not. We have added at the conclusion of the bill the following, which guards that subject for the 1st time: SEC. 2. Abife: That no moneys or annuities stipulated by any treaty with an Indian tribe for which appropriatiqns, are herein made, or for which appropriations shall hereafter be made, shall be expended for, or paid, or delivered to any tribe which, since the nextprecedingpayment under such treaty, shall have engaged in hostilities against the U.S., or against its citizens peacefully and lawfully sojourning or traveling within its o at the time of such hostilities: nor in such case shall such stipulated payments or deliv eries be resumeduntil new appropriations shall have been madetherefor by Congress; and it duty shall be the of the ComrIndAff to report to Congress, at by any each session, any caseof hostilities. tribe with which the U.S. has treaty stipulations, which shall have occurred since his next precedingreport. 2ndly, we must have some appropriations which do not touch the tribes now making war, nor those with whom we have treaties; but only to enable us to carry out existing arrangements for Indians collected, or to be collected, under civil control. 3rd ly. The military dept must have some funds, so that when they capture Indians they may, as they will have to subsist them upon reservations or elsewhere, just as they have been subsisted on the reservation at Bosque Redondo under restraint. These Indians have to be subsisted on Army rations or from special funds or they would starved. That is all I have to say on that.
Mr. BROMWELL. I would ask the gentleman, from Iowa whether if this provides for withholding treaty money from tribes which have broken treaties, if that will not lead to the committing of savage atrocities by them as well as withholding appropriations not provided for by treaty, opwhich he has spoken?
Mr. KASSON. It of course provides for folio our treaty stipulations.
Mr. WINDOM. The gentleman says I have referred to these as a harmless people. I believe I have never made any such reference. I believe there is no member of this House who better knows how far they are from harm less. The terrible experience of my own constituents proves them much more nearly allied to demons than to angels. I am also charged by the gentleman with championing the Present Indian system. That is not my position. I introduced a bill in tended to correct the evils complained of in that system, and appealed to the House to pass it to prevent the evils shown to exist also under military superintendency. Io to the military not for the purpose of casting any reflection, but merely to show we are not more secure under them than under civil management. So far as these large appropriations are concerned, I desire to say that if the Indians shall be transferred to the War Dept you will appropriate 20, 30, or 100 millions for the military service and you will never hear of it again. 3 or 4 millions per annum will be squandered in the Indian service and no one will ever think of asking any questions, nor of looking into the vast mael strom of military expenditure; just as no one would ever have known of the reckless extrav agance in NewMexico if this investigation had not taken place. For the fact is that the appropriations for the military service are so enormous that a few millions are easily stolen without attracting attention. The Indian service will afford a rich field for military speculations if the transfer shall be made.
Mr. KASSON. If the bill passed the other day becomes a law, and the jurisdiction of Indian affairs be transferred to the War Dept, we will still have an Indian appropriation bill and examination into all Indian matters by the able committee at the head of which is the f.from Minnesota. The great evil now is that we have a double headed system in which one branch of the service charges the responsibility on the other. I understand that the instance in reference to which we hear so much and touching the origin of which the dispute has never been settled, the killing of the Cheyennes was by volunteer soldiers with volunteer officers, and not an officer or soldier of the regular Army among them. I ask for the question.
Skip Skip Mr. THAYER. Mtrtv the main question was ordered. The House divided; and there were ayes 45, noes 3; no quorum voting, The spiSa KER ordered toilers; and appointed Mr. KAssox and Mr. Thayer. The House again divided; and the tellers reported ayes 71, noes not counted. So the vote ordering the pending question was reconsidered. The question recurred, shall the main question be now put? and being put it was disagreed to.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I move to recommit the bill to the ComAppropriat, with instructions to strike out all appropriations not required by treaty stipulations, or to pay Indian agents, &c., under the law.
Mr. MAYNARD. I hope the gentleman will modify his motion so that the bill shall be recommitted with instructions to report back the bill with sums necessary to carry on existing treaty stipulations, until it is, decided whether the bill passed the other day shall become a law.
Mr. KASSON. There must be some appropriations for Indians on reservations like those at Bosque Redondo, which cannot sustain themselves and must be saved from starvation by rations doled out to them.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I do not well see how I can so frame it as to include what the gentleman suggests.
Mr. KASSON. If the gentleman will make his motion with instructions to report a bill excluding all indefinite appropriations not necessary to carry out treaty stipulations or to maintain Indians now in the custody of the U.S. it will come, perhaps, as near to what he desires as is practicable.
Mr. SCOFIELD. Tam disposed to accept that modification. But I do not know that it will cover all these appropriations to which I object.
Mr. KASSON. The objection made by the gentleman shows that any modification will fail of accomplishing.his purpose. This will cover much more than it is safe to strike out. It will strike out a portion of the expenses under the head of general incidental expenses, but it will enable us to take care of those Indians over whom we have control, those just gathered on the reservations.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I will accept the modifi eation omitting the word “indefinite.”
Mr. KASSON. I will leave the gentleman to fix it for himself; but I confess that I doubt whether he can fix it in a practicable way.
Skip Skip The motion of Mr. Scofield, as modified, was agreed t;o and the bill was accordingly recommitted. Mr. SCOFIELD mtRtv the bill was recommitted; on the table. agreed to.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I ask unani.mous consent to offer the following resolution for reference to the Committee.o. Reso'ced by the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress assembled That the publishers o f the CongressionalGlobe shali and are, directed and required to so arrangethe Index to the volume of the Congressional Globe here after to be published that it shall give the number and title of every bill and resolution introduced into ngress, with a reference to proceedings the pages showing the thereon. Also, that said publishers he and are, directed to insert in one of the yolumes of the Globe, for each session a plan of the Senate and HoRep, showingthe seats occupied by the membersrespectively, and a list of the memand officersof the Senate and HoRep, with the postoffice addressand occupa;tion of such of them as may furnish the same to publishers. said Mr. SPALDING objected. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep: I transmit a report from the SecyState, in answer to a resolution of the HoRep of yesterday, making. as to the States which have ratified the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the 39th Congress. ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGTON, February 5, 1866. DEPT or STATE, WASHINGTON, February 5, 1867. The SecyStatehaving received a resolution of the HoRep of the 4th of ruary, 1867d, irecting him Feb to report to that House what States now rePresented in Congresshave rat ified the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the 39th Congress, has the honor to port reto the Presidentthat authentic evidence of such ratification hasbeenreceived at thisDeptfrom the following namedStates: Connecticut, Tennessee, sNaesw, aJnedrsMeyis, sOourerig.on, Vermont, WestVirginia, Kan A printed copy of a JtResolution ratifying the said amendment, bearing the printed names of soaker the of the HoRepand President of the Senate of the State of NewHampshire, followed by the words “approved July 7, 1856, ”t, he printed name of the Governor of said State, and “a true copy, attest Walter Harriman. SecyState, ” has also been received at Respectfully submitted, this Dept. WILLIAM. H. SEWARD. To the PRESIDENT. On motion of Mr. BINGHAM, the communication was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. PENTWATER AND PERE MARQUETTE HARBORS. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, in answer to a resolution of the House of Feb ruary 1, 1867, transmitting maps of the har bors of Pentwater and Pere Marquette, supplemental to his report of the 2d instant; which was ordered to be printed and referred to the ComCommerce. IMPROVEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in answer to resolution of the House of January 25, 1867, the report of the chief engineer, accompanying GenlWilson's report, on the survey and improvement of the Mississippi river; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. SOUTHERN SUPERINTENDENCY.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyInte rior, communicating the accounts of the super intendent and agents of the southern superin tendency, in compliance with the act of March 5, 1865; which was referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed. The SPEAKER then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to call the committees for reports, resuming the call where it wast last suspended with the ComMilAffrs. CLAIMS FOR HORSEs. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffaios was discharged from the further consideration of the letter from the SecyWar in relation to claims for horses, including the letter from the acting quarterMGen on the same subject, no further legislation being needed on the subject; and the same was laid on the table. ARMY SUPPLIES. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of a communication from the quarterMGen in relation to a plan for settling the claims against the Government for supplies taken by the Army; and the same was referred to the ComClaims. The LATE WAR.
Mr. SCHENCK. I am instructed by the committee to report back a resolution providing for the i.of a work illustrative of the late war, together with the correspondence of the War Dept in relation to the same; and I am instructed by the committee to say that they find such a work would be at tended with enormous expense. I move that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the resolution, and that it be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. MiLITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT.
Mr. SCHENCK also, from the ComMilAffrs, reported back, with the recommendation that it do not pass, bill of the House No. 895, to amend an act entitled “An act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the U.S., ” approved July 28, 1866; and the same was laid on the table. ARMY IRATIONS.
Mr. SCHENCK also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do not pass, bill of the House No. 898, to place all officers of the Army on the same footing therein as to the allowance of extra rations as officers of the volunteer service; which was laid on the table. VOLUNTEER SERVICE.
Mr. SCHENCK also, from the same committee, reported a bill declaring and fixing the rights of volunteers as a part of the Army; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill provides that in computing the length of service of any officer of the Army, in. to determine what allowance and payment of additional and longevity rations he is entitled to, and also in fixing the relative rank to be given to an officer, there shall be taken into the account and credited to such officer whatever time he may have actually served, whether continuously or at different times, as a commissioned officer of the U.S., either in the regular Army or since 19th April, 1861, in the volunteer service. The bill further provides that in all matters relating to pay, allowances, rank, duties, privileges, and rights of officers and soldiers of the Army of the U.S., the same rules and regulations shall apply, without distinction, for such time as they may be or have been in the service, alike to those who belong permanently to that service and to those who as volunteers have been in the service. The bill also provides that nothing therein contained shall be construed as affecting or in any way relating to the militia of the several States when called into the service of the U.S.
Mr. SCHENCK. I will yield for a question.
Mr. SPALDING. I desire to make but a single remark. I have in my mind the case of a young man who served 4 years in the volunteers, and afterward served a year in the regular Army. He was an orderly sergeant, and his officers recommended him for a commission, but he could not obtain it because he had not served 2 years in the regular Army.
Mr. SCHENCK. I was just going to state such a case by way of illustration. Under the Present system a man may have been in the volunteer service and may have fought through the whole war against the rebels, yet in the regular Army he is put below a captain who has held the position for only a month, upon the ground that he has never been in the Army at all. By this bill we propose that time spent in the volunteer service. i be counted as time served in the Army. This is the whole of the bill. With this explanation, unless Some gentleman desires further information, I will call the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. LONGeVITY RATION.
Mr. SCHENCK. The ComMilAffrs, to whom were referred a petition of certain officers of the U.S. Army praying that officers on the retired list may be allowed longevity rations, and a petition of Brevet Major General L. Thomas, on the same subject, have directed me to report them back, accompanied by a bill, of which we recommend the passage, entitled “An act to extend to general officers and officers on the retired list the benefit of the additional ration for every 5 years' service. The bill was read a 1st and 2nd time. It provides that section 15 of the act to increase the Present military establishment of the U.S., and for other purposes, approved July 5, 1838, be amended so that general officers shall not hereafter be excluded from receiving the additional ration for every 5 years' service. It is further provided that officers on the retired list of the Army shall have the same allowance of additional rations for every 5 years' service as officers in active service.
Mr. SCHENCK. I call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ASYLUM FOR DISABLED SOLDIERs.
Mr. SCHENCK also, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a bill to amend the act establishing the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill provides that the act named in the title be amended so that in case any manager selected by the Senate and HoRep who may have been or may be afterward, and during his term of service as manager, elected a member of Congress, he shall not for that reason be ineligible to hold the place of a member of the board of man agers, but may continue to serve on the board to the end of his term the same as if he were not a member of Congress.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. GRANT OF PropBB ty TO Ohio.
Mr. SCHENCK also, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a JtResolution granting certain public property to the State of Ohio; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill, which was read, provides that the building, sheds, furniture, lumber, and other property now at Camp Chase, near Columbus, Ohio, shall be donated to that State, to be used in the erection of the State Asylum for the Idiotic.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to." GRANT OF LAND FOR BRIDGE PURPOSES.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, also reported a JtResolution for the reduction of the military reservation of Fort Riley, and granting land for bridge purposes to the State of Kansas; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill, which was read, declares the south western boundary of the military reservation of Fort Riley, in the State of Kansas, to be here after the channel of the Republican river from its mouth to where said river intersects the Present western line of said reservation; and grants the land released from said reservation, lying between Smoky Hill and the Republican river, to the State of Kansas, to aid in the construction of a bridge across the Republican river on the public highway leading from the Present reservation, and on the exPress condition this grant shall be accepted by the State with the guarantee, by act of the Legislature, that bridge shall be kept up and in good condition, and be free to the U.S. for all transit purposes without toll. '
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ADDITIONAL BOUNTY.
Mr. SCHENCK. The ComMilAffrs, to whom were referred petitions of soldiers, &c., asking for additional bounty, have directed me to report it back, and move that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table, as the matter is already provided for in the general bill reported by the committee. The motion was agreed to. J. H. H.AMLIN.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, reported a JtResolution to pay Lieutenant JwoahsnreHad. Hamlin for military services; which a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution directs the payment to Lieutenant John H. Hamlin, of Michigan, late 1st lieutenant of the Michigan cavalry, full pay and allowances of 2nd lieutenant of cavalry from 8th of January, 1863, to 28th of March, 1864, when he was mustered in as 1st lieutenant.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. A message in writing was received from the POTUS, by Mr. Moore, one of his Secretaries. COURT OF CLAIMS.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, also reported back House JtResolution No. 226, extending the provisions of section 2 of an act entited “An act to extend the juris diction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quar termasters' stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the U.S., ” approved July 4, 1864, with an amendment. he bill, which was read, provides that the provisions of section 2 of the above entitled act be, and they are hereby, extended to cover all, cases of property of any kind taken by order of Major General Lewis Wallace, for the use of forces under his command during the Morgan raid through the States of Indiana and Ohio, in July, 1863, whether such prop erty was taken or receipted for by officers of the U.S. Army or any other person belonging to said forces. The amendment reported by the committee was to strike out all after the word “cases” in line 4, and insert in lieu thereof the follow 1ng: Where quartermasters’ stores wereofurnished to the forces under the command of Major General. Lewis, Wallace, duly receipted for by personsacting under his authority during the Morgan raid through the States of Indiana and Ohio, in the sumner of 1863 and for the purpose of ceipts giving such refor property so applied, the said persons shall beheld to be proper officersof the Government.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The JtResolution, as amended, was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, made adverse reports on the following Cases: the petition of Daniel H. Bingham, with leave to the petitioner to withdraw his papers; resolution respecting bounties to certain California volunteers, their cases having been provided for in a general law; the case of Mrs. Stager, widow of Solomon Stager, the same having also been provided for; and they were laid on the table. MARTHA tre.N.I.S. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the claim of Martha Trenis, and the same was referred to the ComClaims. WOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, reported back a JtResolution for the relief of certain officers of volunteers, recommending its passage. The JtResolution, which was read, provides that in every case in which a commissioned officer or enlisted man was detached from his regiment, in pursuance of orders from the War Dept, and directed to report to Brigadier General Daniel Ullman in NewYork city. with a view of being mustered as commissioned officer in the brigade which general Ullman was authorized by the War Dept to raise, and who reported in NewYork without neglect, and under order of his supe rior officer entered on duty, and was afterward mustered, but by reason of capture by the enemy or other cause beyond his control, without fault or neglect of his own, was not mustered within a period of not less than 30 days, the Dept shall allow to him full pay and emoluments of the rank in which he served from the date at which he received the order of the War Dept, deducting therefrom all pay actually received for such period; and in case of the death of any such officer or enlisted man prior to or after muster or after honorable discharge, his heirs or legal representatives shall be entitled to the pay aforesaid.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time;, and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the same committee, made an adverse report on the petitions of the following persons, Kentucky volunteers, namely: H. F. Riley, S. S. Brown, Marcus C. Courtney, H. E. Bailey, Josiah Grover, Ser geant R. W. Thornbrough, and Jabez Gifford, asking for back pay and bounty; and the petitions were laid on the table, with leave to the petitioners to withdraw their papers at their own request. Also adversely on the petitions of George M. Willing and of John Fales; which were laid on the table. Also adversely on House bill No. 931, to grant relief to honorably discharged soldiers who have lost their discharges; which was laid on the table, the case being provided for in a general bill already passed. Also adversely on House JtResolution No. 255, to provide longevity rations; which was laid on the table, the case having been provided for in a bill already passed. OLIVER LUMPHItheY.
Mr. SCHENCK also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Oliver Lumphrey; which was read a time. 1st and 2nd The bill directs the PayMGen to pay to Oliver Lumphrey, late a lieutenant in the 1st NewYork cavalry, a sum equal to the pay of a 1st lieutenant in the U.S. cavalry, from 1st March, 1865, to 1st June, 1865, deducting therefrom any amount which he may have received as a non-commissioned officer or private during the same time.
Skip Skip The was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PAYMENT FOR HORSES.
Mr. SITGREAVES, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to provide for the payment of horses and other property lost in the military service of the U.S., ” approved March 3, 1849; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill provides that the act to which it is a supplement shall, from the commencement of the late rebellion, extend to and embrace the cases of all horses lost, killed, or disabled, by drowning or otherwise; provided it shall appear that such loss occurred without any fault or negligence on the part of the owner, and while he was in the E. of duty as an officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I suggest to the Gentfrom NewJersey whether this bill would not cover the case of horses lost during transportation by water? Under the Present law, where a horse is lost for any reason during transportation, except the unavoid able dangers of the sea, the ruling of the dept has been that it E. cannot be paid for. example, we had before our committee a case of this nature: a horse was being transported on board a steamboat on the Mississippi river, and no railing had been put up on the side of the boat. During the night an accident occurred, and the horses and mules on board became frightened, and one horse was kicked overboard. The committee decided that the law did not cover that case.
Mr. SITGREAVES. This bill provides for all cases of lost horses.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SITGREAVES mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. SETTLEMENT of officers’ Accounts.
Mr. MARSTON, from the ComMilAffrs, reported back, with the recommendation that it do not pass, a JtResolution to facilitate the settlement of officers' accounts; and the same was laid on the table. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Mr. MARSTON also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do not pass, bill of the House No. 1014, to amend an act entitled “An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1866;” and the same was laid on the table. BOUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA VOLUNTEERS.
Mr. MARSTON also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do not pass, bill of the House No. 975, for the payment of bounty to the soldiers of the 186th Pennsylvania volunteers; and the same was laid on the table. TENNESSEE INDEPENDENT SCOUTS.
Mr. MARSTON, from the ComMilAffrs, also reported a bill for the relief of Captain Beaty's company of independent scouts; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The question was upon ordering the bill, with io, to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. The preamble states that David Beaty, of Fentress county, Tennessee, on the 25th of January, 1862, organized a company of independent scouts, numbering 1two men, including.captain, and his 1st and 2nd lieutenants; that the company was on continuous duty, engaged in the of supPressing the rebellion, from the date of its organization until the 1st day of June, 1865, serving under the orders of the commander of the Union Army in Tennessee; that said company was never mustered into the service of the U.S. by any properly authorized mustering officer, and neither officers nor privates of said company have ever received from the Government of the U.S. any compensation for their services. The bill provides that the organization set forth in the foregoing preamble. be recognized as a part of the military force of the U.S., engaged in supPressing the recent rebellion, and the members thereof, on making proof of actual service, are declared to be entitled to the same pay, bounty, pensions, and other allowances as though they had been regularly mustered into the service of the U.S.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would like to hear from some member of the ComMilAffrs whether this was a regularly organized company under the laws of the U.S., or whether it was merely an organized guerrilla party?
Mr. MARSTON. It was not an organized company under the laws of the U.S.; it was never regularly mustered into the service. But Captain Beaty raised this company in Jan uary, 1862, and continued in the service of the U.S., acting under the authority of the military commander of Tennessee all the time until June, 1865.
Mr. LeBLOND. Did he act in the military organization and under the proper officers? If so, fhave no objection to make.
Mr. MARSTON. I have here the letters of General Thomas and GenlBurnside, under whom they acted, recommending this bill.
Mr. DAVIS. I desire to suggest to the Gentfrom NewHamsphire LMr. MARSTON] to amend his bill so as to require the proof to be submitted in such form as may be Prescribed by the SecyWar.
Mr. MARSTON. That will be so at all events, because no one else can Prescribe what testimony shall be furnished.
Skip Skip The preamble and bill were then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, they were accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. MARSTON mtRtv the bill and preamble were passed; on the table. agreed to. RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS.
Mr. MARSTON. The House referred to the ComMilAffrs the petition of some 30 or 40 persons of Phila: elphia, asking the repeal of the law which retires officers of the Army at a certain age, and that no retirement be made without the report of a board of examination. The committee have had that subject under consideration, and have instructed me to report a bill to repeal the 12th section of i. act approved July 17, 1862, entitled “An act to.the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the Army, and for other purposes.”. The if.read a 1st and 2nd time. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. It provides that the 12th section of the act approved July 17, 1862, entitled “An act to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the Army, and for other purposes, ” be and the same is hereby repealed; and that the President shall be authorized to assign any officer retired under the act of August 3, 1861, to any appropriate duty, and the officer thus assigned s.the full pay and emoluments of his grade while so assigned and employed.
Mr. MARSTON. I call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The bill was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. MARSTON mtRtv the bill was passed; laid on the table. agreed to. D. RANDOLPH MARTIN, ASSIGNEE.
Mr. MARSTON, from the ComMilAffrs, also reported a JtResolution authorizing the SecyWar to adjust and settle the claims of D. Randolph Mar tin, assignee of the Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown Railroad Company; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The question was upon ordering the JtResolution to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. The JtResolution, which was read at length, proposes to authorize the SecyWar to adjust and settle the claim of D. Ran dolph Martin, assignee of the Washington, Al exandria, and Georgetown Railroad Company, for the use and occupation of the road of the company by the U.S. from Januar 11, 1862, till August, 1865, and to pay him such sum as may be found equitably due for such use and occupation. The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the; time, and passed.
Mr. MARSTON mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY its Secretary, announced that the Senate ha disagreed to the amendments of the House to (S, No. 453) regulating the tenure of certain civil offices. Leave or Absence. The SPEAKER asked leave of absence for Mr. HUBBARD, of WestVirginia, until next Tuesday. Leave was granted. soldiers on cleRical duty. On motion of Mr. ANCQNA, the Commit. ftuerethoenr MciolintasirdyerAaftfiaoinrs owfasa driesesholaurtgioend frroemlatitvhee to the pay of soldiers detailed for clerical duty; and the resolution was laid on the table. AMENDMENT OF MILITARY LAWS. On motion of Mr. ANCONA, the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of a resolution proposing an amendment of the act fixing the military E. establishment of the U.S.; and the resolution was laid on the table. BOUNTIES.
Mr. ANCONA, from the ComMilAffrs, reported back, with a recommendation that it be passed, a bill (H.R.No. 1049) to amend an act entitled “An act making appropriations, ” &c., approved July 28, 1866, iving additional bounties to discharged soliers in certain cases. The bill, which was read at length, provides that claims for the additional bounties provided by the act of July 28, 1866, in cases where the claimant's discharge certificate is alleged to have been accidentally lost or destroyed, may be Presented to the 2nd Auditor of the Treasury for settlement; and upon proper application, accompanied with proofs of such loss, the Auditor is to examine and determine the claim as in like cases of claims settled "by him. The payment of any such claim is to be made by a paymaster on the usual form of Treasury certificate issued by the Auditor and countersigned by the Comptroller. The nature of the proofs required and the forms in which they i. be Presented are to be Prescribed by the Treasury Dept. But no provision of the bill is to be construed to relieve a claimant from any requirement Prescribed in the act of July 28, 1866, or the regulations of the SecyWar made in conformity therewith, except the single one requiring the production of the discharge.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. ANCONA mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to.
Mr. ANCONA. I move that the ComMilAffrs be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 952) supplementay to an act granting additional bounty to certain enlisted soldiers, approved July 28, 1866; and that the bill be laid on the table, as the subject is covered by the bill just passed. The motion was agreed to. NELSON BELL.
Mr. ANCONA. I also move that the ComMilAffrs be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial of Nelson Bell, in relation to the same subject, and that the memorial be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. ARSENAL PROPERTY AT PITTSBURG.
Mr. ANCONA also, from the ComMilAffrs, reported a bill to authorize the purchase of certain lots of ground adjoining the Alleghany arsenal, at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill, which was read at length, proposes to authorize and empower the SecyWar to accept the offer of the StFrancis hospital Society to sell to the U.S. certain ots of ground situated in the borough of Law renceville, Pennsylvania, numbered one, two, 3, and 4, containing about 9600 square feet, and upon which is a spring supplying the arsenal with water. 3,800 dollars is appropriated to E. for the lots upon their conveyance to the U.S. by a good and sufficient title in fee simple.
Mr. ANCONA. The reading of the bill will fully explain its purpose. It goes to this extent and no further: upon these lands adjoining the arsenal is situated a spring from which the arsenal is supplied with water. The U.S. derived. right to a portion of the water some years ago. The lots are in mar ket and can be bought at a reasonable rate. It is recommended by the War Dept that the purchase should be made, and I hope the bill will pass.
Skip Skip The bill was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. o?mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PAY OF CLERKS AT SPRING Field ArtSENAL.
Mr. BLAINE, from the same committee reported a JtResolution fixing the pay of the clerks at the Springfield arsenal; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution, which was read, authorizes increase of the pay of the clerks at Spring field arsenal from $800 to $1, 200 per annum.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The ioint resolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. BLAINE mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. CHARLES B. WILDER.
Mr. DEMING, from the same committee, reported a JtResolution for the relief of Charles B. Wilder; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution, which was read, directs the payment to Charles B. Wilder, late captain and asst quartermaster, of the sum of $935, the same having been paid by him, under order of his superior officer, for indemnity.
Mr. SPALDING. I ask for the reading of the report.
Mr. SPALDING. Let the gentleman explain it.
Mr. DEMING. The Gentfrom Ohio calls for the report in this matter. I was but instructed this morning to report this to the House, and have had no time to prepare a written report. But I will explain the purpose of the JtResolution to the satisfaction of my friend. It seems Captain Wilder, asst quartermaster, by order of the War Dept, was made superintendent of freedmen's affairs in Virginia, and while in charge of those affairs he was ordered by the Government to loan the freedmen certain horses and mules, and as security received a deposit corresponding in value with that of the animals. Subsequently he was relieved from that dept and he paid over to his successor the $985 of deposit. Afterward he was restored to the dept, but his predecessor had sunk the money in the Treasury. He was ordered, nevertheless, to return that amount to the freedmen on the return of the animals which had been loaned. This is merely to reimburse him.
Skip Skip I demand the previous question. previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was passed. Mr. DEMING mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. ANTHONY ZIMANDY AND Others.
Mr. DEMING, from the same committee, moved that that committee be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial of Anthony Zimandy, the petition of Mrs. Almira Thompson, papers in the case of Thomas Tur ner, &e., and that they be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. WALTER C. WhitTAKER.
Mr. ROUSSEAU, from the same committee reeported a JtResolution for the relief of Walter C. Whittaker; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution, which was read, directs that Walter C. Whittaker be paid as colonel of the 6th Kentucky cavalry from 19th Septem ber, 1861, to 1st January, 1862, inclusive.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the thir time, and passed. 1033 Mr. ROUSSEAU mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. 2 1ST NEWYORK CAVALRY.
Mr. ANCONA, from the same committee, reported back House bill No. 1003, for the relief of the members of the 2 1st NewYork cavalry, with an amendment. The bill directs the payment to the privates and non-commissioned officers of the 20 1st NewYork cavalry, for traveling expenses from Colorado Territory, where they were mustered out in 1866, to the place of enrollment, thesum of $250 each, deducting the amount paid for commutation of traveling expenses. The amendment was to add the following proviso: Prorided, however, That the payment shall only be madeto such members of said organization who did notelect to be mustered and dischargedat the ren dezvouswhere the regimentwasto be musteredout: Provided also, The foregoing shall be extended to the 1st regiment of Michigan cavalry authorized to bepaid by section ten of an act making appropriationsfor sundrycivil expenses, approvedJuly 28, 18
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to; and as amended the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it wasaccoojingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. ANCONA mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. WAR DEBTS OF LOYAL STATES.
Mr. BLAINE. I desire to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall call up House bill No. 998, to reimburse the loyal States for troops furnished to the Union Army and for expensesincurred in the same, for the purpose of having a vote upon it, not expecting any discussion. The motion to reconsider has been entered, and I give this notice so that gentlemen may not consider the question as being sprung upon them when I call it up.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. gest to the gentleman to name the day.
Mr. BLAINE. If I can I will do it tomor row; if not I may on Tuesday next. NewsBoys' Home.
Mr. INGERSOLL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to amend an act establishing the Newsboys' Home; which was read a 1st and 2nd time time, referred to the ComDistCol, and ordered to be printed. COURT OF CLAIMS.
Mr. DELANO. I ask unanimous consent to take up from the Speaker's table House bill No. 902, an act to declare the sense of an act entitled “An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermasters' stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the U.S., ” for the purpose of concurring in of the amendments the Senate. No objection being made, the bill was taken up, and the amendments of the Senate concurred in.
Mr. DELANO mtRtv the amendments were concurred in; on the table. agreed to. organIZATION OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table House bill No. 874, to regulate the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other purposes..
Skip Skip No objection being made, the bill was taken from the Speaker's table, and the amendment of the Senate, to strike out the 3rd section, was concurred in. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, mtRtv by which the amendment of the Senate was concurred in; on the table. agreed to. CIWH, SERVICE.
The SPEAKER announced as the next business in order the consideration of bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof, on which Mr. SchENCK was entitled to the floor.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I would very flo occupy the attention of the House for a little while in Presenting what I deem to be the very great merits of this bill, both as a measure of economy and of wisdom in ever respect, and especially as one which I thin will secure to this country a very much more equitable administration of all its affairs in the different depts of the civil service; but my colleague on the joint select ComRetrenchment, [Mr. JENCKEs,) who reported the bill from that committee, has Presented the whole subject in so exhaustive and so satisfactory a manner that I deem any further discussion so far as rePresenting the views of the committee to be entirely unnecessary. I shall therefore content myself with Presenting some 2 or 3 slight amendments to the bill, and will then yield a portion of the hour to which I am entitled to gentlemen who wish to be heard on the subject, intending at the close of the hour, if not sooner, to move the previous question. I move to amend the bill in section ten by striking out in lines one and 2 the words “all citizens of the U.S., ” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “none but citizens of the U.S., or persons who have served in the Army of the U.S and been honorably discharged therefrom.”
Mr. SCHENCK. I move further to amend the same section in line 3 by inserting after the word “act” the words “or to be retained if already in service in any Dept;” also in line 14 by striking out the words “from those of" and inserting the words “the same as.” The section, as amended, will then read as follows: SEC. 10. Abife:, That none but citizens of the U.S., or persons who have served in the Army of honorably dischargedthtehreefUronmit,ed States and been shall be eligible to examination and appointment under the provisions of this act, or to be retained, oin service in any Dept, and the heads of the several depts may, in officesin the several tbhreainr:hdeisscorfetthioenc, ivdiel ssiegrnvaictee the duties of which maybe performedby females as well as males, and for all such officesfemales as well as males shall be eligible, and may make, application therefor and be tried, suspendede, xamined, recommended, appointed, and dismissed in manner aforesaid: and the names of those recommendedby the examiners shall be placed upon the lists for appointment and promotion in, the order of seniority, and without distinctiont, heoitrhemr ethriatnanads aforesaid, the same as male applicants or officers. The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. SCHENCK. My colleague from Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM, who desires to move an amendment to the bill, to which I have no objection, is not Present, and in his absence I will yield the floor to the Gentfrom Connecticut, [Mr. HUBBARD] who desires to speak for 5 or ten minutes on this subject.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. Most of the few who survive vote the Republican ticket.
Mr. MILLER. Do any of them vote the Johnson ticket?
Mr. SCHENCK. I now yield to the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. WooDBRIDGE] for ten minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman allow me a word 2
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. Yes, sir; although I have but little time left.
Mr. STEVENS. As I understand this bill oides for an examination of those now in Oiilco.
Mr. STEVENS. And those not found competent on examination are to be turned out.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. The incompetent will not necessarily be turned out.
Mr. STEVENS. If the report be unfavorable to them they are to be turned out.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. They ought to be. Here the hammer fell]
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I ask the Gentfrom Ohio to allow me a few minutes longer.
Mr. SCHENCK. I give the gentleman an allowance of 5 minutes more, on the condition that he shall confine himself to the prac tical view of the question, avoiding the roses and the poetry.."
Mr. SCHENCK. I now yield 15 minutes to the Gentfrom RhdIsland.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I only desire to say that the Gentfrom Ohio may understand.such offi. but we in Vermont do not.
Mr. McKEE. With the gentleman's consent, I move to amend by adding in section ten, line 3, after the word “act:” Except thosewho have voluntarily aided or encouraged any insurrection or rebellion against the Governmentof the U.S.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I offer, so it may be pending, the following amendment: Add the following proviso to sectionfive; Provided, however, That any person holding office in the said civil service of shall, directly or indirectly, the U.S., who or use any money or do any act (other than to vote) in aid of or to promotethe success of any candidate or party at any election of Federal, State, county, city, or officers, or shall be town a candidate for nomination or election to any such office, shall be deemedguilty of Fonduct in his said office, and be removed there roin.
Skip Skip Mr. SCHENCK. vious question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The question recurred on Mr. McKEE's amendment. Mr. LeBLOND demanded the yeas and I now demand the prenays. &nays were ordered. Mr. STEVENS moved that the bill be laid on the table. Mr. ELDRIDGE demanded the yeas and mayS. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 72, nays 66, not voting 52; So the bill was laid on the table. During the roll call, Mr. JENCRES changed his vote from the negative to the affirmative. The result having been announced as above, Mr. JENCKES mtRtv the bill was laid on the table.
Mr. BRANDEGEE. With the consent of the Gentfrom RhdIsland, I move that the House adjourn.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask the gentleman to withdraw the motion to allow me to report a bill from the JtCom on Reconstruction.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Imove to lay themotion to reconsider on the table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the Gentfrom Connecticut, who moved to adjourn.
Mr. BRANDEGEE. If"I can I will with draw the motion to adjourn, and yield to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. Several MEMBERs objected.
Mr. JENCKES. I withdraw the motion to adjourn and to reconsider for the purpose of allowing the Gentfrom Pennsylvania to report E. bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I report from the JtCom on Reconstruction a bill.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I rise to a privileged motion, to reconsider the vote by which the civil service bill was laid on the table, and to lay that motion on the table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, who rises to a privileged question; but will also recognize the privileged motion of the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. ELDRIDGE] when the Gentfrom Pennsylvania has Presented his privileged motion. o GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES.
Mr. STEVENS. I report from the joint seleet, ComReconstruction a bill to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States. The bill was read a 1st and 2nd time; and the question was on ordering it to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. o Mr. LeBLOND. I wish to inquire of the Speaker whether it is the intention to bill put this on its passage, now? The . The Chair does not know; he does not even know what the hillis.
Mr. STEVENS. I will say that if there is any objection I shall not urge it tonight. oMEMBERs called for the reading of the bill.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. To save time, and with a view to having the bill printed, I object.
The SPEAKER. Any member has a right to demand that it be j.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I under stood the gentleman to say that if there was any objection he would not proceed. SPEAKER. He said he would not Press it to a final passage tonight objection. if there was
Mr. STEVENS. I would inquire of the Chair what would be the effect of moving to recommit this bill and then o:
The SPEAKER. If the House adjourns now this bill will be the 1st business, in order after the reading of the Journal, without an motion to recommit. It is now the 1st busi messin order until disposed of.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the bill be printed. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] permit me to offer an amendment to the preamble and also an amendment to the 4th section of the bill, in order that the bill and amendments may be printed together?
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the bill be recommitted; and now I think we better adjourn.
Mr. BINGHAM. Does not the motion to recommit cut off all opportunity to amend?
The SPEAKER. It does, while the motion to recommit is pending.
Mr. LeBLOND. facsiro to make an inquiry of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, yo, he is assigned. Abife: That it shall be the as aforesaid, to protect
Mr. SteveNs. l I understand that this bill just now introduced will be the 1st business to be considered tomorrow after the reading of the Journal. Does the gantleman propose to put this bill upon its passage within any specified time, and if so, how soon?
Mr. STEVENS. I think I shall ask that it be put upon its passage tomorrow.
Mr. L oAnd the bill to be printed between now and when Congress shall convene tomorrow'?
Mr. LeBLOND. Without permitting any debate upon it?
Mr. STEVENS. Well, sir, I am very will.ing that the debate which has been going on here for 3 weeks, and which the gentleman will find in the Globe, shall all be read over by him whenever he can take time to o'. read it. But I do not see any necessity or any further debate beyond tomorrow.
Mr. LeBLOND. I appeal to the gentleman whether it is proper, upon a bill of the character of the one just introduced, of the magnitude of this bill, establishing military jurisdiction over all these States, is it proper to pass it here without even an hour's debate upon it? I appeal to the gentleman to allow some latitude of debate upon this bill; to fix some future day for final action upon it, and allow a reasonable debate upon it, without forcing it to its passage at so early a period.
Mr. STEVENS. I have indicated no intention to ask a vote upon this bill without a half an hour's debate upon it. On the contrary, if the gentleman asks iIt will yield that much to him.
Mr. LeBLOND. I do not ask it on behalf of myself.
Mr. LeBLOND. On behalf of the American people I ask more time for debate. if I had the power I would demand it as a right on behalf of the American people. I ask the gentleman to name a time some days hence, and allow a reasonable debate upon so important a proposition as this.
Mr. STEVENS. I will see what the American people think of it in E.g. the morning. If they are generally for a prolongation of the jo. of course I will go with them. But I will wait until then, in order to ascertain what the American people want. In the mean time I ourn. move that the House ad. J
Mr. LeBLOND. I will tell the gentleman what the American people want. They want the Constitution and laws of the country preserved and obeyed; they want men to be tried in pursuance of the Constitution and the laws, and not by military despotism, as this bill ovides.
Mr. STEVENS. I insist upon my motion to adjourn.
Mr. DELANO. Will the gentleman with draw that motion for a moment, in order to enable me to submit a resolution, which will give rise to no debate?
Mr. STEVENS. I will withdraw the motion to adjourn if the gentleman will renew it.
Mr. DELANO. I will do so. PARRER AND MATTHEWS.
Mr. DELANO. I now offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the prosecution of the claim of David Stout Parker and Forman Matthews, owners of the sehoonerTwilight, against the U.S., in the Claims, under and by virtue of a resolution of this House, datedMarch 20, 1866r, eferring said claim to said court, but which by mistake was described as the claim of "J. Stout Parker, ” and laellgatlhizee proceeding hitherto had thereon, are hereb and that they shall and may be continue in said court, under said reference, with the same force and effect in all respects as if no such mistake had beenmade in the nameof said claimant. I will state that the object of this resolution is simply to correct a mistake which was made in the name of the claimants when the case was referred to the Court of Claims last session.
The SPEAKER. The Chair doubts if the gentleman can attain his object by a single house resolution.
Mr. DELANO. Oh, yes, sir. It needs only. a resolution of the House to refer a claim to the Court of Claims.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is informed that the decision of the Court of Claims has been otherwise.
Mr. DELANO. The House passed a resolution referring this claim to the court last session, and this is merely to correct an error in the name of one of the parties. The resolution was agreed to. PRIVILEGED QUESTION.
Mr. WINDOM. I desire to enter a mtRtv the reports of the ComIndAffrs in regard to the administration of the Indian Bureau were recommitted to the committee. The motion was accordingly entered.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had indefinitely postponed bill of the House No. 668, to limit the time for bringing suits before the Court of Claims.
Mr. DELANO. I now renew the motion to adjourn. The motion was agreed t;o and accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the House adjouyned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. WEDNESDAY, February 6, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS, communicating, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant, a copy of the letter on which the SecyState founded his recent inquiries addressed to Mr. Motley, minister of the U.S. at Vienna; which, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, was referred to the ComForRel, and ordered to be printed. He also laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant, a report of the SecyState in relation to the steps that have been taken by him to secure to the U.S. the right to make the necessary surveys for an interoceanic ship canal through the territory of Colombia; which, on motion of Mr. ConNEss, was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. He also laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS, communi eating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 31st ultimo, the names of the deputy marshals, bailiffs, and criers in the DistCol who have received compensation for the year 1866; which, on motion of Mr. MoRRILL, was ordered to lie upon the table and be printed.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. He also laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS, transmit ting a report from the SecyTreas: ury, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of January 31, on the subject of a treaty of reciprocity with the Hawaiian Islands; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. He also laid before the Senate a report of the SecyInterior, communicating, in obedience to law, copies of the accounts of the superintendent and agents having charge of the Creeks, Chickasaws, Semine les, Wichi tas, &c.; which was referred to the ComIndAffrs.
Skip Skip HOUSE BILLS referred. The following bills and JtResolutions from the HoRep were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the ComMilAffrs : A bill (H.R.No. 942) donating a portion of the Fort Leavenworth military reservation for the exclusive use of a public road; A bill (H.R.No. 1127) to fix the pay of $.” the sergeant of the battalion of ngineers; A bill (H.R.No. 1128) to authorize the payment of prize money to certain officers and enlisted men of the Signal corps of the Army;. A bill (H.R.No. 1129) providing for the issue of certificates of service to officers and soldiers of volunteers; A bill (H.R.No. 1130) to amend section 12, chapter 229, of the laws of the 1st session of the 30. 9th Congress;, A bill (H.R.No. 1131) to authorize the SecyWar to convey certain lots in Harper's Ferry, WestVirginia; A JtResolution (H.R.No. 261) for the relief of Stephen E. Jones; A JtResolution (H.R.o: No. 262) for the of Captain James Kelley, 16th U.S. infantry; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 268) for the purchase of David's island, NewYork harbor. The bill (H.R.No. 1125) granting an additional pension to Samuel Downing, one of the last survivors of the revolutionary war, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPensions.
Mr. MORRILL, from the ComDistCol, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 234) to incorporate the National Capitol Insurance Company, reported it with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.128) authorizing limited partnerships in the DistCol, reported it without amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 907) to amend the law of the DistCol in relation to judicial proceedings therein, reported it with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.529) to incorporate the Howard University in the DistCol, reported it with an amendment.
Mr. WILSON, from the ComMilAffrs , to whom were referred various petitions of officers of the U.S. praying for an increase of pay, reported a bill (S.No.568) to provide for a temporary increase of the pay of the officers of the Army, and for other purposes; which was read and passed to a 2nd reading. Mr. LANE, from the ComPensions, to whom were referred the petition of John Clarke, late of the 1st U.S. infantry, and the petition of James Walsh, late a private in company L, 3rd U.S. artillery, praying for an increase of pension, asked to be. from their further consideration, the cases having been provided for by general law; which was agreed to. Mr. WILLEY, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the memorial of Seth Eastman, of o the U.S. AYmy for a restoration of the copyright of his pictures used in illustrating the Government work on the history of the Indians, &c., submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.
Mr. POLAND, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.524) establishing the salaries of the judges in the Territories, reported it without amendment.
Mr. HENDRICKS, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 1038) providing for an additional term of the circuit court of the U.S. in the eastern district of Arkansas, and for other purposes, reported it with an amendment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The ComJudiciary, to whom was referred a bill (H.R.No. 668) to limit the time for bringing suits before the Court of Claims, have instructed me to report it back and recommend its indef inite postponement. I will State to the senate that the law now limits the bringing of claims before the Court of Claims to 6 years and we see no necessity for any additional legislation upon the subject. The report was agreed t;o indio; and the bill was postponed.
Mr. SUMNER. The ComForRel have instructed me to report a JtResolution, which is applicable to the same subject on which they. already reported a JtResolution, and, indeed, it is the one already reported, but in a new draft. The JtResolution (S.R.No. 164) supple mentary to other JtResolutions to enable the people of the U.S. to participate in the advantages of the Universal Exhibition at Paris in 1867 was read and passed to the 2nd reading. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce the following bills; which were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the ComDistCol: A bill (S.No.v. 2) to authorize the formation of corporations for manufacturing, mining, mechanical, or chemical purposes; and A bill (S.No.570) extending the time for the completion of certain street railways.
Mr. POMEROY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.571) to amend an act entitled “An act nting lands to the State of Kansas to aid in fl. construction of a southern branch of the Union Pacific railway and telegraph from Fort Riley, Kansas, to Fort Smith, Arkansas” approved July 26, 1866; which was read twice y its title, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CONNESS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a JtResolution (S.R.No. 165) to refer the claim of the trustees of A. G. Sloo to the Court of Claims; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPostOffices, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BUCKALEW asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.572) fixing the time for choosing electors of President and VEEP; which was read twice by its title.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I will state that the time named in this bill is the 2nd Tuesday of October. I move that the bill be referred to the ComJudiciary. The motion was agreed to. Idistrict business.
Mr. MORRILL submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved.That Saturday next be assignedfor the consideration of legislation for the DistCol transit routes ACROSS Mexico.
Mr. ROSS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved.That the POTUS be requested to communicate to the Senate, if not deemedincompatible with the public interest, copies owfitahllrceoferrreesnpeoentodegnracnetnsotto American citizens ufnoircraated. rroeapdubalnied telegraph lines acrossthe territory of the of Mexico. PENSION BILLS.
Mr. LANE. I am directed by the ComPensions to report the following resolution, and to ask for its immediate consideration: Resolved, That there shall be an evening session of the Senate commencing at 7 o'clock p.m., on the 13thinstant, for the oof considering reports and bills reported by the Committee on Bions. Pen Mr. SUMNER. What day is proposed?
Mr. LANE. This day week. By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. POMEROY. I suggest that the evening be the 14th. I know that there are some Senators who have engagements for the 13th.
Mr. LANE. I have no objection to that amendment. I accept the modification and name the 14th. The resolution, as modified, was agreed to. s PRINTING OF DOCUMENTS.
Mr. ANTHONY. The ComPrint.ing, to whom was referred a resolution to print 10,000 copies of the report of J. Ross Browne upon mines and mining, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment, and I ask for its Present consideration. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution. The amendment was, after the word “printed” to insert “and bound;” and at the end of the resolution to add “with a title page and index;” so as to make the resolution read: Resolved, That 10,000 copies of the report of J. Ross Browne to the Treasury Dept, on the statistics of;: mines and mining, be printed and for the use of the Senate, with a index. title pageand The amendment was agreed t;o and the resolution, as amended, was adopted.
Mr. POMEROY. The ComPrint. yesterday morning made a report in favor printing a memorial, which was Presented by me the previous day, from the officers and managers. F the National Association for the Relief of Destitute Colored Women and Children, relative to a law suit, instituted against them by R. S. Coxe; but there was no action taken on the report yesterday, and I suggest that it be now taken up and disposed of. The Senate proceeded to consider the motion to print the memorial referred to, and it was agreed to. TENURE OF OFFICE.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House amendment to the tenure of office bill. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate resumed the consideration of the amendment of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.453) regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, which was to strike out in the 1st section of the bill the words “excepting the Sec retaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the interior, the PostMGenl, and the AttyGen.”
Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him one question just there?
Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish to know of the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin whether those were the only questions put to appli cants for office under the administration of Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, those were the only questions put during the administration of Mr.., so far as I know the catechism. After Mr. Lincoln was inaugu rated, it is within my recollection, and I dare say within the recollection of the Senfrom Delaware no; I beg to correct myself; these were not the only questions put. There was one other question put, and I do not know but that was the main question; I do not know but that even these were sometimes left out of the catechism. The great question put during the administration of Mr. Lincoln was, “Is he loyal to the flag and the Constitution of his country?” And if that was answered in the affirmative, preferments were open to all men alike, to their ability to fill them.
Mr. SAULSBURY. One other question, and I will not trouble the Senator further. Does the honorable Senator mean to be understood to say here in the Senate that all the removals, or any considerable portion of them, made by Mr. Lincoln in the States which had never assumed to secede were removals of disloyal men, men not true to the Government?
Mr. EDM UNDS. If my friend will allow me, in answer to his imputation of knowledge to me that I do not possess, I wish to say a word. It appears from Mr. Madison's speeches and writings that he did contemplate the abuse of power on the part of the Chief Executive in every conceivable way, and he went so far as to point out how such abuses of power under such administrations of the laws should be prevented and punished. Therefore I think it unjust to Mr. Madison to say that he did not foresee that the Chief Executive might commit precisely the improprieties that are now laid against the President.
Mr. HOWE. My friend cavils with me about the employment of words. The possi bility that a President might abuse this power he did foresee, because as my friend says he did, and as I said before, he did suggest the remedy. The remedy was, as I said, by impeachment, and he thought if that degenerate day ever did come in American politics, when the President should prostitute this patronage to the work of rewarding political partisan friends, we should have an American Congress brave enough and honest enough to remove him from office. The 1st day came long ago. We have seen the President for a long time doing that. The Congress which Mr. Madison supposed we should see has not yet made its advent. As yet we do not seem even to find a Congress which will withdraw from the President the authority of law to repeat these impeachable offenses. Others said, I think my friend the Senfrom Vermont said, that the President ought to have this power of removing the heads of Depts, because they were the confidential counselors and advisers of the President, and I think the Senfrom Maine [Mr. FesseNDEN] echoed that sentiment and enforced it. Sir, if you mean to say that the Constitution made them such, that the Constitution designed they should be the confidential counselors and advisers of the President, all I can do is to deny it. You might just as well assert that the Constitution designed they should be his sisters. There is not a line or a letter in the Constitution which indicates either.
Mr. EDMUNDS. It says they shall give him opinions when he asks for them.
Mr. BROWN. He has not been confirmed yet. [Laughter]
Mr. JOHNSON. It is true that, in what I have said today, I did not undertake to show that the true construction of the Constitution, in my opinion, was that the power exists by any reasoning of my own. I did undertake what I considered a very unnecessary duty, and one that arrogated to myself more ability in such matters than I know I possess, when the subject was before the Senate upon a former occasion. All that I have done today is to refer to Mr. Madison, to Mr. Justice Story, to Rent, and to Webster; and when I referred to Mr. Madison the honorable member from Wisconsin and the Senate, I suppose, recollect that he did attempt to satisfy. HOuse of which he was a member that the power existed, and he succeeded. I have not the vanity to suppose that I could add anything to the reasoning of that distinguished statesman. And whatever ability my friendfrom Wisconsin may possess which, if exerted, will enable him to shake Ithe authority of Madison, I should despair if attempted by any effort of my own to support that authority. The whole argument was exhausted, and he not only considered the question at that time and successfully aided in get ting the construction of the Constitution, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this bill, maintained, but in after life, after the cares of office had ceased, after he was in his retiracy at his home in Virginia, he wrote one or 2 letters full of argument on the same subject, in which he not only maintained the existence of the power, but said in relation to an article in the Federalist written by Mr. Hamilton, which averred that the power could be exercised as was supposed with the concurrence of the Senate, that if he so meant to be under stood in that passage of that article he had afterward changed his opinion. All that I got up to say now was that I am perfectly satisfied to stand, for the opinion which I have upon this subject, upon the arguments of Mr. Madison and the other great authorities to which I referred.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I do not intend to enter into a full discussion of the important question before the Senate. I will only say that the long practice of the Government and the opinions exPressed by the great men who have preceded us, of all political parties and under all circumstances, i.settled, if any doubtful construction of the Constitution can be settled, this question already. But, sir, I shall not go into an argument upon the construction of the language of the Constitution. If it were Presented to me as an original question, the opinions of Mr. Webster, Mr. Madison, Mr. Justice Story, Chancellor Kent, and the action of political parties and the men of those parties have passed upon that question and given a construction for 70 years. The opinion of Mr. Webster, perhaps, is entitled to the greater weight, because at the time it was given he was the leading champion of the party in opposition to the President during the administration of General Jackson, and therefore if any party bias could operate upon Mr. Webster it would have operated upon him at that time. But as a great constitutional law yer, rising above all the bias of party excite ment, he gave his deliberate opinion that this constitutional question, which in the 1st place might have been a doubtful question, had been settled by the action of the Government and by the decisions of judges and legislators.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to inquire of my friend whether in 1863, in this body, he did not vote for a law in the national bank act which exPressly provided that the Comptroller of the Currency should be removable by the President only by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and whether there was not a general concurrence at that time, when it in volved no political consideration, in the propriety of such legislation?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I did vote for the general bank law, although my convictions were not satisfied as to all its provisions. It was a thing regarded as necessary in the then existing state of the country and I gave it my support. p Sir, whatever may be said of the other officers of the Government who are embraced within the provisions of this bill, I think eer tainly the committee who reported it acted wisely in making the exception which has been here made of the heads of Depts. These heads of Depts stand in a peculiar relation to the President as his confidential advisers, from whom, by the very terms of the Constitution itself, he may demand an opinion in writing upon every important question which may arise in the administration of affairs. They are in the relation to him of private confidential advisers and secretaries, to enable him to execute the laws; and it is essential to the true administration of the laws that the Cabinet should be united and harmonious. If any mistake has arisen in the administration of affairs, either during the administration of Mr. Lincoln or the administration of
Mr. JOHNson, in my judgment, it is more to be attributed to the fact that Mr. Lincoln did not have a Cabinet united and harmonious which he could call into confidential consultation with him upon the great questions Presented to him in the conrse of his dministration; and the same mistake has undoubtedly arisen more or less in the adminis tration of
Mr. DIXON. I suppose, then, I may count on the Senator's vote in favor of my amendment.
Mr. CONNESS:, Unquestionably, after it shall be improved a little.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HEN DRicks in the chair.) The question is on concurring in the amendment proposed by the HoRep to the bill.
Mr. JOHN Quincy Adams in which he adverted to the state of relations between his father when he was POTUS and his SecyState, Mr. Timothy Pickering.
Mr. Adams stated to me distinctly, and in terms of extreme condemnation of Mr. Pick. ering, that he was holding on to his office and was thwarting his father in the administration of the executive dept of the Government from day to day as opportunity afforded. He spoke in greatharshness and condemnation of Mr. Pickering's course, and in no other terms I think than any just man would speak of any Cabinet officer who acted the same part toward the President from whom he held his appointment. I cannot conceive of a greater breach of official propriety and of the just relations that ought to subsist between a President and his subordinates than for a Cabinet officer to hold on to his place when his judgment and his whole action and influence are thrown against the administration of the President. Yet this would be the anomalous and mischievous condition of things unless the President was clothed with a power to remove his Cabinet officer at his pleasure. Under the 2 views of this subject I F. have I will not hesitate, whatever may have been the opinion that I exPressed in 1840 so decidedly upon the point, now to vote against the proposed amendment of the House.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not rise to prolong the debate, but only to exPress the hope that the debate on this question may terminate and that we may come to a vote. The time left of the session and the Pressure of business admonishes me, as I have no doubt it does every other Senator, of the necessity of condensing debate. While I should be glad to occupy some time in reply to somethings that have fallen in the course of this debate, I feel it to be due to the business of the Senate to abstain. I hope the Senate will disagree to this amendment and adhere to the bill as it stands. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 17, nays 28; 7. So the amendment was non-concurred in.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERson, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S.No.491) amendatory of the several acts respecting copyrights, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested. The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills and JtResolution, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: A bill (H.R.No. 1134) declaring and fixing the rights of volunteers as a part of the Army. A bill (H.R.No. 1135) to extend to general officers and officers on the retired list the benefitof the additional ration for every 5 years' Service.. A bill (H.R.No. 1136) to amend the act establishing the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers; and, A JtResolution (H.R.No. 269) for the relief of certain officers of volunteers. ExECUTIVE SESSION.
Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive usiness.
Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senfrom Ohio to withdraw that while I move to take up i House bill No. 344, the Niagara ship canal bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. There will be a struggle for the floor, and I would rather Press my motion now. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no objection to an executive session; but I wish to say to Sen: ators that tomorrow at one o'clock I shall to take up the legislative appropriation 111.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Ser geant at Arms will clear the galleries and close the doors. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and after some time spent therein the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. THURSDAY, February 7, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a report of the SecyInterior, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 31st of January, 1867, information in relation to the condition of the Indians now located in the vicinity of Lake Traverse, and Fort Wadsworth, Dakota Territory, the part they took in the outbreak in Minnesota in 1862, and the cause of their being permitted to remain near the Minnesota frontier; which, on motion of Mr. RAMSEY, was referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed. He also laid before the Senate a report of the SecyWar, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of Jan uary 24, 1867, the names of officerso. the act of July 28, 1866, who have not joined their regiments or stations, also their rank and the regiments to which they have been assigned, together with the reasons why they have not reported as ordered; which, on motion of Mr. Wilson, was ordered toie upon the table, and be printed. AMENDMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAWS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate the amendment of the House to the bill (S.No.491) amendatory of the several acts respecting copyrights, which was to insert between lines 9 and ten of the 2nd section the words “to give a receipt for the same if requested, and.” The amendment was referred to the ComPatents and the Patent Office. FRANCHISIE IN TENNESSEE.
Mr. FOWLER. I wish to Present a dispatch which I think will communicate to the Senate the announcement of the greatest victory that has been achieved since the rebellion commenced.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope it will be sent to the Chair and read.
Mr. FOWLER. I will send it to the desk and ask that it be read.
The Secretary read as follows: NAsHvilLE, TENNESSEE, February6, 1867. W. B. StokEs and J. S. FowLER: The battle is won; bill passed House this afternoon ayes38, noes25. Cause of human progress moves. !. J. NQAH, S. M. ARNELL. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The following bills and JtResolution were severally read twice by their titles and referred ComMilAffrs and the liltla: A bill (H.R.No. 1184) declaring and fixing the rights of volunteers as a part of the Army; A bill (H.R.No. 1135) to extend to general officers on the retired list the benefit of tvhicee; additional ration for every 5 years' ser. A bill (H.R.No. 1136) to amend the act establishing the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers; and resolution (H.R.No. 269) for the relief of certain officers of volunteers.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I have been requested to ask that F. A. Patterson be permitted to withdraw from the files the papers relative to a claim made by him to Congress upon which a bill was passed as a law at the last session of Congress. He wants to use the papers for some purpose, exactly what purpose I do not know; but as I understand from a colleague of mine in the House a bill was passed last session in his favor, and he asks leave to with draw the paper on which the bill was passed. Leave was granted. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. SUMNER, from the ComDistCol, to whom was referred the memorial of the officers and members of the Newsboys' Association of Washington, praying for a change in the name of their association and an addition to their powers, reported a bill (S.No.573) supplementary to the act incorporating the Newsboys' Home, and providing for the relief of certain mine r children in the DistCol. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading.
Mr. CHANDLER, from the ComCommerce, to whom was referred a JtResolution (H.R.No. 252) to permit .John A. Webster, jr., of the steamer Mahoning, to receive from the Government of GreatBritain a gold chronometer, reported it without amend Inent.
Mr.TRUMBULL, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred a JtResolution (H.R.No. 235) to amend an act entitled “An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes, ” approved March 3, 1863, reported it without amendment. He also, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred a JtResolution (S.R.No. 153) authorizing the POTUS to prevent the infliction of corporal punishment in the States lately in rebel reported it with amendments.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The ComNavAffrs, to whom was referred a memorial of Charles W. Buck, late acting master U.S. Navy, praying compensation for loss of property by the capture and destruction of the steamer Water Witch by the rebels, in June, 1864, direct me to report it back, and ask to be discharged from its further consideration. The committee were not willing to report against the memorial, but it was not accompanied by any evidence, and the committee were unable to get from the Dept satisfactory evidence of any equity on the part of the memorialist. The committee were discharged. PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING.
Mr. CHANDLER. The ComCommerce, to whom was referred the amendment of the House to the bill (S.No.525), supple mentary to an act to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes, approved July 18, 1806, have directed me to report it back with a recommendationf that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House, and I ask for imme diate action upon it if there be no objection. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the amendment of House, the which was to add to the bill the following additional sections: Abife:, That section26 of the not aforesaid be so amendedthat the secyTreasury be, and he is hereby, authorized in his discretion to make such regulationsas shall ena bploerts vessels engaged in the coastingtrade between and places upon Lake Michigan exclusively, cahnadnladdiseenownliyth, American productionsand freemer to unload their cargoes without previo obtaining a permit to unload. Abife:, That section 25 of said act be "March" hereby amendedby inserting the word in the place of “July” in said section.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Has that been to the ComCommerce?
The PRESIDENT protempore. reported from that committee.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Do they recommend a concurrence?
Mr. CHANDLER. Certainly; that is the report of the committee. The amendment was concurred in. PRINTING OF A Report. On motion of Mr. CHANDLER, it was Ordered, That the letter of the SecyWar addressed to the chairman of merce, transmitting an extractthferoCmomthmeitptereeloimnCine amry report of Brevet Major General G. K. Warren on surveyof the the opop &c., relative to the improvement of the Fox an Wisconsin rivers, be printed for the useof the Senate. BILL RECOMMITTED. On motion of Mr. GRIMES, it was Ordered. That the bill (S.No.509) to amendcertain acts in relation to the Navy be recommitted to the ComNavAffrs. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. BROWN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.575) to encourage commerce and internal trade by facilitating direct importations; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Commit.tee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HARRIS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.576) relating to appeals and writs of error to the Supreme Court; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComJudiciary. It is now
Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.574) to incorporate the Metropolitan Gas Light Company, in the DistCol; which was read twice by its title, and referre to the ComDistCol. MINISTER AT STOCKHOLM.
Mr. SUMNER submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the POTUS be requested to communicate to the Senate, if in opinion not incompatible with the public interesth, is a copy of any recentogo betweenthe deof State and the minister of the U.S. at Stockholm in relation to thereportedtransfer of this minister from Stockholm to Bogota.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have some reason given for that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will simply state that one of the watchmen employed in the Executive Mansion called on me and stated that the resolution as it stood made a distinction betweenthem and the watchmen employed in the Depts. That is all the information I had on the subject. I supposed the same rule should apply to watchmen there as elsewhere.
Mr. FISSENDEN. The difference is that the watchmen at the Executive Mansion get $900 apiece, while the watchmen in the depts get only $720. The whole matter was revised in regard to the Executive Mansion last year and the compensation of all the employees there fixed. I think the watchmen there were then put on the same footing with watch men at the Capitol, who get more than watch men in the Depts. I am not convinced that this amendment ought to be made. The proposition in the shape it is now put by the onorable Senfrom Oregon is predicated upon the idea that these salaries were fixed at a operiod, and therefore ought not to be 1ncreased.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have already stated that the only information I was have received Mr. FESSENDEN. Allow me to call the Senator's attention to this clause in the approriation bill, which I propose to take up today: ‘For compensation of 2 watchmen at the President's House, $1, 440.” We propose to correct that by making the amount $1, 800, under a law passed in 1866 fixing their salaries at $900. The watchmen in the Depts get $720.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That being the state of the case, of course I shall not insist on my amendment. I withdraw it.
Mr. STEWART.. I propose an amendment to the amendment by inserting in the 8 eenth line, after the word “meters, ” the words “ and the crier and messengers of the SCOTUS ” These persons receive by a law passed some years ago 3 dollars a day during the session of the court, and no more. I spoke to the chairman of the ComFinance the other day in regard to them, and he was under the imPression that their pay was fixed by some arrangement allowed by the court. That is not the fact; it is fixed by law at 3 dollars a day, and they are only paid during the days they are actuall in service, so that it amounts to a very small compensation. 20%. on that makes but a small amount.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They are at liberty to attend to other business at other times. are paid out of the judiciary fund. There are several cases where men are paid out of a fund that is placed at the discretion of particular officers. I think that these officers are of that class, and the law does not fix their compensation.
Mr. STEWART. Yes, it does; a statute fixes it at 3 dollars a day, and it is the only compensation allowed to them.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is while they are actually employed during the session of the court, and they are at perfect liberty to attend to other business during all the rest of the year, and indeed can carry on other business all the time. There is no reason why we should go out of the Depts into the Supreme Court. We might just as well extend it to the courts of the DistCol. There is no end if we begin to extend this provision beyond the Depts for which we are professing to legislate, and bring in every body else. I am opposed to the 1st step, be: cause if the door is once opened there is no end to it. Why should we extend this 20%., which it is proposed to give to certain persons in the Depts for reasons applicable to them, to others having no connection with the Depts?
Mr. STEWART. I will simply remark that this resolution is pretty general already. It includes everybody about the Capitol here, I believe, pretty much; and this amendment is to provide for a very small number of persons who receive a small compensation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The only person about the Capitol who is included in the resolution is the superintendent of meters, who gets about 600 dollars a year.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It seems to me this amendment ought to be adopted. From what I understand about it, these persons are about the least paid of any employees almost.
Mr. MORRILL. I inquire whether this amendment proposed by the Senfrom Ne vada can be amended?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair thinks not. It is an amendment to an amendment. A further amendment would be an amendment in the 3rd degree.
Mr. MORRILL. Then perhaps I shall accomplish my object by stating that the bailiffs and criers in the supreme court of the DistCol have only 2 dollars a day. I do not oppose this amendment; I am rather inclined to think it should be adopted; but I desire to say that if the committee think it allowable to extend the resolution beyond its [. " limits it should, in my opinion, embrace the parties to whom I have referred.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope we shall not go beyond the Depts.. If we do there is no knowing where we shall stop. Every body comes in who is in the public employment in any capacity, no matter where, all over this District, at the arsenal, the navy yard, and the printing office, everywhere, men who are as well paid as others doing the same work in private employment, and many of whom get the money. Government pays them without interfering with their ordinary business.
Skip Skip The question being put upon the amendment to the amendment, there were, on a division ayes 13, noes 15; and it was declared to be rejected. Mr. STEWART. I ask for the yeas&nays.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to know if the yeas&nays can be called for after the result of the vote has been declared? the o.o.tempore. Strictly not in the opinion of the Chair. The yeas&nays, however, were called for in this case while the Chair was announcing the result. The Chair thinks that after the announcement is fairly made it is too late to call for the yeas&nays. The Chair is inclined, however, to entertain the call, because it is in the power of the Senate always to refuse the yeas&nays, for they can only be ordered by one 5th of the Senators Present.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment to the amendment is disagreed to. The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Oregon.
Mr. RAMSEY. I wish to move an amendment to the amendment, to provide for what I think must be a case of omission. The case to which I call attention is clearly contemplated by the general character of this resolution; but there is no provision made for it. I refer to the case of the employees at the arsenal. They are in some way connected with the War Office, for a large number of the employees of which provision is made. Their services are certainly very indifferently compensated, and are often very perilous. I think of all classes they ought to be included. It is a clear case of omission, as I have no doubt the committee will think when they come to reflect upon it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We have reflected on it; we had it before us.
Mr. RAMSEY. I move to insert the word “arsenaf’ after the word “navy yard” in the 13th line, so as to include the employees of the arsenal.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was the decision of the committee as to these persons employed by the day that they should not be included in this resolution. Those who have the superintendence of these different offices can raise their wages, if they see proper to do so, whenever in their judgment they earn more than they now receive. For these reasons, and as they receive a larger compensation than is received by mechanics from employers anywhere, and as the Government is punctual in the payment of their wages, it was not thought advisable to include them. I know that it is difficult to find any stopping place in such a bill as this; but there must be some limit somewhere to this appropriation. As the resolution now stands, in my opinion, as near as I can judge, the ap: propriation will not fall short of a million of dollars; and if it be extended from one class of persons to another there will no end to it. submit these considerations for the action of the Senate. I say that if the employees in the arsenal are included, all these others ought to be included also.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If my friend will give way, I will now move to take up the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly, I yield for that purpose.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that all prior orders be postponed, and that the Senate pro3. to the consideration of House bill. No. 96.
Mr. CHANDLER. I gave notice a few days ago that I should Press the Niagara canal bill the moment the bankrupt bill was disposed of. It is useless, I know, to antagonize anything with an appropriation bill; but I wish to give notice that the moment this bill is through I shall endeavor to get up the Niagara ship canal bill and to obtain a vote upon it. I would thank the Senfrom Maine if he would allow me to take it up now, and let his bill lie over informally.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I can hardly consent to make provisions for other bills. I must insist upon my motion. The motion was agreed to. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERson, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills and JtResolution, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: A bill (H.R.No. 1144) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for contingent expenses of the HoRep of the U.S. for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867; A bill (H.R.No. 1146) for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth Fletcher; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 275) to extend the time for the use of certain vessels for quar antine purposes at the port of NewYork. ENIt OLLED BILL SIGNED. The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled bill (S.No.525) supplementary to an act to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes, approved July 18, 1866; and it was thereupon . by the President protempore of the Senate. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (H.R.No. 896) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1867, which had been reported from the ComFinance with various amendments.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest that the sense of the Senate be taken upon the amendments reported by the committee as they are reached in the readin of the bill. It will expedite business, and, i there be no objection, that course will be pursued. The Chair hears no objection. The Secretary proceeded to read the bill. property lost in the mili U.S., ” approved The 1st amendment reported by the ComFinance was on pages 6 and 7, lines 139, 140, and 141, in the clause making an appropriation for the Capitol police, to strike out the words “amounting to $50, 976, 1/2 of which is to be paid by the Senate.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. I desire to move an amendment on page 12, after line 285, under the heading of “For the purposes of the building occupied by the State Dept.” I move to insert: For rent of said building, $15,000. For alterations and improvementsof the building and for meansof protection againstits destructionby fire, $15,000. This was necessary according to the recommendation of a letter received from the SecyState. he amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 14, line 324, in the clause making an appropriation for compensation of the Auditor of the Treasury for the postoffice Dept and the clerks in his office, to insert the words “chief clerk” after the word “Dept.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 15, line 339, in the clause R.for the office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, to insert the word “laborer” after the word “clerks.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 16, line 362, to strike out the final “s” in the words “records” and “jour alS.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ANTHoNY in the Chair). That amendment being a mere verbal alteration will be considered as agreed to, if there be no objection. The next amendment was on page 16, under the head of “Contingent Expenses of the Treasury Dept, ” after line 382, to insert: For temporary clerks in the Treasury Dept,,000: Provided, That the SecyTreasury be, and he is hereby, authorized, in his discretion, to classifythe clerksauthorized according to the character of their services.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish to ask the Senfrom Maine if that does not leave a certain discretion to the SecyTreasury which, at this time, it is hardly advisable to leave to him? And I may state a case. What assurance is there that the SecyTreasury, in the exercise of this discretion, “to classify the clerks authorized according to the character of their services, ” will not classify them according to his political or personal preferences? I have heard that he has done that at the Treasury Dept; that on former occasions, in the exercise of this discretion, he has allowed himself to be controlled by those considerations rather than by the merits of the individual. I should not make this inquiry if I had not heard that circumstances had occurred at the Dept which justified it.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish I could see the SecyTreasury as the Senfrom Maine paints him. I think the Senator paints entirely an imaginary character. The SecyTreasury, as I see him, is a very different person. However, I will for the moment content myself merely, with exPressing my dissent from the beautiful picture presented by the Senator.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I Presented no picture. I merely stated my belief.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator simply stated his belief; but his belief really is a picture, and he must allow me to say a picture which seems to me to be drawn from his imagination.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I leave all matters of imagination to the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. SUMNER. When the Senator, as he rarely attempts it, does draw upon his imagi nation, we all know how effective he is. On itmhiasgoincactaiosine .n the Senator has drawn upon his ow, I have in my hand certain papers with relation simply to one bureau of the Treasury; that is the 6th Auditor's office. It seems that by the act of last year there was certain extra compensation which was to be apportioned in the Treasury Dept according to certain principles. In the 6th Auditor's office that extra compensation was distributed, as the papers will show, according to political artialities. I do not know the persons, but have in my hand a list of names with a proper characterization, and from this list it will appear that there was the most offensive exer. cise of power on that occasion. I Presume that the SecyTreasury must be responsible for it. Is he not?
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Illinois says, “ of course.” It was in the bureau of the 6th Auditor. In that bureau it seems there were 11 persons, of whom a majority were Republicans, who received the extra compensation. These were the chief clerk, the principal of the pay division, the principal register, the principal of the money order di: vision, the principal book keeper, the principal of the examining division, the principal of the foreign mail, and the solicitor, and also 1/3rd class clerk and a 2nd class clerk, being 11 persons; but all these, as I understand, were so high in service that they came natu rally within the sphere of this extra compensation.
Mr. HOWE. And came within the order of the Secretary himself.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator allow me to ask what his authority is for the statement he has made?
Mr. SUMNER. I have a from statement here
Mr. SUMNER. It is from a gentleman who is known to Senators on this floor.
Mr. SUMNER. I understand the Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. How E] knows him personally.
Mr. SUMNER. I would rather not give his name.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is the way the Senator attempts to influence the Senate by reading a letter from a man who does not want his name given. He is probably a clerk in the office who did not get the money.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Wisconsin knows him personally; I do not; but I had reason to believe that his statement was as much to be relied RQo? that of any Senator.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What reason had the Senator to believe so?
Mr. SUMNER. That I do not remember. The letter I received now a month ago.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well; I should like to know what authority the Senator has to say he was so told. Who told him this man was to be relied upon? Is he a clerk in that bureau?
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Maine has dealings enough with persons here to know very well that one cannot remember day by day all the conversations he has with people.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I never make a statement in this Senate on the authority of a man whose name I am not ready to give. I do not get up on loose statements, anonymous letters, or letters which are equivalent to anonymous letters, because the writer will not suffer his name to be used, and attack officers of the Government. I think the practice is entirely unjustifiable.
Mr. SUMNER. As to anonymous letters I agree with the Senator.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well; but the man who makes a statement affecting the character and conduct of the Dept in which he is, and is unwilling his name should be used, is nothing else but an anonymous writer. I want to know who the man is. Does the Senfrom Wisconsin know anything about it?
Mr. HOWE. If it is from the man I suppose it is, I know the man. That letter is not addressed to me and I have no authority to communicate his name. He was a clerk in the 6th Auditor's office, at the head of a division, and received his regular share of that money. He never found a word of complaint as to the treatment that was bestowed upon him, but did think he had 2 grounds for complaint. One was, I believe, that not a dollar of it was given to any clerk in his division, and he was not consulted in reference to the clerks in his division. Another reason is the reason Presented in the letter itself, that a large proportion of the money was given to those who are classed politically as Democrats or as Johnson men to the exclusion of the large majority of those clerks who are known as Republicans. Those are the only 2 complaints I ever heard him make. As to the personal character of the man I have no doubt e is as truthful a man as any on this floor.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The statement itself shows that the SecyTreasury has done what was his duty about this matter. He gave his orders as to the principle upon which this extra compensation should be distributed.
Mr. HOWE. If the Senator will allow me, I understand the order of the Secretary went no further than this: that those who were at the head of divisions should receive a share of the extra compensation, and those filling analogous positions should receive a share of the extra compensation; and the number of clerks in the 6th Auditor's office who wonder that rule received extra compensation was 11; but outside of that, as the Senfrom Massachusetts has read, there were a large number of clerks
Mr. FESSENDEN. How large? I should like to know what number.
Mr. HOWE. The Senfrom Massachusetts has read the names
Mr. SUMNER. 12 persons who were members of the Johnson Deptal Club or secessionists.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How does this man know that they were secessionists?
Mr. FESSENDEN. Now, I know the man's name. o: HOWE. Perhaps you will state it, then.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot stateit. He has not written that letter to me. He has written another similar to it to me, and I examined the whole of his statement and inquired about it and became satisfied that the man was writing in temper and from bad feeling. Now, how in the world can the SecyTreasury distribute this money to each clerk and overlook each clerk and inquire as to each clerk's politics? The SecyTreasury makes a general order; in distributing this money he gives it to the heads of divisions and the chief clerks and the leading officers of the Dept, and he leaves the balance to whom? To the Auditor himself. The and itor sends up the names and gets the money. Probably it does not go to the SecyTreasury at all after the Auditor has desig nated the names. I cannot say how that is.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It must in a certain form, but he is not obliged to put his name to everything of that sort. He approves generally. He cannot go over the details of all these things in the Dept. I know something on the subject from experience. It must be left to the principal men in the Dept who do the “. The Secretary cannot look over everything. He gives a general order, and then when the matter is made up he directs. He cannot look over everything. But as far as he did go in this matter he went right. Now, with regard to the 6th Auditor, why did not Senators oppose his confirmation?
Mr. FESSENDEN. At this session. He was confirmed in the place of a Gentfrom Chicago, Mr. Arnold.
Mr. Arnold resigned and he was appointed.
Mr. FESSENDEN. A fortnight or 3 weeks ago. He is from my State, and a Dem Ocrat. ‘My colleague and I did not see fit to oppose him. We knew he was a very excel lent officer, and we did not suppose a better one would be got if he was rejected, and we made no opposition to him is nomination did not go to my committee. I believe it went to the ComPostOffices, and was recommended by the committee on the ground of his being a very excellent officer and a very competent man, who had had considerable experience heretofore.
Mr. RAMSEY. His nomination was reported favorably on the ground that the senators from Maine had no objection to him.
Mr. FESSENDEN. And I believe if he made such a distribution as has been stated he was imposed upon.
Mr. HOWE. I guess that was the ground of his confirmation.
Mr. HOWE. On the ground that the Senfrom Maine recommended him.
Mr. BOWE. You recommended his confirmation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir, I did not recommend his confirmation. I never was inquired of about it one way or the other.
Mr. RAMSEY. I inquired of the colleague of the Senator and he approved of his confirmation, and having consulted the Senator now on the floor he said he would make no opposition.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I said I would make no opposition. I so told my colleague, and he said he should make no opposition; not because he was from Maine. I would not have appointed him. If he had come to me for a recommendation for it I should have refused him. I would not have thought of appointin him, because I know what his polities are, an I would not think of appointing a Democrat to one of these offices; but he was appointed and the Senate confirmed him. The case went before the postoffice Committee. It should have gone to the ComFinance, as he was an officer in the Treasury Dept: but ft. was not sent there for some reason or other, I do not know what, probably by accident. Now I say that he is a good officer and a very capable man. That I know. So far as the action of that bureau in this matter is concerned I know nothing about it; but so far as the SecyTreasury is concerned it appears all he has done with ref. erence to it has been proper. He knew nothing about this, could know nothing about it. You do not suppose the SecyTreasury, with all he has to do, is inquiring about the polities of every man in his Dept? Mrs SUMNER. He is inquiring about the polities of men in distant parts of the country.
Mr. FESSENDEN. doubt very much whether he is doing that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I know the Senator does not very much like the SecyTreasury; but I beg him to do him justice. He may do somethings that the Senator does not like and other Senators do not like. I do not like his support of
Mr. Anderson's confirmation and get him rejected by the Senate. That is the reason of his supplying that information; but in that he did not succeed.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senator if he has any proof that the SecyTreasury is a man who goes about whispering these things into the ears of others?
Mr. SUMNER. I have ample proof that he is what I called him, an intense partisan.
Mr. FESSENDEN. So is the Senator an intense partisan. Does the Senator judge the SecyTreasury of his own heart, that he would do such things?
Mr. SUMNER. When the Senator addresses me a personal remark I prefer not to answer it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will not address the Senator. Now I disclaim for the Senator anything of that kind. I know that he would not; I know that he could not: I know that it is contrary to his whole nature, I know him so well; but I hint to my friend that where things of that sort are suggested with regard to others without proof, they may lead those who do not know the Senator to infer that he judges of the acts of others by what he would do himself. Therefore I think we should be careful how, without evidence, without proof, we attack a man at the head of a Dept, because he is a partisan simply and opposed to us, and make suggestions derogatory to his personal honor, and suggestions that he would do things that are mean and unworthy of a man of honor. That is not the way to speak of men without roof. If you have proof, so be it. If you have not, it ought not to be said. Everybody knows that no one differs more widely with the SecyTreasury with regard to his notions of reconstruction than I do; but I have watched him carefully, and I do not believe any of these statements with regard to his hunting up men and punishing them for their political opinions or anything of the sort, one way or the other.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator does. I do not.. I am at liberty to exPress my opinion. As I said before, I regard the SecyTreasury as an able and upright officer. That he has made appointments or recommended appointments that do not suit us, and perhaps for political purposes, may be, and very probably is in some cases. But Senators must reflect that although these recommendations come from the head of a Dept I know nothing about it in this case the head of the dept cannot always command the appointments themselves; that when he recommends an officer, it is not unfrequent that he recommends an officer because he is ordered to recommend an officer by the appointing power. That was the case over and over again in many cases in the War Dept during the Presidency of Mr. Lincoln. How many recommendations were sent in here of nominations “by direction of the President, I nominate such a man or recommend such a man to be appointed a brigadier general, ” or something of that sort. I know very well, I have had experience enough to know, that the head of the nation, who is the appointing power, very frequently assumes to direct whom he shall appoint; and it is the habit of members of Congress when the SecyTreasury, or any other Secretary, will not come to their views with regard to an appointment, to go over his head to the President.
Mr. CONNESS. What else can they do in such cases?
Mr. FESSENDEN. Nothing. That is their own way to accomplish their purpose undoubtedly.
Mr. CONNESS. It is the only way to be heard by the appointing power.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Undoubtedly. I am not complaining of it. They go to the SecyTreasury or the SecyWar. They ask him to make an appointment; to recommend a certain man for appointment. He says, “I will not do it.” They go then to the President and request him to do it. I am not disputing the right; but is the Secretary responsible for what the President does? That is what I am talking about. He is not to be held responsible for what is done over his head under the solicitation of a member of Congress. What I object to, therefore, is the statement of the Senfrom Massachusetts, exPressing his belief with regard to these things without anything but his belief, and substantially ae cusing a man, whom I believe to be an honorable man, who holds a high and honorable position, of a meanness, of doing indirectly and meanly what he had not the courage to do directly in the 1st place. The Senator is not justified, in my judgment, in making any such accusations. They are unworthy of the officer, and I know that the Senator would not do any such thing himself under any circumstances.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Maine insists upon saying that the SecyTreasury is an upright man. I have not said that he was not. The Senfrom Maine in sists that the SecyTreasury is not a mean man. I have not said that he was a mean man.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But you believed he would do a mean thing; and that is substantially the same thing.
Mr. SUMNER. Not at all. I have not said that I believed he would do a mean thing. I have said he was an intense partisan, and I could not give him my confidence.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Did not the Senator say he believed that he whispered into the ear of the 6th Auditor how he wanted this fund to be distributed 2
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well. That I call meanness.
Mr. SUMNER. Then that is the characterization of the Senator; it is not mine. I have not said that it was mean. I have not said that the Secretary does a meanness. I. have said, and I do not doubt it, that he intimates to the heads of bureaus the character of appointments they should make.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not believe a of it. word
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator does not believe it. Very well. He is entitled to his belief. I do believe it. I may be mistaken; but according to my acquaintance with the Secretary and such knowledge as I have obtained from others I must adhere to my belief. I think that he does; and I think that his whispering extends wherever the telegraph can go; it runs on wires. I do not believe it is confined to one building or to one room. I believe that he is an intense partisan, and that to carry out his partisan views he is willing to do what I should be unwilling to sanction. I forbear now to characterize him. I am not going to follow the Senfrom Maine at this moment into the question of the character of the SecyTreasury. I have confined myself to the precise facts before us and to what he has done in his Dept with regard to his clerks. I have not traveled outside of that. I have not said whether there is anything in his conduct that should make him unworthy of the position that he occupies. I have not said or raised the question whether he is a man of veracity or not. to the future. I reserve my judgment upon them. I know there is evidence bearing on them; but I do not mean now to be led into that greater controversy. I am now on the simple question as to the exercise of his discretion with regard to the people immediately about him. There, according to what I have seen with my own eyes, what I have listened to from his own lips, what I know of him personally, what I have heard others say, I am led to the conclusion that he is so intense a partisan that we ought not to intrust him with any discretion that can be avoided.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have been charged with the care of a bill which to some extent in volves this controversy, and I have taken some pains to investigate the subject. RePresentations were made to me that the funds that were placed in the hands of the SecyTreasury were disbursed, not with respect to the merits of the clerks and employees in the Treasury Dept, but on account of political favoritism. I went to the SecyTreasury and told him very plainly that such statements had been made to me, and I desired to know whether the statements were true or false. I was informed by the SecyTreasury that when this fund was placed at his disposal he made an order that the heads of the respective bureaus and divisions should report to him those persons under their charge who were most meritorious, most deserving of this compensation, and that this fund was distributed altogether according to the reports made to him by these chiefs of bureaus and heads of divisions, and that a great proportion of the money was paid to men if: Wnoun he had no personal acquaintance, and of whom he had no personal knowledge except by the I leave all those questions reports that were made to him by these persons who were required to report. I then went to persons in the Treasury dept of whose polities I i." have personal I know them to be radicals and I inquired of them if they knew as to whether or not this fund had been distributed according to political preferences or prejudices on the part of the . of the Treasury, and so far as my examination went they told me that they did not believe any such consideration entered into the distribution of this fund. I know, and the report which has been made by the SecyTreasury will show, that some of the men in that Dept who were known to Senators to be radical men have received the largest portion of the fund that was distributed by the SecyTreasury.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, so far as the 6th Auditor's office is concerned, I am not able to make any particular statement, as I have made no inquiries with reference to that particular office; but I find that the fund was distributed there among 28 persons, and they are the heads of divisions or are discharging duties analogous thereto., Every man in the 6th Auditor's office who has received any portion of this fund is either the head of a division or is discharging duties analogous thereto.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Then this report of the SecyTreasury is not to be depended upon.
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a question, of course, on which I do not profess to make any statement. This report, which is an official report of the SecyTreasury “ in answer to a resolution of December 10, relative to the disbursement of the funds appropriated as extra compensation to clerks in that Depart: ment, ” gives the names of the persons and the amounts they have received. One of them, the chief clerk, J. M. McGrew, received $625. There are 9 others who receive $300 apiece; one received $200; 2 received $150; one received $100; and then there are 12 others who received 50 dollars apiece; and I find in this list the names of the persons mentioned by the Senfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Those who received 50 dollars apiece are not heads of divisions, are o
Mr. WILLIAMS. They are heads of divisions or discharging duties analogous thereto.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I Presume that was for a quarter.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; they received 50 dollars for the last quarter. There are only 28 clerks in that bureau, according to this report, who have received any portion of this extra compensation. It has all been distributed to those who were heads of divisions or discharging duties analogous thereto. Everybody knows in what light I o view the action and principles of the Secretary; but I think it is due to the Secretary, as I have taken some pains to look into this matter, to make this statement. I do not know but that he is governed by political favoritism in the distribution of this fund; but according to the examination I have made I do not believe heis.
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I did not in augurate this discussion, and did not know any such discussion was impending. I have been drawn into it a little way, and I feel it necessary to go a little further into it. I did not know such a letter was in the possession of the Senfrom Massachusetts. I did not know it was to be produced here. I know the writer of the letter.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Did the Senator have one similar 2
Mr. SHERMAN. Appropriations for tem porary clerks are always made.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The ComFinance did not strike it out. It was struck out in the House.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The ComFinance have not recommended that it be restored, and I trust the head of the ComFinance is not going to make such a recommendation. I hope not.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I would if I thought I could carry it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry that the Senfrom Maine is in favor of placing discretionary power in the hands of any officer of the Government when there is no necessity for it and when the matter can be regulated by law. Now, sir, the only appropriation which is asked by the ComFinance is in the amendment before us, and that item is not in the House bill. I should like to inquire, and I hope the Senfrom Maine will inform us, how it happened that this was not inserted in the bill as it passed the House?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I informed the Senate before, and if the Senator had been in his seat and listened to what I said he would have known the reason, and saved me the trouble of stating it again. The SecyTreasury asked for $210,000, I think, precisely on the same terms that the appropriation was granted last year. The ComAppropriat of the House refused to make that appropriation, but they did recommend this appropriation of $50,000 in this way precisely, in the terms that we have moved it. A debate sprang up in the House, and as I remember it, the chairman of the ComAppropriat, for the sake of getting the bill through, abandoned this item, consented that it might be stricken out if the House chose to strike it out; did not urge it. But it was the deliberate opinion of the ComAppropriat that this appropriation should be made. When the bill came to the ComFinance of the Senate, we restored it, being of opinion unanimously that it was necessary that it should be restored, and I Presume that it was the understanding of the ComAppropriat of the HoRep that we should do so.
Mr. DIXON. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a single question?
Mr. DIXON. I wish merely to understand the Senator and to know whether he holds the SecyTreasury responsible for the amount of money in the Treasury.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senfrom Connecticut had listened to what I said he would have understood me in the outset to say that I had no eulogies to pronounce upon the SecyTreasury, and no attacks to make upon him; that I spoke in reference to facts open to the public; that the public good and the liberties of this people, and motives of economy, and every consideration forbade that we should leave such a vast amount of money in the hands of any man. Is that a charge on the SecyTreasury? Have I said anything about his being responsible for having it?
Mr. DIXON. I did not intend to intimate that the Senator had made a charge; I merely wished to understand his remarks. I was lis tening to what he said with interest and desired to be instructed; and I therefore asked the Senator whether he meant to say that the fact that we have today $140,000,000 in the Treasury is at all to be attributed to the SecyTreasury, whether he blames him for it, whether it is a thfng which he could help in any manner whatevef, whether he is responsiblefor it morally or any other way. I did not say the Senator made a charge: I asked for information.
Mr. TRUMBULL. H. know not why the Senfrom Connecticut should have risen to ask me whether the SecyTreasury was responsible for it or not when he did not mean to suggest that I had intimated that he was. It will be time for him to inquire whether I think the SecyTreasury is responsible or not when I undertake to hold him responsible, or to say that he is or is not. I took particular pains when I rose, that I might not o misunderstood, to say that I should not enter into this controversy between the Senators from Massachusetts and Maine, and should make no attack upon individuals. It is against this species of legislation which vests such vast discretionary power in the in the hands of the heads of Depts that I protest; my remarks are directed to that. I was about to say, when interrupted by the Senfrom Connecticut, that I supposed it was necessary that there should be a considerable sum of money, amounting I suppose to millions, all the time in the hands of the SecyTreasury. I am sorry that it has to be so, but that is a discretion, I take it, which is unavoidable; but will the Senfrom Maine tell me or anybody else that there is any necessity for having, for a year at a time, 140 millions of money in the hands of the SecyTreasury?
Mr. FESSENDEN. How does the Senator know there has been that much for a year?
Mr. TRUMBULL. The statement on our tables shows that there is a balance of $142,000,000 now in the Treasury. I recollect that when we were in session last summer the reports showed at several times more than 100 million dollars.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Of the Present balance over 97 million dollars are in gold.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Over 97 million dollars of this is in gold, the value.of which today in legal currency would be, I suppose, $125,000,000 at least, so that in reality you have in your Treasury at this time something like $170,000,000, or what is equal to it in legal currency. Now, in reference to this particular amendment, I shall not object to it further than what I have stated. I regret the necessity of it. I suppose it will be adopted, but I am very glad that the attention which was called 2 years ago to this class of legislation has led, 1st, to the striking out of the $250,000 appropriation, and then of the $160,000 appropriation, and has brought it down to this sum of $50,000. I hope that going on improving in this way the Senfrom Maine, at the next session of Congress, will strike out altogether this appropriation even of $50,000 to be disbursed by the SecyTreasury in employing clerks at his pleasure, and paying them such sums as he shall deem proper.
Mr. SHERMAN. An appropriation for the same purpose was made regularly before the war.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I am sorry that we cannot discuss a matter of this kind without allusions to the personal views of Sen: ators any further than as they are connected with the public service. In what I said when up before I endeavored to confine my remarks entirely to what I conceived to be public matters, and to avoid making any unkind reflection upon any member of the Senate, any allusion to him as possessing all the wisdom of the body or not possessing it. I spoke of what I regarded to be an evil, which was the vesting of unnecessary discretionary authority in the heads of Depts. I spoke of it as an evil, very bad economy, and a thing which was dangerous to the liberties of the people, that such a vast amount of money should be left in the hands of anybody. Now, sir, if I am asked whether I did not vote to raise revenue, I answer most certainly. if I am inquired whether I am in favor of raising revenue, I answer most assuredly. I am asked to devise a way to deplete the Treasury, and I am told that there is a clamor from the western country against curtailment. If times are hard, if money is scarce, if people are pinched, why not disburse some.". millions that have lain in the Treasury for the last year?
Mr. TRUMBULL. I look to the Senator at the head of the ComFinance, who has charge of these matters, to devise the way. I have exPressed my opinion that it ought to be done, and I shall be most happy to follow him, as he says I did in voting for the bills to raise revenue, when he brings in a practical measure, as I have no doubt he will when he moves in it, to deplete the Treasury of this unnecessary amount of money there. I have called his attention and the attention of the Senate to it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will inform the senator that there is no way of doing it that I know of except two. One is to pay off the public debt as it becomes due, and you cannot pay it any faster than it becomes due, and meet theoexpenses of the Government. The other one I suppose which the Senator would advise, perhaps, would be to deposit it among the States as we did the surplus revenue some 20 or 30 years ago;?. it around.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know why the Senator has a right to assume that I would wish to deposit it with the States.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not assame any such thing. I am merely stating the only 2 ways I know of to do what the Senator wants.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Well, it seems to me that the Senfrom Maine, if he was owing $2, 500,000,000, and had in his vaults in his house $142,000,000, could find some way by which he could get rid of his $142,000,0lessen his indebtedness to that extent, and cease paying interest upon it. I was told that I was mistaken as to the amount of money in the Treasury. I had not looked into the tables recently; I had only general recollection; but since I was up before I have sent for the report of the SecyTreasury on the finances, and I find that he reports as cash in the Treasury on the 30th day of June last $132,000,000, and on the 31st of October last $130,000,000. So I was not far out of the way. There has been more than 100 million dollars in the Treasury since the 30th of June last, and I think during the whole 12 months last past. Now, sir, I do think that some measure should be taken on this subject before we adjourn. I look to the Senfrom Maine, the chairman of the ComFinance, charged particularly with this business, to bring forward a measure by which a portion of this money shall be taken out of the Treasury, and we shall cease to pay interest on that much of our indebtedness. Mr. President, I recollect the time, and it will appear by the official reports, that we were giving certificates of deposit for money depos. ited in the Treasury, and paying interest upon it when we had tens of millions in the Treasury. I think the relief to the country which it wants is to be found in disbursing this money. You have $142,000,000 in the Treasury. Throw out $100,000,000 of it, pay off some of your indebtedness, instead of issuing new indebtedness for it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask how we can pay it before it becomes payable?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Does not the Senator know that millions of it have been paid into the Treasury the last year, and that you have issued new indebtedness for it?
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is only changing one form of indebtedness for another.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I know it is; but instead of changing one form of indebtedness for another why not pay money for it?
Mr. FESSENDEN. Because those who hold it had a right by law to exchange it and referred to do so. That is the reason. Our law gave them the privilege of exchangi those securities for others, and they. to do it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. We are devising means, and I Presume we shall have a bill this session to exchange one kind of indebtedness for another that is becoming due. I have seen it stated f do not know that the committee have taken any action here, and I do not know that they propose any but I have seen it stated within a few days somewhere that the compound interest notes which are to fall due the coming year are to be replaced with another species of indebtedness that is to bear interest. Why not pay them off whenever they become due and scatter the money among the people? The Senfrom Maine smiles at this. I think some way can be found. It is a very strange state of things to me that there is no possible way to relieve the Treasury of money that is in its vaults. The HoRep has passed a bill this very session for selling the gold, and the Senator Koi. Maine I did not mean to say a word about the Senfrom Maine, and I will not now say it but the ComFinance has reported here against that bill, as I understand. It seems that the IHoRep was for taking some step in that direction. I do not know that that is a proper bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Allow me to ask the Senator a question?
Mr. FESSENDEN. If the gold were sold what would it be sold for 2.Sold for money, of course. Then what would you do with the money? Would not that go into the Treasury and be in the Treasury in the same way?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Pay off your compound interest notes as they fall due.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They are not payable yet.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But we must keep the money for that purpose when they are due. The Senator wants to scatter it before that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But we must keep money to pay them with.
Mr. TRUMBULL. There have been debts falling due. We have paid off 100s of millions of debts that were due within the last 2 years.
Mr. TRUMBULL. You could pay them off with the money you had; but instead of paying them with money, you issued other indebtedness for them. Does not the Senator know it? You were not bound to do that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It was because we could not help it. They had a right to demand other indebtedness.
Mr. TRUMBULL. They had no right to demand it. I take issue, as a matter of fact, with the Senfrom Maine. We have paid 100s of millions of money deposited in the Treasury on certificates for which they had no right to demand bonds.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There were no bonds given for certificates.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Very well; then I am right that there was an indebtedness which we could pay.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Exactly; and I say to the Senator that we have paid all our indebt edness just as it became due, but we cannot pay what is not due.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I say to the Senfrom Maine that we have paid indebtedness that was due, and that we had a right to pay, by issuing bonds for it.
Mr. SUMNER. Let me remind my friendfrom Illinois that the bill for the sale of gold to which he refers, which has passed the other House, provides that compound interest notes may be received in payment for the gold.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Or bonds either. That would certainly provide a way.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But they would not be obliged to pay for the gold with compound interest notes; and what then? The holders of the compound interest notes are not obliged to bring them in till they become due, and even then they need not do it if they choose to hold them without drawing interest.
Mr. TRUMBULL. We do not care how much indebtedness they hold that draws no interest. I reckon creditors will not hold that very long, and we can afford then to keep money in our Treasury, but we cannot afford to do it when we are paying interest on it. It is a mistake if the Senfrom Maine means to say to the country, and I should like to know if he means the statement to go out to the country upon his responsibility as a Senator and the head of the ComFinance, that no species of indebtedness has matured against the Government which we had a right to pay off at maturity, if we had the money to pay it, and for which the holders of the indebtedness had no right to demand other securities.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If the Senator is aware of any I should like to have him state it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that there has been such indebtedness.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to know what it is.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think certificates of deposit.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They have been paid. There have not been any bonds issued for them.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator says no bonds were issued for these certificates of deF.; that were taken up, I hope he is correct. will not say that he is hot, because I have not examined it; but my understanding is that we have taken up millions of compound interest notes during the past year; and I do not understand that the holders of compound interest notes have a right to demand bonds for them. Am I wrong?
Mr. FESSENDEN. If they have been taken up they have been paid. I do not think any bonds have been issued for compound interest notes.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Then there is an in debtedness which has been falling due, which is maturing now, and which we have a right to pay off as soon as it matures.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The compound interest notes.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well. I say to the Senator we shall have that right when they become due, but that time has not arrived.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Has none of that in debtedness matured 2
Mr. FESSENDEN. None of it yet to my knowledge.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Much of it has come in the Secretary’s report shows that he has received millions.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Some of it has been taken up by consent, I suppose. I do not know that any of it is really payable yet.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is soon to mature, whether it has matured or not; and that will afford a means of paying out the money in the Treasury Dept when it does fall due, and it certainly falls due within the coming year, some of it, if it is not already due. I thought some of it had already matured.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is true that that in debtedness becomes due, most of it, in the course of the following year; but there is a loud call throughout the country everywhere, more especially from the Senator's own region, not to pay that off, but to substitute something in its place in order that the banks may hold it, and not make a severe, and what it is apprehended may be, a very disastrous contraction of the currency. These notes can be paid and will be paid by the Treasury as they become payable, but not if you take all the money out and distribute it as the honorable Senator wants, because then there would be nothing to pay with.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have not proposed to take the money out.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If it is kept in the Treasury that course will be taken up. But Congress is protesting, and the people of the country, more especially in the Senator's region, are protesting that it will not do to contract the currency by paying these notes off; that you must substitute something for them in order to keep up the circulation. That is a question that the Senator will be called to act upon, and when the question comes before him we shall see how he decides it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not wish a contraction that is to paralyze the interests of the country. I do not understand that philosophy. I know but little about finance, I admit; but I cannot see for the life of me how it contracts the currency if the holder of a compound interest 1,00 dollar note brings it up to the Treasury and takes out 1000 dollars that is locked up there, and scatters it among the people.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will tell the Senator there are $100,000,000 of these notes held by the banks to form the basis of their credit. Now, if they are deprived of these notes, and they are taken in, it contracts the currency just as much as if you took so many greenbacks out of circulation. The question is simple enough and every body understands it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. How it contracts the currency when you pay out greenbacks for them I cannot see. You have got $45,000,000 of greenbacks in the Treasury today, have you not? They have been lying there for a year.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Suppose these com: ound interest notes are paid off, as they will i. when the time comes; they must be replaced with something. If you provide nothing more to replace them, they will be replaced with greenbacks. That is all they can be replaced with, and so many greenbacks will be taken out of circulation and held by the banks.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Will it contract the currency any more to have the banks hold them than it does to have the Treasury hold them? The Treasury has held them for a year.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They will not be in circulation.
Mr. TRUMBULL. They are not much in circulation when they are in the Treasury. You have had $130,000,000 there for a year. Who has seen that money? Has it helped the commerce of the country? Who is benefited by having 90 odd millions of gold lying in Treasury, the and 40 or 50 millions of green backs? That is what makes the contraction, because you are hoarding up this money in the Treasury and keeping it there. I do not see how it produces any contraction when you take up a compound interest, note, which does not circulate as money, and pay out for it something that will circulate among the people as money. I do not understand the philosophy of iIt confess. I had no intention of being betrayed into a discussion in regard to these compound interest notes and the various kinds of indebtedness; I had a general knowledge of them. The Senfrom Maine undertook to impute to me the possession of all the wisdom of the senate, and from the manner in which he said it the imPression was that he disputed the facts which had stated. Since I have been speaking there has been handed to me a statement, which I Presume to be correct, that we have is sued $266,000,000 of compound interest notes, and we have already redeemed $123,000,000 of them. CONNESS. Was it not a good thing to do?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, excellent; and I want to redeem the others and pay out the money.
Mr. CATTELL. Those redeemed have fallen due and been Presented for payment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am very glad to know that, because that meets the precise point made upon me by the Senfrom Maine.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The compound interest notes have fallen due, the Senfrom NewJersey says, $123,000,000 of them, and been Presented for payment. Then there was a WaW. Air. CATTELL. My answer is, that all that have fallen due have been Presented and paid. The compound interest notes were issued at different dates, some payable in 2 years, some in a longer time; $140,000,000 of them are not yet due.
Mr. TRUMBULL. But there is a portion already due. aMid.r. CATTELL. And that portion has been p
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is the precise fact which I am glad to know, and I am very much obliged to the Senfrom NewJersey for communicating it. Then it seems I was quite correct in the statement that I made. But, sir, I do not desire to prolong this discussion. I hope that before we adjourn some measure will be devised, and one that will not unnecessarily contract the currency. I wish certainly not to do anything that will embar rass the commercial interests of the country; but I do wish such legislation as will prevent hereafter such an accumulation of money in the Treasury. I think that may be done safely to the country and to its commercial interests, and that will be an economical measureif we could devise some mode to accomplish it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I simply wish to state to my friend that he misapprehended my remark. I was aware of the power of the SecyTreasury, but there is no power to compel the holders of the compound interest, notes to bring them in for redemption.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They may hold them to the end. What I said was, when they became payable and were Presented they could be paid, but the holder is not obliged to present them before.
Mr. SHERMAN. The SecyTreas. ury can go into the open market and buy them.
Mr. THUMBULL. I do not desire to prolong this discussion, but I think the statement made by the Senfrom Ohio may have the same effect which he supposed some remarks I made might have; that is, to mislead the public. He says, and truly says, that it is necessary to have on hand a considerable amount of money; he thinks an amount equal to one month's revenue and disbursement, which he estimates, I believe, at about 30 millions. Why is it necessary to have a fund on hand? It is to meet outstanding indebtedness. If there is no indebtedness to come, there is no necessity to have this fund on hand; and this statement shows that we have $45,000,000 of currency on hand; and it shows also, as the Senator truly says, that there is an indebtedness which has matured equal to some $15,000,000. The reason we have to have a large surplus on hand is to meet contingencies of that kind, but this shows an amount
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator will see that the debt matured to the amount of $15, 791,000, not Presented for payment, is debt that may be called for at any moment. Perhaps drafts are out now which have passed all the accounting officers and may be at any moment Presented to the Treasury.
Mr. TRUMBULL. So I stated, and that will be the case at the end of the next month, and the end of the next month after that, and so on. checks drawn which will not be Presented at the moment the statement is made up. I suppose that is always so. Now, let me ask the Senfrom Ohio whether that is not the very reason why it is necessary to have a surplus to some extent all the time to meet just that class of cases?
Mr. SHERMAN. In cases of sudden panic these balances are at one reduced. I have no doubt that an exact statement would show that during the recent trouble in NewYork all those outstanding drafts, &c., which were avail able were Presented and paid. The Senator is aware probably a o:or draft on the Treasury is held by an individual in the form of a convenient deposit. It may be held for a month or 2 months, but the moment money is greatly in demand all those things are thrown upon the Treasury Dept and demanded at once just like the deposits of a bank.
Mr. TRUMBULL. So I understand. We are perfectly agreed about that. They will be Presented when there is a panic, and hence the necessity of having a fund on hand to meet them othey come in in that way, and we have got $45, 900,000 just for that purpose. It is $45,000,000, then, shown to be on hand, and wheu you have brought in every cent that has It will always be so that there will be been drawn on the Treasury you have got nearly 30 million dollars left that there can be no demand upon. The reason we have to have a fund is to meet that class of cases; so that the statement, as I think, that the Senator makes, that we really must have a fund of $20,000,000 on hand when we do not owe anything and there is no liability whatever, I think is not correct. I think that is calculated to mislead. But the reason we must have a surplus on hand is to meet the very state of things which he says, and we have got that surplus of $45,000,000. Of course there can be no indebtedness come the Senfrom Ohio does not want to hold $29,000,000.
Mr. SHERMAN. I have already stated that 15 or 16 millions of this balance is already held not subject to draft because it is already drawn against. The balance of 30 millions is held always to draw against. Let me take the case that is actually occurring this day. The payments of the Treasury now are largely in excess of the receipts. That is shown by comparison of the 2 statements. Why? Simply because now they are meeting extraordinary demands made upon the Treasury Dept, and the receipts have fallen off; so that, in the Present state of affairs, in 2 or 3 months this balance would all be gone. Why? The receipts, as you see by the daily papers, of internalrevenue have fallen off, and probably will not increase again until the income tax comes in. Then there are extraordinary demands made by payment of bounties, by the expenditures of Congress, by the civil list, and by many other causes. Thus this balance is fluctuating backward and for ward; but by the ordinary operation of the Treasury Dept the balance will disap pear in 2 or 3 months, simply because at certain seasons of the year there are greater demands than receipts, and it would be an idle thing for the Treasury of the U.S. always to run so close that, it could not pay its ordinary expenditures, that it must borrow money in order to meet ordinary expenditure. It must have a working balance, as bankers call it, sufficient at least, according to the usual estimate, to one month's expenditure. That has been shown by the custom of the Dept and the habit of the Government.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I agree with the senator, there must be a working balance; but what I insist is, that $45,000,000 is not necessary, and I insist that the statement shows that much to be there, and that the object of that balance is to meet these outstanding obligations, that may come in at any moment; and if there were no outstanding obligations and could not be any, then you would not want any balance at all. The very object of this balance is to meet just that state of things. Now, as to the gold: no contingency of this kind arises as to the gold. You know exactly how much gold you have got to pay out and when you have got to pay it. You know that precisely. There can be no extraordinary demand on your gold deposit. Why then keep in your Treasury, as I stated it, $97,000,000, or as the Senator has it, by subtracting nineteen or 20 million doiars that is on i. posit, some 77 or 78 million dollars? You know exactly how much gold you have got to pay; but the Senator says you must keep on hand all the time at least half the amount of gold you have got to pay out in a year, when you know exactly what it is. I cannot give my consent to any such proposition as that. You have got in your.today more gold than can be called for in the next 9 months, I do not know but 12; certainly more than there can be any call for in 9 months.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator is entirely mistaken, he does not wish to deceive. There are $77,000,000 on hand, according to this statement. Then there are $15, 779,000 of maturing bonds that will mature this year, most of them, or early next year.4 That is within the year. Then, beside that "the annual amount of gold required to pay the interest on the public debt is now something like $90,000,000, and will be as soon as the 7 thirties are funded, $131,000,000. I showed that the other day. Then there are the foreign expenditures of the Government which are paid in gold, and money to fulfill treaty stipulations and other things paid in gold, which must be provided for out of this fund. The whole sum, including the maturing debt, that will be required in gold for one year from this date will not be less than $155,000,000.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have not gone into the statement of which the Senator speaks, of the amount roquired for the year. I spoke of what was required for 9 months, and said that I thought we had more gold on hand now than would be required for the next 9 months. The Senator meets that by saying we shall require $155,000,000 for the next year. I looked over the Senator's remarks" the other day casually, not as carefully as I ought to have done, and I thought he estimated the amount required for the next year at $140,000,000. Am I mistaken?
Mr. SHERMAN. Without counting the $15,000,000 of maturing bonds.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Is that not embraced in that statement 2
Mr. SHERMAN. I said that that amount.have to be paid out of the balance on haud.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not give my assent to any such statement, that it is necessary to have on hand 1/2 the amount of interest that we shall owe during the year. We did not do that in olden times, when we owed a debt formerly.
Mr. HEN DRICKS. Allow me to make an inquiry of the Senator. He is now discussing a question of a good deal of interest to the country, and one upon, which I have bestowed some thought. I should like to have the benefitof his investigations upon it. It seems that there has accumulated in the Treasury, according to his statement, $97,000,000, according to the statement of the Senfrom Ohio $77,000,000 of gold. What does he propose that the SecyTreasury shall do with that accumulation? I think it is too large. Now, what does the Senfrom Illinois say that under existing laws the SecyTreasury ought to do with that precise sum of money?
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is a question that I have not yet bestowed sufficient attention upon to answer satisfactorily to myself.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I regret that I asked the question. Inasmuch as the Senator felt himself authorized now for 2 hours to criticise the SecyTreasury in regard to the management of the money on hand, I thought of course he would relieve my judgment of the embarrassment under which I have been laboring.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry that the Senfrom Indiana has so imperfectly under stood me as to say, and repeat in the Senate what I believe has been stated by some before, that I have been assailing the SecyTreasury. I call upon the Senfrom Indiana to repeat one word I have said censuring the SecyTreasury.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senate was considering the question whether we should give to the SecyTreasury the discretionary disposal of $50,000 in the payment of clerk hire. While we were considering that question the Senator felt it to be his duty, in very emphatic terms, to call the attention of the Senate and of the country to the fact that there was an accumulation of money in the Treasury dangerous to the liberty of the Jo$97,000,000 of which was in gold and $45,000,000 in paper; and he went so far as to. estimate the in the paper currency and to make it in all about 170 million dollars, which he said had accumulated in the Treasury. Now, I want to know of the Senator for what purpose he introduced that argument before the Senate? The Senate was considering just one question, and that question was made mainly upon the argument of the Senfrom Massachusetts, based upon an anonymous letter, that the SecyTreasury was not to be trusted with the discretionary control of $50,000 of money. That was the question. In connection with that question the Senfrom Illinois went into a discussion of the condition of the Treasury, especially with regard to the accumulation of money in the Treasury. Now, if it had no connection with the SecyTreasury's management of the affairs of his Dept, what logical connection had it with the business before the Senate 2
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I suppose it will be no part of my business to under take to furnish to the Senfrom Indiana the understanding of my remarks; but I regret that that astute Senator does not see the difference between the discussion of a general principle and its application to a particular individual. If I were to rise in the Senate today and denounce despotism, do I thereby charge despotism upon every officer in this Government? Suppose I say in my place, as I did today, that it is dangerous to have such a large amount of money in the hands of any man that was my language; I did not oof the Present Secretary particularly; I said of any man; and I wish to ask the Senfrom Indiana if he will have the candor to answer it, if he does not regard it as dangerous to the liberties of any people to have placed in any man's hands $170,000,000 of money or $140,000,000 of money to remain there permanently where he has the power to dispose of it? e
Mr. HENDRICKS. Does the Senator wish a reply now?
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator may reply now or at any other time, as he pleases.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senfrom Indiana alluded to his justice of the peace expe rience, and I Presume it was on that court that he learned to talk about something else than the case before the justice of the peace. He talks now about a criticism on the SecyTreasury. Who has made any? I suppose that Senator had just as much confidence in Jake Thompson when he was SecyInterior, and stole the money belonging to the Indians that was in the interior Dept. It was there according to law. Did he steal it according to law? The danger is in having power unnecessarily placed in the hands of persons. I suppose the Senator had just as much confidence at that time in Jake' Thomp son as he has now in his friend, the Present SecyTreasury.
Mr. HEN DRICKS. I want to ask the senator whether he makes the comparison between Secretary Thompson as SecyIn terior and Secretary McCulloch as SecyTreasury?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I have said what I have said, and I have already said (which the gentleman understands to be a jus tice of the peace proceeding) that it is not my business to make him understand what I say. Now, sir, I do not agree with the Senator that the SecyTreasury has got no power over the money. I am not criticising the SecyTreasury, but I am talking of the law. Does not the Senator know that the SecyTreasury has authority under existing laws to sell more than $90,000,000 of gold tomorrow? Has he not got the power? I think it dangerous to trust such a power unnecessarily in the hands of any man. That is not an attack upon the SecyTreasury. It is the lodging of such vast powers anywhere that I regard as objection able, and I say to the Senate that it is not safe, although you may have a law defining the duties of the officer with whom you intrust these unnecessary powers. Why, sir, there would have been no devils in hell if they had not violated law. There would have been no rebellion and no treason if the mef engaged in rebellion and treason had not violated law; and it is because we gave power into the hands of men which they abused, not because we do it particularly in this country, but because mankind the world over have placed power in the hands of others which they have abused, that the liberties of the people have been trodden down from the be ginning of time. Now, sir, there is no safety in having a law telling the person whom you clothe with extraor dinary powers that he shall not abuse those powers.. By and by you will find some one who is disposed to abuse them if he has the power to do it, and my point is that you should not unnecessarily confer power.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to.: The Secretary continued the reading of bill. the
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is an amendment to come in after line 391, on page 17: For janitors for the Treasury Dept, $15,000.
Mr. WILSON. I move that the Senate take a recess until 7 o'clock.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let the next item be read.
Mr. WILSON. I withdraw the motion for that purpose.
Mr. WILSON. I now move that the Senate take a recess until 7 o'clock.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Does the chairman of the committee desire this?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I desired and supposed I could get through with this bill today, and iro.bably should but for this losfo and debate that has sprung up. We are get ting to be so near the close of the session, and there is so much more business behind, that I should like to have this bill disposed of, and am therefore perfectly willing myself to have a recess and come here and finish it this evening.
Mr. CONNESS and others. Then let us finish it. The motion was agreed to; there being on a division ayes 16, noes 15; and the Senate accordingly took a recess until 7 o'clock p. m. EVENING SESSION. The Senate reassembled at 7 o'clock p.m. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The following bills and JtResolutions from the HoRep were sever ally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below: A bill (H.R.No. 1144) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for contingent expenses of the HoRep for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867 to the ComFinance. A bill (H.R.No. 1146) for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth Fletcher to the ComPensions. A JtResolution (H.R.No. 275) to extend the time for the use of certain vessels for quarantine purposes at the port of NewYork to the ComCommerce. BILL INTRODUCED.
Mr. CRESWELL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill ( S.No. 577) to regulate the disposition of the proceeds of fines, penalties, and forfeit ures incurred under the laws relating to the customs; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. WASHINGTON AND NEWYORK RAILROAD. On motion of Mr. WILSON, the bill (H.R.No. 632) to authorize the building of a military and postal railroad from Washington, DistCol, to the city of NewYork, was taken from the table, and referred to the ComCommerce. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 896) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1867.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The reading of the bill will now be proceeded with commencing where the reading was interrupted when the recess was taken. The Secretary resumed the reading of the bill. The next amendment of the ComFinance was on page 19, after line 437, to insert: Bureau of Statistics: For contingent expenses, namely: laborers, office furniture, carpets, fitting up items, $4, files, and miscellaneous
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 32, line 780, I move to strike out “five” and to insert “nine;” and in lines 781 and 782 to strike out “$4, 752, and to insert “$7, 632;" so that the clause will read: For compensation of ersof the southwestexneicnuetwivaetbeuhimldeinnga, n$d7t, w6o32la.bor It will be observed that this adds 4 watch men to the number now authorized in the Navy Dept building, and it is done at the request of the SecyNavy, whose letter I have here, in which he states that owing to the very great enlargement of the building the 5 watchmen are entirely insuf ficient for the safety of the building. The committee were satisfied that it was so, and therefore agreed to report this amendment.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 34, lines 829, 830, and 831, to strike out the following words: That a sum not exceeding$10,000 be appropriated%. purchase of the glover Museum: And provided urther.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 35, after line 834, to insert: I'or the purchase of the Glover Museum, $10,000.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I see that that was just stricken out on the other page, and it is put in another place.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We have merely changed the place in which it is to come in.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to know what that is, and what it means.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is the museum that has been collected here for a considerable number of years past by Mr. Glover, which is very val uable and interesting, and the ComFinance thought it was well to purchase it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is a collection of all sorts of agricultural specimens of different kinds, which. been prepared with great care and skill by Mr. Glover, who has devoted his life to it, and is an enthusiast in the matter, and it is very valuable.
Mr. RAMSEY. I trust this appropriation will be made. This collection contains some of the finest specimens in the world. There will be found in it every variety of apple, pear, and peach produced in the U.S.
Mr. TRUMBULL. A museum used to be in the Patent Office, but that has been transferred over to the Smithsonian Institution.
Mr. FISSENDEN. These are agricultural specimens.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It seems to me we ought not to appropriate for 2 museums.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They are entirely different things. These are agricultural specimens, and the other is miscellaneous, of all SOrts.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is true; but it seems to me there should be but one museum. the Government is to have a museum it is a great undertaking. I believe some of the foreign Governments appropriate $60,000 a year to their museums.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Congress can order it transferred hereafter if they see fit.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It seems to me a strange idea to have a museum in the Agricultural Dept and another one in the Smithson ian, that Congress appropriates, I suppose, to take care of, I do not know how much. It has to be attended by somebody. It used to be in the Patent office, but we transferred it to the Smithsonian.
Mr. Glover is connected with the Agricultural Dept, one of the officers of it, and has been there for several years. He is an enthusiast in this matter.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It has no other connection with the Agricultural Dept than that this person happens to be engaged there.
Mr. FESSENDEN. And the fact that it is of an agricultural character exclusively. This is a question as to the purchase of the museum; not where it shall be kept. It can be transferred hereafter if Congress think proper to do so.
Mr. RAMSEY. I really hope that this appropriation will be made. I think it is the most proper appropriation in the bill.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I know nothing about this museum, and I am not prepared to say that the appropriation should !. made. It certainly.not strike me favorably. I have not examined this museum belonging to the Agricultural Dept; but it is to me a little singular that we should be making such an appropriation.
Mr. CRESWELL. I will state that this very subject was under consideration in the ComAg last year, and I believe the recommendation was unanimous that the Government should purchase this museum and Preserve it in some appropriate building. It certainly forms the nucleus of a very valuable collection.
Mr. CATTELL. As I happen to be a member of the ComAg I desire to say that this museum is peculiarly appropriate to the Agricultural Dept. It contains specimens of the fruits suited to the different latitudes of Fo our country and all the facts to them. There is also in it a collection of insectivorous birds, such birds as ought to be destroyed and such as ought to be Preserved, all bearing on the subject of agriculture, and making this an exceedingly interesting museum.
Mr. Glover has been offered for it from foreign Governments very much more money than we propose to give him here. He takes very great pride in it as having gotten it up here. I think it a very valuable museum, and I hope this appropriation will be made.
Mr. TRUMBULL. So far as birds are concerned, we have another collection of them at the Smithsonian.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Those are specimens of the birds of foreign countries, brought here by the exploring expedition. These are the birds of this country.
Mr. CATTELL. These are specimens of our own birds, numbered and marked with their different characteristics, whether they are advantageous to agriculture as destructive of insects, or the contrary; whether they are such as ought to be destroyed or not, and a great many very interesting facts which are directly connected with our own country, and particularly applicable to the Agricultural Dept.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator will wade through the 13 quarto volumes of the Pacific railroad surveys he will find there a collection of all the birds and reptiles of this country, what they are good for, and for what purposes of evil they seem to exist, and he will find pictures of them; and then if he will go into i. museum that we have got already established he will find the birds themselves, or their feathers and skins stuffed, and a very minute description. But I do not wish to say anything more in regard to this purchase. I shall not vote for it myself.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. he Secretary continued the reading of the bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 45, after line 1,091, I move to insert the following: For the purchase of reports of the SCOTUS for the useof the Dept of State, $1,000.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The Secretary continued the reading of the bill down to the following clause: For necessaryexpenses in carrying into effect the several acts of Congress authorizing loans and the issueof Treasury notes, $2,000,00op:rocided, That no further expenditures shall be made for the experi mentalsystemof hydrostaticprinting by the Treasury 19deptuntil such experiments shall have been definitely, authorized by law and aation madetherefor. distinct appropri
Mr. FESSENDEN. That proviso escaped my notice. I think it ought not to remain in. I do not see the members of the committee here. That system of printing is no longer an experiment; it has been and is carried out, and that is the printing that is now going on. I. am afraid that as the proviso is now worded it would interfere seriously with the business of the Dept. I move to strike out the proviso. If there is anything wrong about it it can be set right on conference with the members of the House.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment of the committee was on page 46, after line 11two, to insert the following: For facilitating communication between, the At lantic and Pacific States by electrical telegraph,
Mr. POMEROY. I should like to have an explanation of precisely what is intended by “facilitating communication between the Atlan tic and Pacific States by electrical telegraph.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is under a contract to pay the company $40,000 a year. It was rejected at the last session because there was some doubt whether they had not broken their contract. The committee examined it and came to the conclusion that on the whole it might as well be put in, whether they had broken their contract or not, of which we were not exactly satisfied, because we are obliged to have that amount, and more probably, of telegraphing. If we throw the contract aside we place ourselves perhaps more in the power of the company than the contract now places us. It would seem, therefore, not to be advis able to do that. This telegraphing must be paid for in some way. If we do not pay for it under the contract we shall have to pay what they see fit to charge for the telegraphing that is actually done. Therefore the committee came to the conclusion that it was best to insert this appropriation.
Mr. POMEROY. The language used, “fa cilitating communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States, ” does not look as if it was an appropriation to pay on a contract, but rather as if we were going to build a new line.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is the language of all the appropriations on the subject.
Mr. CONNESS. At this time I will ask the chairman of the ComFinance if he has any especial information in regard to the provision on page 44, beginnning at line 1,074, reading thus: For legal assistanceand other necessaryspecial and extraordinary expenditures in the disposal of private land elains in California, $5,000. I should like to ask the chairman if he has any information as to the necessity for the appropriation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is an appropriation which has been made several times before. They are obliged to employ extra counsel in those cases. found it in the bill and also in the estimates that were made.
Mr. CONNESS. It will appear in the estimates and in the appropriation bills until the crack of doom unless it is stricken out.
Mr. CONNESS. A very distant period I believe. [Laughter] I move to strike out the clause I have read. My imPression and my opinion is that it is simply an unnecessary appropriation of public money. The nature of the services consist in the prosecution in the SCOTUS of claims arising under the treaty with Mexico and rants made by the Mexican Government of ands in California. The public money has been used to the extent of 100s of 1000s of dollars in the prosecution of those claims with great injury to the State of California and with terrible severity upon honest claimants, while
Mr. FESSENEEN. This appropriation is for gonosting the claims, is it not?
Mr. CONNESS. Yes, sir; this is a continuation of it. Now those questions are nearly all at an end; they ought to have been ended long ago. Under those annual appropriations cases are kept in court the principles of which have been determined again and again for years past; and it is in vain that the parties ask a dismissal of cases that are pending here, and that are eventually decided as if dismissed by the court, as long as appropriations are made from the Treasury to employ legal assistance for the contesting of them. I move to strike out this clause.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know enough about it to make any comment on what the honorable Senator says. He is better acquainted with it than I am.
Mr. CONNESS. I have no doubt on the subject at all. s
Mr. HOWARD. I shall vote to strike out this item. The reports of the Supreme Court are literally crammed with the decisions in litigations upon the California land titles which arose under the treaty with Mexico, and if it be possible to settle any leading principle of law with reference to those claims, or any series of principles, that settlement has already taken place, I should think, long ago; for you will find scores of decisions already made by the SCOTUS in the California land claims, one of which is but a precedent for another, involving the same principle from case to case and from year to year. I really think the Senfrom California is correct when he says this appropriation is only an invitation to a continuance of the litigation respecting those claims.
Mr. CONNESS. That is it, when we want peace and quiet.
Mr. HOWARD. I think it is encouraging unnecessary lawsuits.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom California.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The Secretary continued the reading of the bill, as follows: For expenses in detecting and bringing to punishmentpersonsengaged trial and in counterfeitingTreasury notes, bonds, and other securities of States, the U.S. as well as the coins of the U.S.,
Mr. HOWARD. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the ComFinance as to the necessity of appropriating $150,000 to pay detectives for their services in detectin counterfeiters of the currency of the U.S. Is not that sum rather large? It would pay a swarm of detectives in every part of the country and encourage their ment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is a very expensive and a very important service. I do not know of any more important item or money better spent than that.
Mr. HOWARD. Very likely. I see the necessity of having some such appropriation; but I wish to inquire of the Senator whether that is the appropriation that has been made heretofore.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot tell just now, but I think the same appropriation was made last year. We made quite an appropriation for the current year, and it was struck down, and we afterward increased it on consultation.
Mr. HOWARD. Was the appropriation the same or nearly so?
Mr. HOWARD. I merely inquired for information. It struck me as rather a large sum.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not make any inquiry about it. I found it in the bill as it came to us; but it is a pretty expensive business. Agents have to be employed and they have to be paid extra for oservices..
Mr. WILSON. And it is rather a useless business, too, for I find that almost all the men convicted are pardoned immediately. Still, I shall vote for the appropriation if the Senator wants it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is not a matter that depends on the appropriation at all. hio Secretary continued the reading of the lil. The next amendment of the committee was on page 46, line 1121, to strike out “4” and insert “five;” so as to read: For compensation to the laborer in charge of the water closets in the Capitol, $538.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 1123, page 49, the word “the” should be inserted before “Capitol.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. That is a clerical correction which will be made.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 47, line 1133, I move to strike out “$1, 200” and to insert “$1, 800;” so as to read: For compensation of 2 day watchmenemployed in the Capitol square, $1, 800. They are entitled to $900 each by law.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 47, lines 1135 and 1136, I move to strike out “$2, 640” and to insert “$3, 168;” so as to read: paTyo enable the ComrPubBldg to 2 policemen at the President's House, $3, 168. They are entitled by law to the same pay as the police of the Capitol. amendment was agreed to. The next amendment of the committee was on page 47, after line 1130 8, to insert: For compensation of 2 watchmen at the President's house, $1, 440.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move to amend the amendment by striking out “$1, 440” and inserting “$1, 800.” They get $900 apiece. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 47, after line 1140, to insert: For compensationfor 3 watchmenon the dome,
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was on page 47, after line 1142, to insert: For compensation to a person to take care of heating apparatus the of the Library of Congress, $1,000.
Mr. CRESWELL. May I ask the object of that clause? Under the Present arrangement the heating apparatus of the Library is in the charge, I think, of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the Doorkeeper of the House, and if another person is appointed to take charge of the same engines
Mr. FESSENDEN. This is not for the engines. This is the heating apparatus of the Library. The amendment is offered in accordance with the recommendation of the ComrPubBldg, who says that it is necessary.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment of the committee was on page 47, after line 1145 to strike out the following clause: For compensation of asst doorkeeper at the President's House, $600.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That clause the committee struck out. I have since been informed, however, and I will state to the Senate, that although that is asked for as a new officer, there being only one doorkeeper authorized by law, we are all aware that the President's House has been refurnished, and very well furnished and it is a very handsome sort of a place, an it is thought to be very necessary and economical to have some person there all the time to accompany visitors about the House. We know that formerly when it was fixed up it was very much injured; pieces were cut out of the furniture and a good deal of injury was done by visi tors, and it is rePresented o it is advisable to have some person who shall be in constant attendance upon visitors there and accompany them to the different parts of the House where they go, and see that no damage is done. The appropriation is only $600, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be well to make the appropriation, and I think the committee would have come to the same conclusion had the same facts been stated to them. I leave it to the Senate therefore to decide. I doubt very much whether it is advisable to strike out that appropriation.
Mr. HOWARD. The bill has already given to the President 2 watchmen and some other servants.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Those 2 watchmen were there before, and the appropriation for their pay was accidentally left out by the House and is now put in. There are 2 watchmen there constantly, and must be necessarily, and 2 policemen and a doorkeeper. This is for an asst doorkeeper inside the house to accompany visitors. My own opinion is that it is advisable to make the appropriation.
Mr. HO WARD. Very well; I make no objection. I will ask the chairman what “dome” is referred to in line 1141, “for compensation of 3 watchmen on the dome” the dome of the Capitol 2
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is but one dome, and that is the dome of the Capitol. I do not know of any other.
Mr. HOWARD. I thought it might perhaps apply to some other dome in the country. perhaps you had better say “dome of the Capitol.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no objection if the Senator has any doubt about it. I think the dome of the Capitol is “the dome.”
Mr. HOWARD. Others might think differ entl. PRESIDENT protempore. Is the Sen. ate ready for the question on the amendment proposed by the committee?
Mr. HENDRICKS. I could not hear from the chairman whether he recommended that this clause be stricken out.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The committee recommended that it should be struck out, not bein informed of the facts and supposing we h provided last year all the officers that were necessary; but since that time I have been in formed by the ComrPubBldg that it is very desirable to have this person in order to protect the property, to be there all the time to attend to visitors, which the door keeper cannot do. There must be one man at the door constantly.. I think this appropriation advisable therefore, and have taken the liberty myself to suggest that I do not think it wise to conform to the recommendation of the committee in striking out the clause. That is all. The Senate of course will do as it pleases about it. We all know how much injury was done to the house, and it may be done again unless it is watched.
Mr. CONNESS. It is useful; it shows that the committee are capable of making a mistake, that is all.
Mr. FESSENDEN. of that. The amendment was rejected. The Secretary continued the reading of the bill to the following clause, lines 1166 to 1172: For additional compensation of $100each to watchmen, 6 at $900, and of 20%. of 5 laborers in the Capitol, one foremanand 21 laborers on public grounds, one gatekeeper, 2 day and two, night watchmen, and 2 furnace keepers, i,
Mr. CONNESS. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the ComFinance whether the 3 watchmen employed in the square near the Smithsonian Institution are included in this paragraph? There was such a provision in the bill originally, but my im ression is that, while it was pending in. the that was struck out. should like to inquire whether that has been restored, and whether those watchmen are included in those named in this paragraph.
Mr. FESSENDEN. This is only making provision for the additional pay oby law to certain specified persons. It does not include them. "
Mr. CONNESS. I propose, then, in a moment, to offer an amendment to provide for them; and I will state that there are, I think, 3 watchmen employed in this square to which I have referred. They have been employed there for a year, and have performed some very valuable service there. It is a place where bad characters in the city had been in the habit of frequenting, and there was no part of the city that required watchmen more than it did. The ComrPubBldg appointed 3 soldiers, some of whom were maimed and one I believe honor ably discharged; but the House, in a spasm of economy, struck out the appropriation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will find a provision for those watchmen at the top of page 48, lines 1151 and 1152: For the compensation of 5watchmen intion No. reserva 2, $4, 500. Reservation No.? is the ground on which is the Smithsonian Institution.
Mr. CONNESS. Then it is all right. The next item of the bill was read, providing for the Metropolitan police, as follows: Metropolitan police: For salaries and other necessary, expenses of Metropolitan police the for the DistCol of $208, 850. And the compensation of said Metropol sitaamnepolice force, officers, and clerks, he, and the is hereby, increased 20%. upon the amount hereby appropriated, commencing on the 1stday of November, 1866, said increase to by be borne the cities of Washington andGeorgetown, and the county of Wool in the DistCol, in the proportion equal to the number of patrolmen allotted severally to the city of Washington, to city the of Georgetown, and the county of Washington; I am painfully aware haenrdebthye, levy court of said county be, and they are authorizedand empoweredto levy a special tax not exceedingone quarter of 1%. for tpheers pounrpose aforesaid: Provided. That hereafter no shall be appointed as policeman or watch man who has not served in the Army or Navy of the U.S., and receivedan honorable discharge.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 1179 I move to strike out “ 20%.” and insert “ 50%.” The HoRep were evidently laboring under a misapprehension about this matter. They supposed the provision which was inserted in the estimates in regard to this matter was for giving an additional 20%. The fact is that we gave last year an additional 50%., and instead of its being terminated now they have it by law up to the 1st day of next July, and this should be an appropriation to continue it. It is not an appropriation out of the Treasury, but it is requiring the corpo rations of Washington city and Georgetown and Washington county to appropriate the 50%. increase, and assess a tax to meet it, which was agreed to last year all round. Evidently the House misapprehended the effect and intention of this provision from its not being aware of what was done last year. I move to amend the clause by striking out in line 1179 “ 20 ” and inserting “ 50;” by striking out in line 1180 “November” and inserting “July;” by striking out “six” in line 1181 and inserting “seven; ” so as to read “ 50%. upon the amount hereby appropriated, com: mencing on the 1st day of July, 1867; ” and then, after “county of Washington, ” in line 1183, I move to insert “beyond the limits of said cities; ” and in line 1187 to strikes out “empowered” and insert “re quired.” The amendments were agreed to.
The Secretary read the 2nd section of bill, the as follows: Sec. 2. Abife:, That to enablethe Clerk of the HoRep to pay the increased o.voted by the House during the 39th Congress to others, its employees, clerks, and and to pay the increased rate of compensation thereby authorized, a sum sufficient therefor is herebyo!.out of.money in ury the Treasnot otherwiseappropriated. The ComFinance reported an amendment to strike out the section.
The Clerk read The next section was read as follows:. Sec. 3. Abife: That the proviso contained in the 3rd section of chapter 2ten of the act of July 2, 1864, shall be construed to embrace all suits to which the U.S shall abe party in the Court of plaintiff Claims, either or defendant.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That section repeals a clause in anoact of 1864, a proviso which reads in these words: “That in the courts of the U.S. there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color, nor in civil actions becausehe is a party to or interestedin the issuetried.” At a subsequent F." Congress amended this proviso which Iing have just read by declar “That in any action by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, in which judgment may be renderedfor or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testifyagainst the other as to any transac tfon with, or any statement of, the testator, intes State, or ward, unlesscalled to testify thereto by the opposite party, or required to testify thereto by the court.” The reason of this amendment was that it was supposed there was no mutuality where a party was permitted to testify in a suit by an administrator or guardian; the guardian or administrator would not know about the transaction and hence it was improper, although the law was extended so as to allow parties to testify in court in cases in which they were interested as a general rule, to extend that to cases where one of the parties acted in a fiduciary capacity. Now it is very question able, I think, whether this law should be extended to the Court of Claims, so as to allow parties to testify. The U.S. has no one to testify for it, and the claimant who presents his claim swears to his petition now. The effect of this section of this bill is to allow the claimant to come in there as a witness as against the U.S.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think the section ought to be struck out.
Mr. TRUMBULL. There is no mutuality in it. I do not think the provision ought to be extended to the Court of Claims. I understand that this section got into the appropriation bill under an imPression that the Court of Claims excluded a person of color from testifying. That is not so. I have been furnished with a decision of the court on that subject, and I will read a sentence or 2 from it: “It has beensuggestedthat if parties cannot tes tify, personsof color cannot, as both are rendered eligible by the same act. There was never a Congress law of color, which excluded witnesses on account of and this court has always recognized the rules of the commonlaw which makenosuchdistinction.” So that in that court they admit persons of color to testify, and the only effect of retaining this 3rd section in this bill is to allow a party to be a witness in the Court of Claims in a case where there is no mutuality.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator move to strike out the section?
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think it had better be stricken out.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Imove that it be stricken out.
Mr. POLAND. I hardly have the heart to say anything in favor of this provision if the chairman of the ComFinance consents to have it stricken out; but it seems to me there is very little reason for striking it out. It is very proper, as I think, where one party to a transaction is dead, and a suit is prose cuted by the administrator who, of course, has no personal knowledge in relation to the matter, that the other party should not be allowed to testify because the party who really knew about it on the other side is dead and cannot appear to testify. The case of the Government is likened to that. It seems to me there is no analogy between the two. All contracts and dealings of the Government are done by some agent or officer of the Government.
Mr. TRUMBULL. And he is a witness for both parties.
Mr. POLAND. Not always. I think that wherever an officer or an agent has made a contract of the part of the Government, and there comes up a litigation about it, and that officer or agent is a witness for the Government, he is not any more to be trusted as a witness than a man who comes into court and testifies for himself. The U.S. never was a witness, never was alive so that it could testify against the opposite party, but the person with whom the dealing was made, the officer or agent who transacted the business or made the contract on the part of the Government is alive, so that the Government has his testimony, the testimony of one party who really made the contract, and it seems to me entirely just and fair that the party on the other side should be a witness if we want to keep up this mutual right under the system of allowing parties to testify in their own cases. It seems to me it ought to be extended to cases where the Government is a party.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I proposed the provision of law which has been referred to, allowing parties to be witnesses in their own behalf. Certainly I never intended to apply that provision of law to cases in which the U.S. was a party to claims against the Government, which are subject, of course, to such peculiar rules as the Government may Prescribe. At a subsequent session, after the adoption of that provision on my motion, suits in which the rePresentatives of estates were parties were excluded from the operation of that law, and with my concurrence. Now, sir, the same reason which applies in the case of estates will apply to a case of claims against the Government of the U.S. There is no mutuality of privilege either in the case of estates or in the case of the Government: there is no party which may confront the plaintiff by rePresenting the opposite side of the case. I think, therefore, that the proposed provision of this bill is improvident, that that innovation upon the law which was established upon my motion at a former session ought to be confined to cases between private parties, where both are competent to testify and both enjoy the privilege provided by the law. For that reason I shall be in favor of striking out this section in the bill from the House.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not agree with the Senfrom Pennsylvania upon this question. I do not think there is an analogy betweenthe 2 cases. 2 men make a contract; one of them dies; it is not right that the survivor of them should testify against the estate of the other, because there is no balan cing testimony, if I may so exPress it. But a man who brings a suit against the Government of the U.S. in the Court of Claims, or who is sued by the Government in any of the U.S. courts, sues or is sued upon some contract or arrangement between him and some agent or officer of the Government, and this officer or agent is always a competent witness, and I have observed that the testimony given on behalf of the Government in such cases has an undue weight. I have seen what I think to be wrong, because of the official weight that is thrown into a case when the testimony is given by an officer in addition to the weight that the testimony would have coming merely from an ordinary witness. Before the vote is taken on striking out the section, I move to insert after the word “all” in the 4th line the word “civil, ” and to strike out in the 5th line the words “in the Court of Claims;” so as to make the section read: That the proviso contained in chapter the 3rd section of 2ten of the act of July 2, 1864, shall be construed to embraceall civil suits to which the U.S shall be a party, either plaintift or defendant. I am not sure that this will change the rule that obtains in the courts now. I rather think that under the law as it stands the U.S. courts allow parties to suits to testify but that there may be no question about iit, move this amendment.
Mr. BUCKALEW. if I recollect aright, the original provision to which reference is made applied only to civil suits. Criminal proceedings were exciuded from that law. Mr HENDRICKS. I am a little afraid that by the use of this general language, without inserting the word “civil, ” the section might be construed to include criminal cases. If you say by this section that the law of 1864 shall be construed to embrace all suits to which the U.S. are a party, that will be extending the operation of the rule, and may be construed to include criminal cases, which it ought not to do.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I trust the amendment will not be adopted. It is only enlarging the thing still further. The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question occurs on the motion of the Senfrom Illinois to strike out the section.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think it ought to be struck out. I think it would be very dangerous to admit parties to testify where there is nobody in fact interested on the other side. It is contrary to the theory on which the testimony of parties is admitted. There is no knowing where the Government agents, who ever they may be, may be when the testimony is wanted. They may be scattered in various parts of the country; it may be difficult to find them, while the party is always to be found if he is living and becomes a party to a suit against the U.S. The motion to strike out was agreed to.
The Secretary read the last amendment reported by the ComFinance, which was to insert as a new section: Sec. 4. Abife:, That each night watchmanat the Treasury Dept shall, from $th91 eoopsetrdaanynuomf July n, dan 1867 amr, eocuenivtesuaffcicoimenptetonspaatyiosnaoidf increased compensation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, is hereby appropriated.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am instructed by the ComFinance to offer the following amendment as an additional section: Abife:, That the SecyInterior is hereby authorized to appoint in the office of the ComrPensions, in addition to the clerks now authorized in said office, 28 clerks of class one, 24 clerks of class two, ssihxitpesenof classthree, and tenof classfour; said clerk otto expire at the end of two ' and a sum to pay the salaries of said clerks from the dateof their appointment to the 30thof June, 1867, andfor the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, is hereby appropriatedout of any moneyin the Treasury not otherwiseappropriated. If any explanation is needed, I will say that this amendment provides for nearly 80 more clerks in the Pension Office; and I have a letter from the SecyInterior, transmitting a letter from the ComrPensions, in which that officer states that it will be impossible for him to get along, so great is the increase of business there, unless he has these additional clerks. The committee were satisfied of the truth of the statement., I will have the letters read if any Senator desires to hear them. [“No!” o!”]
Mr. TRUMBULL. On page 45, line 1,091, after the word “dollars, ” I move to insert: And in case said court shall in any year direct isoanids, reporter to publish a 2ndvolume of its decis in addition thereto, to be paid on the delivery by said reporter to the SecyIn teriorfor distribution, according to existing laws, of 300 copies of such 2ndvolume.” The appropriation of $2, 500 as a salary for thereporter of the Supreme Court contemplates the publication of one volume of the reports of decisions, and the delivery of 300 copies to the SecyInterior for distribution. It has sometimes happened in former years that the court has directed 2 volumes to be published, and in such cases an additional appropriation has always been made. This year it is in contemplation to publish 2 volumes. The reporter addressed the SecyInterior upon the subject, and that officer sent us a communication, recommending an appropriation of $2, 500; but the ComJudiciary, which considered this subject, thought $1,500 would be sufficient. The $2, 500 is paid to the reporter for 300 copies of its reports. That is more than the 300 copies are worth in the market, but it is intended as a sort of salary to the reporter, and to make up to him a sufficient compensation for getting out the reports, there being no very large sales of the reports, and there being a necessity that they should be published; but the committee thought if a 2nd volume was to be published in any year, $1,500 should be enough for 300 copies of that volume, which is about the market price, 5 dollars a volume, and they report this amendment.
Mr. STEWART. In line 1,082 I move to strike out “10th ” and insert “ 9th;” so as to read: “for traveling expenses of the judge assigned to the 9th circuit;” &c., and then to add to the clause: And where an allowance has been made or shall hereafter be madefor traveling or anyjustice other expensesof allotted to a circuit embracingparticular districts, such allowance shall not be change affectedby any in the number of the circuits, but shall be made to the justicewithin whosecircuit such districts are included.
Mr. TRUMBULL. When we make the appropriation we can always designate the proper circuit.
Mr. STEWART. It might as well be provided for in this general language. There is a difficulty about the appropriation of last year because of the number of the circuit having been changed. This is to cover that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have the question put separately. The 1st part of the amendment I have no objection t;o the 2nd I object to.
Mr. STEWART. Very well, I withdraw the last part, and move simply to strike out “10th “ and insert “ 9th.”
Mr. POLAND. I am instructed by the ComJudiciary to propose the following amendment, to come in after line 1,085, on page 45: Abife:, That the salaries of the district judge of the district of California shall be$5,000: aMnadsstahcehsuaslaertitess, of the district judgesof the distictsof southern and easterndistricts of NewYork, eastern district of Pennsylvania. Maryland, northern district of Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, and Nevada shall be $4, 500each; and the salary of every other district shall be$4,000;and such salaries shall be in full compensationfor all official services per fpoarymmeednbty such judges, and no other allowance or shall be made to themfor traveling expenses or otherwise.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator had bet.ter propose that as an additional section at the end of the bill. He cannot interpose an enacting clause in that way in the middle of a section.
Mr. POLAND. I have no objection to having it come in as an additional section.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pome Roy.) The amendment will be put in that form.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no doubt that there ought to be an increase of the salaries of some of the judges; but I think from hearing the amendment read that it puts some of them too high, more than I should be willing to agree to. I should like to know on what principle the amendment is predicated? It doubles the salaries of the district judges in NewEngland, or most of them. It doubles the salaries of the district judges in Vermont, Maine, NewHampshire, and RhdIsland, who now receive but $2,000 each.
Mr. TRUMBULL. But it cuts off what they now receive for oing into other districts.
Mr.?os They do not get much in that way.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The district judge of Vermont goes very often to NewYork to hold court there.
Mr. POLAND. This subject was brought before the ComJudiciary at the last session, and very considerable examination was made with a view to get at the proper sums which should be fixed as the salaries of the district judges, and to equalize as well as we could the salaries othem. They were quite unequal as we found them, and generally insufficient. The very highest salary named in this amendment is for the judge in the California district. That is not raised by this amendment. It was fixed at $5,000 when that district was established, and it has so remained Slnce.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought that had been increased to $6,000.
Mr. POLAND. No; it stands at $5,000 now.
Mr. SHERMAN. If this amendment is to be adopted, I desire to amend it by inserting “the southern district of Ohio.” after “the northern district of Illinois.” The judgeship of that district Iis, am told, the most laborious office of the West. The court is held at Cincinnati, the largest city in the West, and having the largest commercial transactions. If the increase is to be made, I desire that the $4, 500 class shall include the southern district of Ohio, and I move so to amend the amendment.
Mr. POLAND. I apprehend that if we war from the sums that the committee has fixe upon as proper there will be no end to it. My friendfrom NewJersey has been laboring with the committee with great earnestness and with great sincerity, I have no doubt, to have this highest class of salary reach the district judge in NewJersey. He says it is no more than right and just that he should have it, that he is a veryoman, and works the entire year through. Precisely the same thing has been said to me by at least half a dozen gentlemen in the Senate in reference to the dis. trict judges in their own States. I think that there is very great danger if we undertake to depart from what the committeee have settled upon after a good deal of deliberation and examination. If we vary this we shall have a very considerable job before us, and I think the salaries as we have proposed them are certainly low enough in all cases, perhaps too low in some; but if any of them are to be raised from what we propose very many more of them must be raised in order to make an equality.
Mr. SHERMAN. I did not make this motion upon any arbitrary reasons, but simply because that know the U.S. judge at Cincinnati is constantly employed. Cincinnati being the largest city of the western States, the amount of business that is thrown into that court is very great. Judge Leavitt, who is now a man somewhat aged, is occupied all his time, so that he has no leisure or recreation. If the judge of the northern district of Illinois should have $4, 500, certainly the judge of the southern district of Ohio should have it. The amount of commercial business at Cincinnati, the amount of our internal commerce on the rivers, and the amount of internalrevenue collected there are very great. The population of the district is very large. The revenue collected from whisky at Cincinnati alone is probably as much as in all the rest of the State of Ohio. The case of the judge at Cincinnati is as strong as any other that can be Presented. I do not make the motion in regard to the northern district, because it is not so populous and the business is not so great.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The amount of business in the district courts does not entirely depend upon population. The committee, as has been remarked by the Senfrom Vermont, had a good deal of consultation and a good deal of difficulty in arranging these salaries as to how many classes we should make. There has been a Pressure from all parts of the U.S. for an increase of the salaries of the district judges for several years. There have been referred to the ComJudiciary for the last 4 or 5 years numerous petitions from nearly every ao, in the Union. The committee have resisted this, and this is the 1st time we have reported from that committee an increase of salary. There have been one or 2 salaries raised in the Senate, without the report of the committee, on the motion of Senators, and the HoRep, at this session, has passed a bill increasing the salary of the judge in one of the districts; it has not yet passed this body. But the Press ure was so great, and the reasonableness of it was so manifest, that the committee thought the time had now come when we should increase the salaries of these judges. I think every body sees that it ought to be done. A judge of the U.S. court can do no other business. Then the question arose, how many classes of them shall we make? Manifestly those who were occupied all the time, and had very responsible and heavy duties to perform ought to be paid something more than those in smaller districts, where the expenses of living perhaps were less, and there was less to do. e made 2 classes, or rather 3 classes, because the salary of the judge in California was fixed at $5,000 some years ago, and under the Constitution it cannot be reduced, but he is the only one at that. Then there are several whose salaries are now $4, 500.
Mr. TRUMB?LL. The judges on the pay cific, in Nevada and Oregon. There are several whose salaries are now $3, 750, and some $3, 500. We selected a few and placed them at $4, 500, and they are in those districts in which the committee knew the judges were occupied the whole time. The southern district of Ohio is not one that we have put in this class. The Senfrom Ohio tells us that Cincinnati is the largest city in the West. Well, its population is hardly so large as StLouis. Cincinnati is not quite as large as StLouis, according to the official returns of the last census.
Mr. THUMBULL. I think the returns show StLouis to be a little larger; but we have not embraced the judge at StLouis in this class. The judge at Chicago is embraced. The population of Chicago is now upward of 200,000, and at Chicago, as every body knows, there is a great deal of admiralty business. The shipping is very large and the judge is occupied constantly. There is doubtless a good deal of business at Cincinnati. We had before us the returns from a number of these districts showing the number of cases and we made this classification on the evidence that was before us. If you embrace the Cincinnati district the Senators from Missouri will ask that the judge Presiding at StLouis shall have $4, 500; and my friendfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] is about to move that the judge who Presides at Mil waukee, a large city on the lake, shall have $4, 500; and my friendfrom Michigan [Mr. How ARD] will insist upon it for the judge in his district.
Mr. HOWE. What is the authority for the Senator's statement in regard to me.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understood my friend in his quiet way to say that if this was adopted he should go for it in another district.
Mr. TRUMBULL. At any rate the Senfrom Michigan, as I understand him, said that if the judge of the southern district of Ohio was put in the $4, 500 class he would move to insert in it the judge for the eastern district of Michigan.
Mr. SHERMAN. I understand there is not as much business in the 2 districts of Michigan as in the northern district of Ohio, the court for which is held at Cleveland, but I do not propose to raise the salary of that judge. The amount of business in the district court for the southern district of Ohio, as the returns show, is, I think, fully as large as in any district west of the mountains.
Mr. HOWARD. I think upon a comparison of the statistics of the amount of business done in the court to which the Senfrom Ohio refers, the southern district of Ohio, with that done in the eastern district of Michigan, it will turn out that the business in the latter district is larger. I have very little fear of the result of such a comparison.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not design to take up the time of the Senate in regard to this question, or to argue it. Ionly wish to say to the Senate about what the Senfrom Ver mont has said, that if you depart from the recommendation of the committee you will have the matter up here upon almost every district.
Mr. WILSON. We i.better vote it all down.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think not. I think the Senfrom Massachusetts is mistaken in what public duty and opolicy require. If he thinks we should keep the salaries at the sums that are now paid, be it so. He may say that they may resign; but when men have been judges for some years, are out of other business, and are good judges, it is difficult for them to get into practice again. We must have judges of these courts. I think the public service would suffer by the resignation of these judges. I do not believe we should act upon any impulse growing out of a feeling toward the Supreme Court on account of any decision that has been made. This law will apply to all the judges of all the districts. '. all politics. I think it is eminently just that the salaries should be raised. Iobe glad to vote to raise the salary of the judge in the southern district of Ohio and put it at $4, 500. I think he ought to have it from the little knowledge I have of the amount of business there. Still I will not vote for it now, because we have arranged this amendment upon an examination of all these salaries, and the committee unanimously I think agreed to report the amendment as the Senfrom Vermont has proposed it as the best thing, considering the whole matter, we could agree upon. I trust the Senate will adopt it.
Mr. HO WARD. I have no disposition to take up the time of the Senate in discussing this amendment. I shall vote for it with a great deal of pleasure. I have no doubt that the ComJudiciary have consid. ered this subject very fairly and have come to a very correct result: that they have allowed a small increase of the salaries of the district judges a necessity which has existed in their cases for several years to my own personal knowledge. I give, as a single instance, the condition of the judge of the eastern district of Michigan, where I reside, and in whose court I have been in the habit of practicing. It is undoubtedly no exception to the general state of things that exists among the judges. It is undoubtedly true that the compensation of that class of Federal judges has been and still is quite too small. It has been in many cases $2, 500 a year, in some cases $2,000 a year; in a few cases it has been raised from $2, 500 to $3,000; but it is impossible, as we all know, for a gentleman who has no other business from which to support his family to subsist respectably upon this small salary, and some of the judges have been almost in a state of starvation. I have been told by certainly 2 of them that they find it next to impossible to make their ends meet at the close of the year out of their salaries. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will adopt the amendment suggested by the ComJudiciary. I think it is reasonable and by no means too high. I trust that we shall not interfere with it in any way, but adopt it as they have reported it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This salary was fixed doubtless when the office was a mere sin ecure, when little was done in it. Since the revenue business has grown up the district court has charge of all that business. I know that in NewJersey there is more business done now in one term, and the records will show it, than used to be done in 20 years. The salary then was $2,000: it is proposed now to make it $ 4,000. I know that there are 100 indictments tried a year in that court. While NewJersey is but the 14th State in the Union in population, it is the 6th in point of revenue, which brings an immense amount of business before this court. Judge Field, once a member of this Senate, an able lawyer, gives his time exclusively to the discharge of the duties of that office, and the Government of the U.S. pays him $2,000, while the State of NewJersey, which is frugal at least in its expenditures, pays her circuit judges $4, 300, more than as much again. My opinion of Yt is that the Government cannot afford not to raise the salaries of these judges: it is economy to raise them. If not, the offices will be filled by persons not competent to discharge the duties. They now protect the revenue and enforce the laws of Government. The Government owes it to itself to raise these salaries.
Mr. DIXON. The judges of the district courts whose salaries are proposed to be raised by this amendment are W. their occupation excluded from every species of employment except that of a judge. A statute of the U.S. prohibits their practicing law in the State courts; they cannot even act as counsel. I believe they cannot even draw a paper, a conveyance; I think that is forbidden, i. I am not quite sure. At any rate they are prohibited from advising or acting as counsel; they have no occupation therefore to which they can resort as a general rule. They are acknowledged to be highly competent men. They cannot, as is acknowledged everywhere, live upon the salaries which they now receive. Is it desirable, is it for the public interest, that men in that position should be compelled to perform the duties they perform on inadequate salaries which are not sufficient to support them? I care nothing for the clamor about rais.ing salaries. I am willing to vote for what is right. Why, sir, what has Congress done? We have raised our own pay. 5,000 dollars a year is not thought to be too much for Sens&Reps. I do not say it is; but certainly if it is not too much, what is proposed to be given is not too much for a man who devotes all the energies of his mind and his whole time, so far as needed, as far as the business requires, to the duties of a judge. I think the amendment ought to be adopted. I wish it were in order for me to add to the list of those who are to receive $4, 500 the judge of the district of Connec ticut, whose time is wholly occupied, an extremely able lawyer, not inferior to any man in the State. I should be glad to move to raise his salary to $4, 500, but it is not in order to do so, and I will rest contented with $4,000, which it is proposed to give him. I shall vote for it most cheerfully.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope we shall get to a vote on this proposition at some time. I know when lawyers get clients they squeeze them, and I am afraid the Treasury will come out squeezed, and I am anxious to get through with it. [Laughter]
Mr. HOWE. I have only a very general recollection as to what was the relative amount of business.
Mr. SHERMAN. And I will state to my friend that the district contains over a million and a half of people, which although not a precise indication is one indication of the amount of business. It includes all the State of Ohio south of a certain line.
Mr. HOWE. It is a very uncertain indication, as the Senator will admit, of the amount of business done in the court. The commerce down the Qhio river I suppose is not as great as that on the lakes by any manner of means, but that furnishes a large amount of the business. Probably the business connected with the collection of the internalrevenue in the southern district of Ohio would equal that of the district of Wisconsin. If it should be conceded by the Senate that $4, 500 is not too much for the judge of the southern district of Ohio, and if the proof shall show that the business transacted in that court is not greater than that in the district of Wisconsin, of course, as a matter of justice, I shall be compelled to ask that the salary there be equalized.
Mr. WADE. I do not exactly understand why these salaries should be graduated upon the principle of the amount of business a judge has to do. The judges are placed in their positions to do all the business that is to be done, and the smallest district I Presume will take all the time the judge has. e can engage in no other business. I suppose that if a judge is what he ought to be, industrious, he will not think it any hardship that he has to decide a greater or less number of cases. He is a government agent to perform all the business that comes before him. If you are to graduate the salaries of judges upon the number of cases they decide, why not bring in their dockets and see how much each of them has to do? I do not think it is a reasonable principle. A man's entire time must be occupied when he takes upon himself the office of a judge. Everybody knows that he can do nothing else. He will want as much to eat and drink and wear if he has but few cases before him as though he had ever so many. I think that is not a criterion for us to be guided by, and hence we should not be ioand endeavoring to find out whether one judge has a case or 2 more or less than another in order to ascertain whether you will increase his salary or not. If in general the judges' salaries are not enough, increase them and make them right; but let us not spend much time in ascertaining which judge has the most or which the least business to do. We do not graduate our own salaries on that consideration. Some of us do a great deal more business than others, and some a great deal less than others, but the latter class would hardly consent to Services. take any less for their
Mr. WILSON. They give their judges $3, 500.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then they have raised it. In my own State the salaries of the judges of the supreme court for many years were $1, 800; but a few years ago it was carried up to $2, 250, I think on the rePresentation of the judges that they could not live unless they had something of their own besides their sal ary. At the Present session of the Legislature there is a dispute whether they shall have $2, 500 or $3,000. Our Governor has always had but $1,500, and I believe it has now been raised to $3,000. Undoubtedly the salaries of our State judges will be raised. At the last accounts, the Legislature were hesitating between$2, 5$3,000 a year. Probably they will fix upon $2, 500. The Legislatures are mostly composed of farmers, who cannot imagine why people cannot live on less sala ries than these. If I have any objection to the sum of $4,000 for the district judges it is rather because of the prevailing sentiment in my State with reference to salaries than from any other reason. I had fixed in my own mind for the general class about $3, 500, which I think is what the district judge in Boston now receives. I do not know, however, that it is enough for Boston. I simply state these facts for the information of the Senate. I do not feel disposed to contest the matter with a committee that has examined the question carefully and closely and taken into consideration everything that ought to be considered with relation to it; but I should have been better satisfied if they had fixed the general rate at $3, 500 instead of $4,000. owever, if we fix it at $4,000, the HoRep can reduce it if they see fit. If the Senate deem that rate proper, I shall make no strenuous objection.
Mr. STEWART. I do not believe from what I have seen of judicial proceedings that it is economy on the part of the Government to make these salaries less than men who are economical and simple in their habits can live upon with ordinary families. I do not believe that a salary of $4,000 will more than support a family in the style that a lawyer with plain and simple habits going upon the bench should live in. A man who has acquired sufficient reputation to become a judge should be treated properly. Of course he does not expect to get as a judge on the bench as much as he did from his practice, but lawyers are not generally rich, and when they get upon the bench they ought to have enough to make them independent. A dependent judge is a miserable thing. A judge who must necessarily be in debt and dependent upon his friends is not independent as. want the judiciary of the U.S. to be. The committee examined this question very thoroughly and made allowance in different localities for the different expenses of livin and the different amount of business done, we equalized the salaries as well as we could. We placed them at what we thought would support an economical family. We did not suppose anybody was going on the bench for the o of getting rich, but we desired to place the judiciary in a position where they would be independent provided they were economical and honest. They are the most responsible part of the whole Government, and unless you pay them properly you cannot expest an independent execution of the laws. I believe it is bad economy to pay too small salaries to those judges, especially when so much business is thrown into the courts by your internalrevenue system. The business is so much that these salaries should be raised, and the committee fixed the standard as low as they thought it ought to be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] to the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont, [Mr. Poi, AND.] The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move to amend the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont by adding: And the amount necessary to pay the increased compensation heroin provided shall be paid out of in the Treasury not otherwise appropri ated.
Mr. POLAND. I see no objection to tha modification. I accept it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It must be put in in order to topiofe the increase provided.
Mr. ANTHONY. Is it intended to prevent an allowance of traveling expenses to the judge of one district who is sent to d. another on account of the sickness or inability of the judge of that district?
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is intended to cut off all those allowances.
Mr. ANTHONY. I do not know that that is proper; but I shall raise no question about it. The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. POLAND. I am instructed by the ComJudiciary to offer this amendment as an additional section: Abife:, That the salary of each of the judges of the Court of Claims shall be $5,000.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It ought not to be higher than the salary of the judges in this District.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move to include the judges of the DistCol.
Mr. TRUMBULL. They are already provided for.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, $4, 500 I think. We raised it last year.
Mr. WADE. The chief justice gets $4, 500, and the associates $4,000.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We made the compensation of the judges in this District satisfactory to them last year; they have not asked any more now; and the judges of the Court of Claims ought not to receive any more than they do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques.tion is on the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The judges of the Court of Claims hold their court a great part of the year. They used to meet in October. We altered the law last year, and they meet regularly in December. I do not know how long the term is, but I suppose a good portion of the year. They have to reside here, and the business of the court is very much increased by devolving on it new jurisdiction growing out of the war. I fothe court as a very important one to the Government, and one that makes a great saving to the Government. I have never myself believed in the investigation of claims against the Government by Congress. I think a bad claim is almostos likely to pass through Congress as a good one. We are not so constituted, these bodies are not so organized, that we can examine and properly pass upon complicated claims. By referring them to this court they undergo judicial investigation; and unless a claim is sustained by evidence and is proper to be allowed there is no probability of its passing the court. The judges are able men; they have to reside here; it occupies all their time; they do nothing else and can do nothing else. It seems to me their salaries ought to be at least $5,000. Their salaries are now what they were fixed at many years ago, $4,000. We considered this subject in connection with the other salaries we were fixing, and were of opinion that it was proper, right, and necessary, to enable these judges to live here in the city of Washington and hold this court, that they should have $5,000 a year. I think it is little enough. The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CONNESS. After having voted so much money, it will perhaps be acceptable to the Senate to receive an amendment that calls for none. I offer the following as an additional section: Abife:, That the secyWar is hereby authorized to direct a geological and topo foocky.mouenxtpaloinrsaatine dnthoef tShieerrtaerNrietovraydabmetowuenetnaitnhse, including the route or routes of the Pacific railroad: Provided. The same can be appropriation. donewithout additional If it be necessary I will explain this amendment, [“Oh, no!") but I. it will not be, and therefore I will spare the Senate.
Mr. CONNESS. The ComMining instructed me to offer the following amendment, to come in on page 19, after line 441: To continue the collection of statisticsof minesand mining, $15,000. This is to continue the collection of statistics of mines and mining. An estimate came from the Dept for $25,000 to continue this work. The other House concluded to strike it all oup, with I think an unwise economy. However, the report made by the agent selected by the SecyTreasury to do this work was not then spread before the House; its value was not ascertained. No branch of the public service, in my opinion, will interest so many citizens, and none do so much good in proportion to the amount of money expended, as to continue the collection of reliable statistics on this subject. It is use less to make an appropriation for the purpose of getting a single report and let that be the end of it; but it must be continued so that we can lay before the people and before the Congress y the U.S. assembled here on the eastern frontier some reliable data concernin the resources of the great western country. do not propose at this time to engage in any lengthy discussion. I hope the Senate will accept the amendment. The committee were unanimous in their recommendation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. When an appropriation of $10,000 was asked for last year it was understood, according to my recollection, that that was all that would be necessary; there was no idea of its continuation; one appropriation was to end the matter.
Mr. CONNESS. I beg the Senator's pardon.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I so understood at the time, and it was so stated and not denied in the House. Now, let us see how my friend stands. The Dept which has the thing in charge only asked for $5,000. l
Mr. FESSENDEN. The House committee reported $5,000.
Mr. CONNESS. The committee in the other House reported $10,000, and the House refused to accept that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have the imPression on my mind very strongly that the report was $5,000.
Mr. CONNESS. The Senator is entirely in error. It was only in view of the decision of the House that the committee, in considering it, determined to ask for but $15,000 this year As to the matter of collecting statistics for one year and then stopping, that idea never entered anybody's head, I suppose; certainly not mine.
Mr. CONNESS. His eyes will be filled with the wonders he shall see, and he will come back, I guaranty it, with a good appetite, having been able to gratify it, too, in the mean time; he will come back with health and strength, he will come back a friend to that portion of his country which in my opinion ought to invite his greatest affections and regard. I need not add the suggestion of my honorable friend near me [Mr. FRELINGHUY sEN] that it is a section which now admires him, for wherever the American name is known the name of the honorable Senfrom Maine is known, understood, and appreciated.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I offer the following amendment as an additional section to the bill: Abife:, That the salary of the Chief Clerk of the Senate shall be$4,000, and that of the Sergeant at Arms $3, 50oper annum.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask whether that is from any committee?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will state that it is offered as coming from the ComContingent Expenses. I do not suppose it is necessary to say anything on this subject, because the Senate is entirely familiar with the duties discharged by each one of these officers, and I do not know that it is necessary to comment upon them in their Presence. I have been fully persuaded I was at the last session that these salaries are too low and ought to be increased. Considering the responsibilities that devolve upon the Sergeant at Arms, who has the supervision of this entire portion of the building, and the great labor that is performed by the Chief Clerk of the Senate, it seems to me that these sums are little enough.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What does the Secretary receive?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Something over 4,000 dollars a year.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Do I understand the Senator to say it is from a committee? I really wish to know whether this amendment is in order. If it comes from the ComContingent Expenses it is in order.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly it comes from the ComContingent Expenses. All the members of the committee are here.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not doubt it if the Senator says so.
Mr. WADE. I move to amend the bill on page 3, lines oand 59, by striking out the words “in the Daily Globee; ” so that the clause will read: Fo in or for the The object of the amendment is to prevent our being bound and tied up at this time to make the appropriation to the Globe. It is not necessary, as this is an appropriation for the 40th Congress. There is no objection to the amendment, I believe.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is a very important amendment to be made, I think. We have a contract with the Globe under laws for the publication of our proceedings. I do not know whether it is proper that we should make different arrangements.
Mr. WADE. I do not thiak there is any such contract with the Globe as binds us to have the congressional proceedings published in it, and if there is it need not be foreclosed that I know of so as to bind us entirely to it. We do not know; perhaps they would not be willing to carry on their contract.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have not looked into it at all; I do not know.
Mr. WADE. I believe there is no objection to the amendment. I believe it is understood that we ought not to bind ourselves just now. We have agreed that the 40th Congress shall assemble immediately after this one expires, and it will be time enough then to fix this, and there may be some reasons why it should be done then. In the mean time the appropriation can stand, but it need not fore close it. If we are bound by a contract to have it go to the Globe, then it must go there if the appropriation be made; but I do not think we are. It may be that we may want to make some different arrangement. It is not necessary that we should be bound in this way just now. I hope there will be no objection to the amendment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should certainly object to the amendment, if no one else does, until I have looked at it. If the Senfrom Ohio has examined the laws and the contract with the Globe by which these publications are made
Mr. WADE. The next Congress can do that.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The next Congress cannot do it. We meet on the 4th of March, and what arrangements have we got for publishing the proceedings of Congress?.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Who is to do it? If there is a contract with any party to do it that party is the one to do it.
Mr. BROWN. It does not follow that we must put it in an appropriation.
Mr. TIRUMBULL. I think it does follow that it should be put in an appropriation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask Senators to allow me to make a suggestion. It is understood, and we may as well speak out, that there is a difficulty between the reporters of the Senate and the Globe, and such is the difficulty that we may at any time be left without reporters. I am not satisfied where the right of that matter is. If we agree to this clause as it stands both for the Senate and the House we are concluded, because afterward that cannot be altered; and the appropriation is made through out for the Globe. Now, it may be, very probably will be, on examination, that it may be advisable to make the appropriation precisely as we have made it heretofore; but I think myself, considering the position we are in, we ought not to agree with the House so as to tie our hands upon this bill at once until we have looked into it a little. It only requires a little delay. I suggest, therefore, to my friendfrom Ohio, as I should like to take the bill out of commit.tee tonight, that he withdraw the amendment and let us take the bill out of committee, and the same amendment can be moved tomorrow, if necessary, in the Senate after we have looked' at it a little more, when the chairman of the ComPrintg, the Senfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. ANTHoNY] is here. He is not in good health, and is not here this evening. We can then ascertain more about it. At Present, by striking this out, it does not follow that the House would concur, and in the mean time the proper inquiries could be made and the proper information obtained. If the Senfrom Ohio I am very glad he has brought the question up will let us take the bill out of committee, and let this matter go over until the morning, when the bill is ini. Senate he can make the same motion, and then, if we are not bound by any contract, it can be better considered than it would be tonight.
Mr. WADE. I have no objection to that. I will say to the Senfrom Illinois that there is nothing binding in what I propose. I do wot think, from the slight examination that I have given the subject of our arrangement with the Globe, that we are in any way bound. I think it will be found that we are at liberty to make such arrangements about the printing of the debates as Congress shall think proper to make. I do not think we are. but if we were bound what I propose is no repudiation of our contract. I do nothing in consistent with it. I only prevent that conclusion bein fastened upon us if we are not bound. But will bring up the question in the morning. I would just as lief bring it up in the Senate then as now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senfrom Ohio withdraw his amendment?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will ask the consent of the Senate to add to the amendment proposed by me a few moments ago in regard to the sal ary of the Chief Clerk and Sergeant at Arms That the amount necessary to pay the additional salary be appropriated out of any money in Treasury the not otherwiseappropriated. The PRESTI) NG OFFICER. Those words will be added if there be no objection.
Mr. CRESWELL. On page 10, line 237, I move to insert after the word “purchasing” the words “peri odicals and:” so that the clause will read: For purchasingperiodicals and files of the leadin govers for said Library, [Library of?. " tl
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no objection to lat.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.' The PRIESIDING OFFICER. It would be well enough perhaps to let further proceedings on the bill go over until tomorrow morning, as it is now in the Senate.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move to take up House bill No. 344 the Niagara ship canal bill. [“No! No.”] Let us take it up and then adjourn.
Mr. BROWN. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate (at 4 minutes past ten o'clock p. m.) adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, February 7, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, IRev. C. B. BoyNToN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: An act (H.R.No. 902) to declare the sense of an act entitled “An act to restrict the juris diction of the Court of Claims and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermasters' stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the U.S.;” and An act (H.R.No. 874) to regulate the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other purposes. U.S. MINT AND COINAGE.
Mr. KASSON. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the comCoinage, Weights, and Measures be instructed to assay attend the annual at the U.S. Mint, and to condition, management, examine the report and economy thereof, and to the House what measures, if any, will tend to greater economy and cfficiency of the system of U.S. mintage, or to the improvement of its coinage. I was instructed by the ComCoinage, Weights, and Measures to offer this resolution this morning, for the assay is to take place on Monday. The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. KASSON mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, from the ComAppropriat, reported a bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the off.; for the contingent expenses of the HoRep of the U.S. for the fiscal year endin June 30, 1867; which was read a 1st an 2nd time.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time;, and being engrossed, it was:"go. read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. STEVENS mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA.
Mr. PAINE, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on the Militia a bill to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted. SEWERS, ETC., IN WASHINGTON. On motion of Mr. SPALDING, the ComAppropriat were discharged from the further consideration of the claim of the city of Washington for $181, 387 for work per. formed upon the streets and sewers of the city; and the same was referred to the ComClaims. MRS. ELIZABETH FLETCHER.
Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, by unanimous consent, reported a bill for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth Fletcher; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill was read at length. It directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Mrs. Elizabeth Fletcher, o: of Captain L. W. Fletcher, late of company A, 13th regiment Tennessee cavalry, on the list of invalid pensioners, at the rate of 20 dollars per month, to commence from the date of the death of her late husband and to continue ! during her widowhood; and in the event of the death or remarriage of the said Mrs. Eliza beth Fletcher, then the pension is to be paid to the legally appointed guardian of the orphan children of Captain L. W. Fletcher until they shall have respectively attained the age of 16 years.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. CENSUS MARSHALS IN CALIFORNIA, ETC.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the ; resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:. Resolved, That the comAppropriat be instructed to inquire into the propriety of reporting ano?.for paying to the censusmarshals for taking the 8th census in California the amount orbalancesremainingdue, $9, 46048;also for the payment of outstanding California war bonds, $10, 18863. OBSTRUCTIONS IN NEWYORK HARBOR. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar transmitting, in answer to a resolution of the House of February 1, 1867, a report of the chief of Engineers relative to the rocks sunk near the Sandy Hook hight house at the entrance of NewYork har bor; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. LINES OF WATER COMMUNICATION. The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting are: port of the chief of Engineers on the subject of certain lines of water communication, supple mental to General Warren's report of the 29th ultimo, called for by the resolution of the House of December 20, 1866; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. COMMERCE WITH BRITISH PROVINCES. The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, in compliance with a resolution of the House of July 9, 1866, relative to the revenue of the trade and commerce of the U.S. with the British Provinces since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I move that 2,000extra copies of this communication be printed.
The SPEAKER. That motion will be referred, under the law, to the ComPrintg. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork, asked and obtained leave to withdraw from the files of the House papers relative to the claim of Mrs. Eliza Moorhead; also papers in relation to the claim of Alexander W. McConnell. Mr. LATHAM asked and obtained leave to withdraw papers relative to the claim of J. F. Johnson. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill (S.No.525) entitled “An act supplementary to an act to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes, approved July 18, 1866;” when the Speaker signed the same. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. POMEROY asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. CoNKLING for ten days. The SPEAKER asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. PHELPs for 2 days. QUARANTINE IN THE PORT OF NEWYORK.
Mr. DAVIS, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution respecting quarantine in the port of NewYork; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution, which was read at length, provides for continuing for 2 years the authority conferred by the JtResolution of March 24, 1866, upon the SecyWar and the SecyNavy respectively, to. in their discretion, gratuitously at the posal of the commissioners of quarantine, or the proper authorities of any of the ports of the U.S., to be used by them temporarily for quarantine purposes, such vessels or hulks belonging to the U.S. as are not required for other uses.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed, Mr. DAVIS mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. CLAIMS OF NEWMEXICO.
Mr. CHAVES, by unanimous consent, presented the following. resolution of the Legislature of NewMexico, asking for the appointment of a commission to settle claims growing out of the Texas invasion of that Terri.tory during the rebellion, and also asking an appropriation for the payment of the same; which were referred to the ComTerritories, and ordered to be printed: To the honorable the congress of the U.S.: Your memorialists, the Legislative Assembly of Territory the of NewMexico, would most respectfully rePresentthat during the Texas invasion of this ferritory many 1,000 dollars' worth of propertywas destroyed by the rebels, and our citizens have, in sponse retao proclamation of the late Governor, Henry onnelly, filed their claims in the office of the Secy of the Territory. Your ouhronmoeramboleriabliosdtsy would most respectfully ask to appoint a commission to settle these claims and to make an appropriation sufficient to pay them. And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Resolved.That the Secretary of theobe and is hereby, directed to forward a copy of going the for to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the HoRep, with a requestthat they will lay them before their respective Houses, also a copy to Hon. J. Francisco Chaves, our JDelegate in Congress. MIGUEL E. PINE , President southteCouncil. peak ourse presentatoes, Approved, January 18, 1857 W. E. M. ARNY Acting Governor. – U.S.A., TERRITory of.NewMexico. I, W. F. M. Army, Secretary and Acting Governor of NewMexico, do herebycertify that the foregoin is a true copy, which is onfile in:;as passe . the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of NewMexico at its Presentsession. In testimony whereof. I have hereunto, signed my [L.s] odotoxo official sealthis 18thday of January, A. D. 1867 W. F. M. ARNY. Secretary and Acting GovernorNewMexico. LOANS OF GOLD.
Mr. SCHENCK. I ask unanimous consent to make a report from the ComRetrenchment. Leave was granted.
Mr. SCHENCK. The joint, and select ComRetrenchment, to which was referred a resolution directing an inquiry into alleged loans of gold by officers of the government, have instructed me to make a report accompanied with a mass of testimony. f may state for the information of the House the conclusion of the committee, which is, that “there is no foundation whatever for the statements, allegations, and charges contained in or implied by the House resolution of Jan uary 15.” I move that the report and accompanying testimony be printed. The motion was agreed to. GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order the bill (H.R.No. 1148) to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States, on which Mr. Stevens was entitled to the floor.
Mr. FINCK. I wish to inquire of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania whether it is his purpose to Press this bill to a vote today
Mr. STEVENS. Well, sir, I have not come to any definite determination except to say that I desire a vote as early as possible, and unless there are some circumstances which require longer delay I should desire to have the vote reached this evening.
Mr. FINCIX. This is, in my judgment, the most important measure that has ever been Presented to an American Congress; and I suggest to the gentleman and to the House that some time ought to be allowed, not merely for its discussion, but for its examination. I therefore propose that, if it meet the favor of the gentleman and the House, we postpone this bill, after the gentleman getsthrough with his speech, until Monday, so that a vote may be taken after something like deliberate discussion. We are not prepared to go into the discussion today.
Mr. STEVENS. All I can say with regard to that suggestion is that, considering the period of the session to which we have arrived, and the difficulty of passing a bill of this kind through the Senate, where there are no means of restricting debate, I do not feel justified in consenting to any postponement of this bill. I trust that when the bill is taken up we shall proceed without interruption to the end of the debate. I do not feel disposed to restrict debate or to prevent any Gentfrom being heard. On our side, there is, I trust, no disposition to occupy much time in debate, but to yield the time, to a great extent, to gentlemen on the other side. hope so, though I have had no understanding of that kind.
Mr. FINCK. I suggest to the gentleman that, in order to discuss this measure properly, there ought to be some time for its examination. We cannot this morning enter upon the ion in such a manner as we would like to do.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I merely wish to suggest, in connection with the proposition submitted by the Gentfrom Ohio, {Mr. FINCK] that I concur in the opinion exPressed by him that this is a very important measure. At the same time, I appreciate the fact stated by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania that we have arrived at that period of the session when a measure of this kind ought to be proceeded with, avoiding all unnecessary delay. I would suggest, therefore, that today and tonight, if thought proper, be given to the discussion of this measure, and that the vote be taken tomorrow.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would like to make a suggestion to the Gentfrom Iowa as well as to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. It has already been said, and I think it is conceded upon both sides of the House, this is, perhaps, the most important bill ever presented to the American Congress. If that be so, I am certain gentlemen on this, and I presume also on that side of the House, could not be expected suddenly to act on it, unless in deed the majority have in their outside Congress deliberated on this measure and come to some conclusion on it. A while ago the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, speaking I suppose on behalf of the gentlemen on that side of the House, said none there were desirous of speaking on this proposition. I submit, on a bill of this magnitude, Presented to members at 12 o'clock, to go into debate on it at this time is next to impossible. It strikes, as the gentleman suggests, and as it must be 'oi at the civil governments in those States. It ignores State lines. It ignores those States in every particular. It destroys their civil governments. It breaks down the judicial system in those States.
Mr. SPALDING. I object to the discussion of this matter in this irregular way.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it is in order. The Clerk will read the rule.
The Clerk read as follows: "While a member is occupyingthe floor he yield may it to another for explanation of the Bending measure as well as for personal explanation.”
The SPEAKER. The pending motion is to recommit this bill, which opens up the discussion of its merits. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania is entitled to the floor, and yields to the Gentfrom Ohio.
Mr. GARFIELD. Would it not be sufficient to allow today and this evening for debate?
Mr. LeBLOND. That is what I am speaking about. I am trying to show the impossi bility of our being urged to speak on this subject, one of such magnitude, as it is desired.
Mr. RAYMOND. The gentleman will allow me a moment. I would like to make a suggestion in regard to debate on this subject, which possibly may meet the concurrence of both the Gentfrom Ohio and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. It seems to be agreed on all sides that this is a question of so importance much it should not be acted on without tl.for debate; yet I think it is also agreed on both sides of the House debate should not be wholly without restriction of some kind. What is wanted is an opportunity to state views of individual members on the bill, not as I understand to make full and exhaustive speeches on the whole subject. I suggest the discussion begin in the ComWhole on the state of the Union, or otherwise, restricting it to 20 minutes or a half an hour each.
Mr. RAY MOND. Let me say on that point I think the question involves principle, and it is difficult to make a statement in ten minutes that will answer the purpose. Let the debate commence without restriction, without fixing when the final vote shall be taken, and when it becomes unimportant let the Gentfrom Pennsylvania call the previous question. I think we can close it today, or reach a point when all will be willing to take the vote.
Mr. LeBLOND. I wish to say to gentlemen on the other side that we are not disposed to talk on this subject at unreasonable length. We do not ask it; but we do not feel like going into debate at this time without proper examination of the bill. Let us fix a day as suggested by my colleague, next Monday when the vote on this bill will be taken. Until then allow those who wish to speak on it. As to limiting each one to ten or 20 minutes on a bill of this magnitude for one I cannot consent; other gentlemen may do as they see proper. It does not comport with my idea of legislation. A decent respect to the people we rePresent, a decent respect to the Congress of the U.S. in the eyes of the civilized world, would require this bill should have more deliberation than even that proFo by the Gentfrom NewYork. Sir have some desire that the civilized world shall come to the conclusion that we do at least deliberate upon bills of importance.
Mr. STEVENS. I suppose this talk comes out of my time.
Mr. RAYMOND. With the consent of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, I will reduce my suggestion to the form of a motion: I move that the debate now proceed, each speech being limited to 20 minutes.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I object unless we allow, the Gentfrom Kentucky {Mr. HISE] and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania an hour each. [Laughter]
Mr. FINCK. I desire to renew my proposition to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, that after he gets through with his speech the bill be postponed until Monday, and then let the discussion go on during Monday and Tuesday, and take the vote on Tuesday.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I do understand that the objection to the proposition of the Gentfrom NewYork comes from the other side of the House or from this side?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewJersey {Mr. Rogers] and the Gentfrom Illinois {Mr. WENTwoRTH] objected.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I only objected unless my friendfrom Kentucky, {Mr. His E] should have a chance to speak one hour. [Laughter]. I withdraw the objection.
Mr. ROGERS. I object to any arrangement of that sort.
Mr. HISE. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. FINCK. Do I understand the gentle. man to decline my proposition?
Mr. MAYN ARD. I make a suggestion to my friendfrom Pennsylvania, that we devote 2 night sessions to debating this subject this evening and tomorrow evening.
Mr. STEVENS. I cannot agree that this should go over more than one night.
Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to tonight.
The SPEAKER. The motion for a night session can be made at any time.
Mr. MAYNARD. I ask the gentlemen on the other side if that will be satisfactory to them?
Mr. LeBLOND. I can only speak for myself, and shall only speak for myself. I have already indicated to the gentleman that a proposition of that kind would not be accepted, for the reason that we have had no time to examine the bill and to prepare any remarks upon it. The proposition of my colleague {Mr. FINCR) does seem to me to be reason able. I. know the gentleman who introduced this bill makes this remark: that we are coming to the close of the session and Ir: STEVENS. I only gave way to my friendfrom Tennessee to make a motion. EVENING SeSSION.
Mr. MAYNARD. I make the motion that we take a recess today from half past 4 to half past 7 o'clock; and I will simply. remark that if there is anything we do understand it is the subject of reconstruction, and all we want to understand now is the special provisions of the bill before us. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask whether that motion includes “for debate only.”
The SPEAKER. That motion would require unanimous consent. Is there objection to limiting the evening session to debate only?
Mr. GRINNELL. I object. RESOLUTIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE.
Mr. SCOFIELD, by unanimous consent, Presented JtResolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, asking for a reduction of the tax on petroleum; which were referred to the ComWays&Means. PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio., Mr. Speaker, I rise to a personal matter that I intended to have noticed some days ago. The SPEAKER, Does the Gentfrom Pennsylvania yield?
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the Gentfrom Ohio making a personal explanation? The Chair hears none.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in a service in this body for a period of some 8 years I have never before asked the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. I do so this morning with reluctance, because as a rule the notice or the reading of such an article as I propose to notice is what sensational correspondents most desire. But for the fact that the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. STEVENs] is charged with being in a conspiracy withGenlButler and myself to stab .Grant I would not now call the attention of the House to the article which I send to the Clerk's desk to be read.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I would ask the Gentfrom what paper this was read?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It is from the National Intelligencer of Saturday last, and purports to be from the Washington correspondence of the Cincinnati Commercial, dated anuary 26, 1867.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Then I rise to a question of order and object to the gentleman proceeding.
The SPEAKER. Unanimous consent has been granted to the Gentfrom Ohio to make a personal explanation, and he is entitled to one hour to make an explanation.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, of all the stupid falsehoods manufactured and sent forth from this city by reckless, unscrupulous maligners, this story in which my name is made to figure is the most absurd. If the House will indulge me for a moment I will state the history of that resolution. And here, sir, I will say that up to the hour when my attention was called to this article I had never, either directly or indirectly, in writing or otherwise, passed a word withGenlButler on the subject of impeachment, nor had I with anyone authorized or claiming to speak for him; indeed, I did not even know what his views were on the subject, except by newspaper report, until a week or 2 ago I read; celebrated speech at my desk here in the House. Now, sir, upon this question of impeach ment, I have had my own views since my 1st interview with the acting President, immediately after the assassination of President Lincoln. The conduct of the acting President since that time has only confirmed me in the imPressions I then formed. I believe that he ought to be impeached for the usurpation of powers that belong under the Constitution to Congress.
Mr. RADFORD. I rise to a question of order. I submit that he is not making a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. AsHLEY] asked to have read a letter in regard to his resolution on impeachment in which his name was associated with those of genlButler and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. STEVENs] He is now exposing the facts of the case in his own manner.
Mr. RADFORD. I supposed that the gentleman was permitted to make a F. personal exand not to make an attack upon the resident.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not see that he has as yet transgressed the rules of the House. He has confined his remarks thus far to the question of impeachment, in connection with which his personal explanation is made.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would like to inquire of the Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. AshLEY] for information only and it seems to me that it is more pertinent to the subject which is embraced in the article read from the Clerk's desk than anything else would be whether he did or did not have a conversation, similar to the one narrated in the correspondence, with the Gentfrom Ohio, {Mr. BINGHAM] I think that subject would interest us more than the other.
Mr. ASHLEY of Ohio. I will come to that directly; if I do not, the gentleman can catechise me after I get . Now, it is well known to every member of this House that neither GenlGrant nor any officer in the Army could be arraigned by this House on articles of impeachment and tried by the Senate under that resolution. If that be so, then the charge that such was m purpose, or the purpose of any gentleman o whom I consulted, is so stupid that I dismiss it with the contempt it deserves. I consulted the Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. STEveNs] only in regard to the phraseology of the resolution which I had drawn up, and I made an interlineation or 2 in the resolution at his suggestion. After I came to my desk I tore up that resolution and wrote a new one, omittting what I thought was unimportant. That resolution, redrawn and seen by no one but myself, was the one i sent to the Clerk's desk for action by the House. This is the history of that resolution. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only to add that the language alleged to have been used by my colleague L
Mr. BINGHAM] was never in my hearing, in this House or out of it, addressed to me., Nor did I hear the Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. STEVENs] use the remarks which are attributed to him in the article which I have caused to be read. In making this explanation, Mr. Speaker, I have yielded. own personal objections to the wishes of others. " I regret that I have taken up so much of the time of the House in correcting a publication which is so absurd that it seemed to me to carry upon its face its own refutation.
Mr. STEVENS. In connection with what has been said, as my name has been mentioned, I desire to say one word if there is no objection.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Can I not yield the remainder of my time to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. Stevens?]
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. AshLEY] had resumed his seat, having ended his remarks. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. Steve Ns] can make a personal explanation only by unanimous consent, and the gentleman on the right of the Chair, his colleague, {Mr. DAwson] objects.
The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the bill for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States.
Mr. STEVENS. I suppose I can speak upon the regular order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is entitled to the floor upon the regular order.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I hope unanimous consent will be given to the Gentfrom Ohio . BINGHAM] to speak upon the subject reerred to by his colleague, {Mr. AsHLEY]
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. BINGHAM] has not asked unanimous consent for that purpose.
Mr. BINGHAM. I have no desire to say anything upon the subject. [Laughter] GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. The House resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 1143) to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrection ary States.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I thought that in the course of this debate I heard something said with regard to an alleged conversation between the Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. AshLEy] and myself.. if I was right in m hearing of what was alleged to have been sai by myself and other gentlemen
Mr. ROGERS. I rise to a point of order. I submit that the remarks of the gentleman are not confined to the question before the house.
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the point of E.i. order. The gentleman must confine to the pending bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman consent to let the debate go on today and tomorrow, and take the vote on Monday?
Mr. STEVENS. I have already, I think, 3 times refused that proposition.
Mr. ROGERS. I understand he intends to bring it to a vote tomorrow.
Mr. STEVENS. I have already said that tomorrow, God willing, I will demand the vote. I now yield 15 minutes of the remainder of my time to the Gentfrom Connecticut, I. BRANDEGEE]
Mr. PIKE, Mr. FARNSWORTH, and Mr. ROGERS addressed the House. [Their remarks will be published in the Appendix]
Mr. COOPER. Let me ask the gentleman a single question. The Gentfrom Maine states that these prisoners were removed from the Dry Tortugas to Fort Delaware by authority of the President. I ask the gentleman to state whether he does not know the fact to be that the SecyWar assumes all the responsibility for that removal as having been done by himself?
Mr. PIKE: That is the fact. I make no point on the President on this account. After being released these men returned to their Elac.e of residence at Anderson, in SCarolina and there they were received by a general ovation of the people of the place. A witness before the select committee appointed to examine into this case testified that the opinion was universal in Anderson that the men convicted were the murderers. But that made no difference. The people turned out and sanctioned the murder by welcoming the murderers. And no step has since been taken to punish these men. GenlSickles, commanding that dept, says that they would be acquitted by a jury of the vicinage no matter what the proof of their guilt. The 2nd instance is that given by General Schofield in his testimony before the select committee I have referred to. The case has already been given in the newspapers, but I prefer the House should have it in an authentic form, and soI ask the Clerk to read from the testimony of General Schofield, who is well known to be no roadical. He says the Watson case is a “fair of a large number of cases in Virginia.” send to the Clerk's desk the testimony of General Schofieki. ==
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Will the Gentfrom Illinois EMr. FARNsworth] yield to me for a moment 2
Mr. SHELLABARGER. I understood the gentleman to say to the House that this measurereported from the JtCom on reconstruction was in accordance with the wishes and views of all the distinguished commanders of our Army. Now, if that is a fact, it is one that this House and the country are entitled to know, on account of the singularly good opportunities possessed by those commanders of as certaining the character and condition of those communities. If the gentleman makes that statement advisedly I would be glad to know the fact.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I did make that statement advisedly. I have mentioned the names of Schofield, of Thomas, of Baird, of Wood, of Sickles, all of whom have testified before a select committee of this House.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. My colleague says they have no civil governments down there. Now, what then is referred to in the 3rd see.tion of the bill, where it is declared the commanding i. may allow civil tribunals to have jurisdiction? What civil governments are referred to?.
Mr. LEBLOND. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?
Mr. LEBLOND. Did I understand the gentleman correctly as saying that GenlGrant favored the proposition now pending?
Mr. FARNSWORTH. No, sir; I said I believed he did; but I authority. could not speak from
Mr. BLOND. I suppose the gentleman does not claim to have any personal knowledge.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I do not, sir; it has been the policy of the President and his Cab inet which has brought things to this state in the South. His policy of pardoning rebels, restoring them to power, o giving into their hands the reins of government in their States, develops at once the hatred which is natural to them and which has not been cured. Every commander, every one of the military men who have been in the South during the war, and who has remained there since, will tell you the same story. Things are not as they were at the close of the war. Why? Because then these men knew and realized the fact that they had no constitutional rights, and that all that was left to them was to ask for mercy. They were content with that at the close of the war. A Union man in the South was then at a premium. He was courted and his influence was sought after by these unwashed rebels. But when the President told the rebels he would protect them at the expense of the Union men, then the Union man was at once at a discount and the rebel at a premium. Now the Union men are murdered, persecuted, driven from their homes, and despoiled of their goods. They have no security. And that state of things is growing worse and worse all the time. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I see the dawn of a better day in the passage of this bill. I am very glad indeed d. the committee have been enabled so unanimously to agree upon such a measure as this. I hope it will pass this House by an overwhelming majority and become a law. I do not expect that this is all that should be done, but I consider it as an.";wedge of the right kind and driven in the right direction, for the 1st duty of the Government is to afford protection to its citizeits. Government of Insurrectionary states.
Mr. ROGERS. Government of Insurrectionary States. SPEECH OF HON. A. J. ROGERS, of NewJersey, “In the HoRep, February 7, 1867. The House having under consideration the bill (H.R.No. 1143) to provide for the more effectual government of the insurrectionary States. Mr. ROGERS said: Mr. SpeakER: I have not, during this session at least, however much time I may have taken before, occupied the attention of this House much upon the questions, which have been before it. In the remarks which I intend now to submit I intend to speak for myself and nobody else, because I may entertain some views with regard to this important question, in which we have all so much interest, that are not entertained by other gentlemen upon my side of the House, and I may appear to disagree in part with the position taken by m honorable friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. LEBLOND, that the POTUS had no constitutional authority to put it in the power of the people of the insurrectionary States to form their present State governments. I made a speech in this House some 7 or 8 months ago wherein, I took occasion to discuss this question of the power of the POTUS to lend his aid, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.' to such an extent to the people of the insurrectionary States as that they might form their present State organizations. Because, sir, I hold that such of the people of the South as were engaged in actual hostilities, while they were in.defying the laws of the country, and preventing the constitutional authority of this {jfrom exercising its legitimate functions over them, were in such a condition as to have no right to participate in the exercise of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the Federal Government.
Mr. LEBLOND. I wish simply to state my position, for I think the gentleman has not stated it correctly. The position I take is this: that the very moment the rebellion ceased these States were entitled to all the rights under the Constitution that they possessed before the war commenced; and having their State governments in full operation all that was neces. sary to be done was to let them send their representatives to Congress, and to treat their States as fully organized under the Constitution and laws of the Federal Government, precisely as GenlSherman provided and stated in the articles of capitulation between himself and General Johnston. That is the view I take. Now, the very moment the POTUS oprovisional governors in those States he recognized to some extent their disorganized condition, to which recognition the ultras in this House appealed as a justification for the course they were pursuing.
Mr. LEBLOND. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. LEBLOND. I would ask the gentleman if those States had before the rebellion RFGs?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir; those States had RFGs before the rebellion.
Mr. LEBLOND. Wherein did they change their forms of government during the rebellion?
Mr. ROGERS. Why, sir, many of them formed entirely new State constitutions.
Mr. LEBLOND. Will the gentleman desig nate a single State of the South which formed a new constitution?
Mr. ROGERS. The States of SCarolina, Virginia, Mississippi; and there were others. They all made their constitutions conform to their articles of secession, and provided in all of them that the officers should swear to support the secession governments, and altered all of them in the particulars which required officers to swear to support the Federal Constitution. Their governments were not wholly destroyed but their forms of government, as they existed before the rebellion, were changed from governments owing obedience, and allegiance to the Government of the U.S. to those owing allegiance to a government formed by usurpation and revolution. They were not the very governments made under our Constitution. And upon no other hypothesis can you sustain or advocate the policy of Abraham Lincoln, or the policy of A.Johnson, in re organizing and setting on foot forms of civil government in those States. That action was based upon the idea that the power was lodged in him to so act, in virtue of the provision of the Constitution making him Commander in go of the Army and Navy of the U.S.
Mr. THAYER. With the permission of the Gentfrom NewJersey [Mr. Rogers] I will state for the information of the Gentfrom Ohio. [Mr. LEBLOND] one point in regard to which I understand that the new constitution of the State of SCarolina differed from the old one. By the old constitution of SCarolina representation in their State Legislature was apportioned according to the entire population, including both the whites and the blacks. By the new constitution a new apportionment was made, based upon the white population only.
Mr. ROGERS. The old constitutions which were in force in all those 11 States before the rebellion required that any person who held an office under the State government should take an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. I think there is no disagreement between me and any gentleman on this side of the House in regard to the status of those States not only before but during and also after the rebellion. My position always has been that the States as States never were destroyed. The State itself is one thing; the government of the State is another thing. Our Constitution expressly recognizes States as one thing and the governments of the States as another thing. The government of Mexico has been several times over. thrown, yet Mexico as a State still exists. The States themselves retained their constitutional relations to the Union to which they had been cemented so fast by the blood of our fathers that by no act of their people could any State be separated from the rest without the consent of all the States. But the people of those States, by the force of arms, overthrew the State governments which had been established by virtue of law and set up others outside of the law and the Constitution, and were therefore absolutely void ab initio, unless you admit the principle that a State has a right to secede.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman tell this House how there can be a State in this Union without a government?
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I hope when the gentleman next goes out to war I may be there to see.
Mr. BINGHAM. It was not my purpose to undertake any discussion of this important bill, and I only rise for the purpose of suggesting in a very few words to gentlemen of the House the importance of making haste slowly in the exercise of this highest possible power conferred by the Constitution upon the o: of the U U.S. For myself, sir, I am not going to yield to the proposition of the chairman of the committee for a single moment that one rood of the territory within the lines of the ten States enumerated in this bill is conquered territory. The Government does not conquer any Territory that is under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
The SPEAKER. The Chair interrupts the gentleman to state that the recess will take place.in a few moments, unless by order of the the session be extended until the gentleman closes his remarks.
Mr. HILL. I move to extend the session till 5 o'clock.
Mr. BINGHAM. I wish to make this suggestion before I yield Mr. BRANDEGEE. If the House adjourns will the gentleman not be entitled to the floor when we reassemble in the evening?
Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to have my amendments printed. I will not submit to this gag; I know all about it.
Mr. HILL. If the gentleman will yield to me I will move to postpone the hour of taking recess today.
Mr. BINGHAM. I will yield for that purpose. p
Mr. HILL. I move that the time for taking a recess today be postponed until 5 o'clock. Ifl.
Skip Skip The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPALDING. I call for a division. The question was again taken; and upon a division there were ayes 63.
The SPEAKER. There is evidently a large majority in the affirmative.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I demand that those in the negative be counted. The vote in the negative was taken; and there were noes 18. No quorum had voted. The hour of half past 4 p. m. having arrived, the House, in F. of previous order, took a recess until half past 7 p.m. EVENING SESSION. The House assembled at half past 7 o'clock p. m., Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, Speaker protempore. ARTHUR ORR. ET AL.
Mr. HILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Arthur Orr, Bryant N. Lanham, and Samuel J. Smith: which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. gowernMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. The House then resumed the consideration of House bill No. 1143, to provide for the more effectual government of the insurrection ary States, upon which Mr. BINGHAM was entitled to the floor.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I understand the gentleman to take the position that these are States in this Union, not conquered territories, and the people are not conquered subjects. I desire to know by what authority the gentleman entertaining that view would fasten upon these Ee.ople a military government? And I would to know further, what laws are to be administered in those States if this bill passed and became a law whether it is the unlimited, undefined will of the conqueror that is to govern and control that people, or whether there are civil laws now in force which are to be administered by the military authority conferred by this bill?
Mr. BINGHAM. I will answer the gentleman, I hope, before I sit down, very fully. But I desire to place this amendment before the House, so that its legislation may be consistent with itself. There is another reason why this amendment to this 4th section should be adopted; and in Presenting it I trust the scope of my remarks will be an answer to what the gentleman has said. It is true, undoubtedly true, that these States remained disorganized States in the Union. It is also undoubtedly true that those who were the conquerors upon the field of battle reduced those in rebellion to subjection. It is also undoubtedly true that the Government of the U.S. by its own election extended to those insurgents the rights of belligerents; and it is also true that by their rebellion those insurgents failed to place themselves in a position to put those States out of the Union or in the condition of foreign territory or beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. They fully succeeded by theirrebellion in overturning their previously existing State governments; and that being the case, the gentleman will find an answer to his question in this: that it follows from the premises that the legislative power of the Government of the U.S. is exclusive within those States, and so will continue until the people thereof reorganize constitutional State governments, and the same shall be recognized by Congress.
Mr. SPALDING. I desire to ask the gentleman a question for the purpose of information alone. I.]". to be the objection of my colleague {Mr. BINGHAM] that the courts of the U.S shall not be permitted to issue writs of habeascorpus in cases punishable under the congressional enactment. Wow, I ask if it would not have the same effect if the phraseology were so altered as to say that the courts and judicial officers of the said States shall not issue writs of habeascorpus?
Mr. SPALDING. I would ask the gentleman if he supposes that the State courts have the same jurisdiction in these States that our courts have?
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I hope the gentleman will not pass from the subject until he thinks he has answered my question. He has not yet done so. –
Mr. BINGHAM. I do not propose to evade the gentleman's inquiry.
Mr. oppo. I hope he will give a fair answer to my question.
Mr. No. I was proceeding with the answer when I was interrupted. This exception which I propose has relation only to the courts of the U.S., and not to the courts of the States. But, sir, I was proceed.ing to say, those insurgent States, having by rebellion destroyed and disorganized their State governments, ceased to be rePresented or to be entitled to be rePresented from that day in the Congress of the U.S., and in ref. erence to that deprivation I was proceeding to tell the gentleman that which is written in the Constitution of the U.S., and which no member upon the floor can gainsay.
Mr. NEWELL. Wol the gentleman allow me to ask him one question?
Mr. WRIGHT. I would like to ask the gentleman if, in his opinion, the party to which he belongs has conformed to the Constitution?
Mr. BINGEIAM. The whole nation has settled the question of the power of Congress to legislate over those insurgent States without their consent and against their consent. It must be so, or it follows that all the laws you have enacted during the last 5 years affecting those people are unconstitutional and void. This exclusive power being in Congress to legislate over the people of those disorganized States for the protection of persons and property, it follows that their temporary organizations are subject to such limitations and prohibitions as by law Congress may impose. This being so, this bill in its general provisions, touching those State governments, is justified if in the judgment of Congress the necessity for it exists. The power asserted in this bill is in perfect harmony with all the legislation of this Government since the breaking out of the rebellion over those States. It has been settled by the voice of the nation, as I before stated, that those States are subject under the limitations of the Constitution to such legislation as Congress may see fit to impose, and can exercise the functions of local government only by the suf. ferance of the nation.
Mr. BOUTWELL. Will the Gentfrom Ohio allow me to make an inquiry 2"
Mr. BOUTWELL. I understand that the Gentfrom Ohio desires, by his amendment to the preamble, to declare that these “States, ” as they once were in the judgment of all, are now States. If he believes that they are now States, I ask him how he can reconcile it with his oath to support the Constitution if he does not accord to them all the rights of States under the Constitution, and to their citizens all the rights of citizens of the U.S. to the same extent that those rights are accorded to the people of his own State?
Mr. BINGHAM. I do not by the amendment say they are now States as they once were. I have said they are States disorganized. I ask the gentleman how he can reconcile with his oath the fact that he voted for the Freedmen's Bureau bill on the 22d of July last, which bill subjected every one of those States until they shall be restored to their constitutional relations to the provisions of that act, and to the enforcement of the law according to its provisions?
Mr. BOUTWELL. There is no distinct declaration in the Freedmen's Bureau bill.
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will par. don me. There is a distinct declaration.
Mr. BOUTWELL. In that act we recognize “States and districts” as subject to the act.
Mr. BINGHAM. I understand; and we recognize also States separately.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. Geographical States.
Mr. BINGHAM. Well, “geographical States;” but the very phrase which I use is used in that act, and no such terms as geo graphical or socalled States are used in that act.
Mr. BOUTWELL. I wish to call the gentleman's attention to the question which I put to him. I would like him to answer it.
Mr. BINGHAM. I am answering it, and I am not to be diverted from my answer. The Freedmen's Bureau bill provided “That in every, State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedingshas been interrupted by the rebellion, and until the same shall be fully restored, and in everyState or district”
Mr. BINGHAM. “whose constitutional relations to the Government ahnavdeubnetielnspurcahc State ”discontinued by the rebellion. There is no “district” there “ shall have beenrestoredin such relations, and shall be duly rePresented in the Congressof the U.S. ” Every gentleman knows that the words “or district were employed so as to give effect to that bill in States in which the relations of the Government were partially restored, but in which there were districts in which those relations were not restored. There is no difficulty in that question, and I want to know, while I am on this subject, whether the Gentfrom Massachusetts has so much respect for his oath that he is going to say that Virginia, in which you have indicted Jeff. Davis for high treason, ceased to be a State by reason of his treason, so that under the provisions of the Constitution he can no longer be held to an swer for his crime in that State. The Constitution provides for a “Trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. bwyhich district shall have been previously ascertained law.” Virginia remains a State, though disorganized, in spite of Jeff Davis's treason, and he can be tried and punished in that State for his treason; and this doctrine is in harmony with all our previous legislation. I understand exactly why this phrase socalled is inserted in the preamble of this bill now pending and in the bill itself. It gives no force or effect whatever to the bill. I have already anticipated and answered the gentleman's objection. No matter what declarations we may now make we have treated those States as States in all our legislation heretofore. When the Gentfrom Massachusetts voted for the act apportioning RePresentatives among these States what became of his oath to support the Constitution, if, under the circumstances, they were not States.
Mr. BOUTWELL. I was not here at that time.
Mr. BINGHAM. Well, then, I put the inquiry to the gentleman who were here and who did vote for that act, and who now advocate this bill; and the gentleman {Mr. BouT WELL] was here last session when we passed the Freedmen's Bureau, in which we called them States and legislated over them as States.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I hope the gentleman will not forget to answer my question. He told me he would do so.
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman's question only involved the point whether those States can exercise the functions of a State or were subject to exclusive congressional legislation in the absence of a constitutional State government. I have been answering that question.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I put to the gentleman this further question: if this bill should be enacted into a law what laws would then be in force over those people?
Mr. MAYNARD. The gentleman will allow me to call his attention to this particular point: what effect will this bill have, if passed, upon the existing organizations of State governments?
Mr. BINGHAM. I attempted to state; it has this effect: they exercise their functions, if this bill shall pass, by sufferance of the nation, and to the extent the commanders may permit. I do not suppose the bill was in tended to prohibit those informal governments from enforcing justice in their courts, or from deciding upon.contracts. I do not suppose it was intended by this bill to enforce a collection of debts through courts martial or military commissions, or to grant administration therein, or to Prescribe the law for the solemnization of marriage, or for the distribution of estates, but to enforce such laws as will insure the safety and liberty of all the people of all those States.
Mr. MAYNARD. If we pass this bill will it permit us, so far as these organizations are concerned, if they embarrass us hereafter, to set them aside and provide others?
Mr. BINGHAM. If we are not satisfied that those organizations are republican and just and equal and constitutional, we may require them to go further and do something else.
Mr. HISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose, as a member of the committee which reported this bill, to get the floor, in order to enter my protest against its adoption. I prefer, however, with the leave of the to defer my remarks till tomorrow, when the consideration of this subject is resumed. If it shall be the understanding that I can have the floor imnatyhe morning, I will give way to others who wish to speak tonight.
Mr. SPALDING, Mr. LYNCH, and others objected.
Mr. HISE. Then I will, of course, proceed.
Mr. SPALDING. I do not wish to interfere with any rights that may have been extended to the Gentfrom Kentucky by the chairman of the ComReconstruction, and if it was his understanding that he was to go on tomorrow I withdraw my objection.
Mr. LYNCH. I also withdraw my objection as I understand it will not affect the length Of the debate whether the gentleman goes on now or tomorrow.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I insist that the debate shall take its regular course, unless the gentleman is unwell and therefore appeals to the courtesy of the House for permission to postpone his remarks.
Mr. HISE. I will state that I am no further indisposed than that I am somewhat weary with the labors of the day, and on that account prefer to defer my remarks till tomorrow; but I will go on tonight if it is insisted upon.
The SPEAKER protempore. Is the objection withdrawn?
Mr. BINGHAM. In reply to the gentleman I desire to make one remark which did not occur to me when I was addressing the House. He uses the words “arbitrary military government.”. I wish the gentleman to understand that I do not recognize any such principle under the Constitution and laws of the U.S., nor is it recognized in this bill either. This military authority and government is not to be arbitrary, but it is to be exclusively subject to the lawmaking power; and one limitation is incorporated in this bill, as the gentleman will observe, and it is borrowed from the Constitution and is the rule of law for the government of every one of these military officers, to wit, “that no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted.” And if you can impose one limitation by statute you may impose 40, soo that this military government is not arbi at all, but is subject to law.
Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman let me ask him a question?
Mr. PRICE. It is a plain question, an quickly answered.
Mr. HISE. Appointed by the President! Indeed. Now, sir, with all deference and respect to the gentlemen who differ with me, it appears to me that these measures, taken as a series, strike at the executive and judicial depts of the Government, consolidating the powers of the Government in the hands of one of its branches, thus abrogating all the checks and guards devised in order that neither of them should absorb the powers assigned to each by the Constitution. But by this bill it is proposed to establish military governors over ten States of this Union, who may rule and control them without any regard to their rights, any knowledge of their laws, or any sympathy for their inhabitants. Sir, it is a monstrous usurpation of power. This law proposes to consolidate the powers of the Government in the hands of the military authorities, and to perpetuate the authority exercised by the military during the war, the exercise of which in time of peace has been declared to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. ou propose further by this bill to ignore the executive dept of the Government by depriving the President of the power to execute this law; for the military tyrants who are to rule the 5 military districts embracing the ten States are to be appointed by the General of the Army. The Gentfrom Ohio says that the bill requires that persons arrested by the order of the military chief shall be, without unreason able delay, brought before military commissions for trial. I presume—
Mr. BINGHAM. I wish the gentleman to consider that there is nothing in the text of the bill that justifies him in supposing that the lim itation refers to State laws; it is a limitation applicable to all other authoritieS.R.HISE. The bill provides for no limitation to the authority and power of the commanders of these military districts; but they are invested with full, arbitrary, and irresponsiblepower. They are not elected by the people. They are not appointed, according to this bill, by the President or the head of any executive dept of the Government. They will govern these people regardless of their will; and they are responsible to no higher authority and may imprison for life, confiscate the estates, and take the lives of the inhabitants through the instrumentality of the military tribunals established by themselves. It cannot be expected that such despotic government will be voluntarily submitted to. The people of these States will not endure this degrading bondage under which they must depend for any security of life, liberty, and property upon a callous and rapacious despotism.
Mr. ALLISON. Would you be afraid to trust GenlGrant?
Mr. HISE. I have had an opportunity of knowing something of this military rule and of the crimes and atrocities which make up its bloody and relentless record of murders, rob beries, thefts, arson, and rapes, of arrests and imprisonments committed and done among and upon the ine ffensive, unarmed, and peaceable inhabitants of the border States adhering to the Union, and where the people were peace able. I know that citizens were maltreated, imprisoned, plundered, and put to death without authority of law; and that assessments were unlawfully made upon them, and large sums of money collected and forced from them by threatened and actual violence upon their persons and property, such were the bitter fruits of the imposition upon the people of military rule in many portions of the country, within the limits of some of the adhering States, and in every place in the South where the troops were stationed, and through which they made their desolating marches; and all this upon the pretext that the people were disloyal.
Mr. LYNCH. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for a moment, to enable me to offer an amendment which I desire to have printed.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I will yield for that Polo
Mr. LYNCH. I offer the following amendment, and move that it be printed: Src. 6. Abife: That under the direction of the General of the Army all the loyal male inhabitants of said districts, respectively, fit military duty, for betweenthe ages of 16and 45 years, shall be organized into district militia, shall be armed and equipped at the expense of the U.S., and shall be oout for discipline and drill not more than 12 days in each year; and shall be called out for service to Preserveorder and maintain peaceand the authority of the U.S. in the several districts, at the discretion of the district commanders, subject to the order of the General of the Army, and for like service in any other district by his order. While on service, active or for discipline and drill, said militia, officersand enlisted men, shall havethesamepay and allowances as the regular Army of the U.S. The motion was agreed to. A PATENT CASE.
Mr. ECKLEY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill granting jurisdiction to the Court of Claims in a case involving the rights of a patentee; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPatents.
Mr. ALLISON mtRtv the bill was so referred; on the table. agreed to. ReCONSTRUCTION. AGAIN.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman will allow me to ask him a question, and I propose to take him back to the “green back” question. I want to know whether the gentleman thinks the “greenbacks” were declared legal tender in the exercise of any war power? Does he admit there was no constitutional right to declare them a legal tender 2
Mr. INGERSOLL. I hold, if there had been no war, no exigency in the affairs of the Government rendering it necessary, it would have been unconstitutional. I may be wrong, but this is my opinion. I find no power conferred on Congress in the Constitution relating to money except the power “to coin money and to regulate the value thereof;” and I do not believe the Congress of the U.S. in ordinary and peaceful times has the right to make paper money a legal tender. To make “greenbacks” is not in my judgment to “coin money.” But it did have the right to make “greenbacks” a legal tender, in order to preserve the Government from destruction and for the successful prosecution of the war.
Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will permit me, I will save him all trouble on that point. I stated that no State can exercise the Qcal functions of a State without having complied with the conditions precedent set out in the Constitution of the U.S., which I recited; and these States having broken down their legal State governments have ceased to be capable of exercising these functions. While, therefore, they do remain States for Federal purposes, they have no voice in the Inatter.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Certainly, for local State purposes they have no existence.
Mr. BINGHAM. Nor for political purposes.
Mr. INGERSOLL. o sir, if that is true they are not States enough to “hurt.” [Laughter.]
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman forgets one thing: unless they do remain States, with the boundaries of States according to the original law of the State, where is the bound ary of this jurisdiction that touches life and property by this bill? I maintain that every thing remains intact, as though no rebellion had happened as to the Federal Government. Unless they are held to be States for Federal purposes there must be a general jail delivery.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. As this ibtill was originally drawn up I understand that.; the words “by the POTUS.” Can the gentleman tell why these words were stricken out and the words “by the General of the Army” inserted in their stead?
Mr. INGERSOLL. I can give you my opinion if you desire it, and it is this: that the change was made because we fear to trust the President with this power, for I do not believe if the duty of assigning these generals to the command of the proposed district was left to the President that he would appoint such generals as Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Howard, or Heintzelman, but that he would appoint such generals, if he could find them, who would be. of to yield a ready and pliant subserviency to his wishes and to promote his interests and his policy. We are not without instruction upon this point. “To before warned is to be forearmed.” It is time it was settled who is master of the question of reconstruction of the rebel States, the President or Congress. We have been deceived once by the President. That was his fault. If we allow him to deceive us again it will be our fault. Now we know him; then we did not—
Mr. HISE. If the gentleman will allow me a moment, I desire to ask him a question. M. ine ffsoii. "Certainly.
Mr. HISE. If you are. to trust the President with the power you have proposed to be conferred by this bill upon the General of the armies, and you are still of the opinion the President has the lawful authority under the Constitution of the U.S. to rescind GenlGrant's orders and take the whole control of the matter in his own hands, then why pass this bill at all?
Mr. INGERSOLL. The President, under the form of this bill, might still have the constitutional authority to rescind the order of the General in assigning the generals to their various commands, yet he would not have the constitutional authority to “take the whole control of the matter into his own hands.” I answer further that I would pass this bill because I believe it is a measure demanded by the condition of things in the South; and in the 2nd place, I doubt whether the president has the pluck to rescind whatever orders may be made by the General under this bill; and further, if the President should corruptly rescind the order of the General or refuse to execute the law it would form a good ground for his impeachment. Congress has the right to look behind the mere act of the President although the act in itself might be warrante by the Constitution, and to }. inquire into the of the President for doing it. The resident has no right to do an act lawful in itself for corrupt ends; so that it would bring the question before Congress for decision whether the President, in rescinding the order of the General, acted corruptly or not, and if so found it impeachment. would be good ground for his
Mr. STROUSE. That will be the only ground you will ever have.
Mr. TRIMBLE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. TRIMBLE. As the gentleman concedes that the President, by the Constitution, is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I desire to know whether the President would not have the power to revoke any order made by any officer of the Army under this bill?
Mr. INGERSOLL. So far as the question of power is concerned
Mr. TRIMBLE. have conceded that. I mean constitutional power.
Mr. INGERSOLAL. Well, for the sake of I will concede that also.
Mr. TRIMBLE. I wish to ask further whether it would be a ground for impeachment if he exercised that power in a way? constitutional
Mr. INGERSOLL. I think I have already answered the gentleman's question in a former portion of my remarks, but for his satisfeetion I will endeavor to answer it again. I say that it might be a ground of impeachment in this way: if he should use that power for corrupt purposes he would undoubtedly be liable to impeachment, and Congress would have the right to inquire into the motives and objects of the President in rescinding such on order, and if it should appear that he rescinded such order for corrupt purposes Congress would not only have the power to impeach him, but ought to impeach him. The President has no right to: even constitutional powers for corrupt enols.
Mr. TRIMBLE. The gentleman will permit me to ask him one further question. The President takes an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S.; we take a similar oath. Have we the right under the solemnity of our oaths to pass a bill which overrides the Constitution and attempts to deprive the President of the power which he constitutionally possesses?
Mr. INGERSOLL. I answer that we have not the power to pass a bill which overrides the Constitution and attempts to deprive the President of the power which he constitutionally possesses; but such is not the case in the bill before us. The gentleman assumes that the bill under consideration “overrides the constitution, ” but his assumption in my opinion is unfounded. If he refers to any other bill it will be time enough to answer it when such bill is under consideration. This bill I hold to be strictly within the constitutional powers of Congress.
Mr. TRIMBLE. The point which I make is this: the gentleman admits that the president, by virtue of the Constitution, is commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.
Mr. TRIMBLE. That being conceded, I ask the gentleman whether Congress has the right to deprive the President of his power as Commander in Chief and place it in the hands of some one else?
A MEMBER. How about the bread and butter brigade?
Mr. TRIMBLE. Will my colleague yield to me for a moment?
Mr. TRIMBLE. I desire to give notice that if opportunity offers I shall ask leave to move as an amendment to this bill what I send to the Clerk's desk to be read.
The Clerk read as follows: Provided, That under the provisions of this act no person shall be held to answerfor a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on Presentment or indictment of a grand jury., And in all criminal prosecutions the accused, shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State;orist wherein the crime shall have beencom. tunitted. And then, on motion of Mr. TRIMBLE, (at ten o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.,) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. FRIDAY, February 8, 1867. Prayer by Rev, WHEELock H. PARMLEy, D. D., of Jersey City, NewJersey. The reading of the Journal was dispensed with by unanimous consent, at the suggestion of Mr. Coxness.
Mr. HOWE, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 840) for the relief of the sureties of James T. Pol lock, late receiver at Crawfordsville, Indiana, reported it without amendment. Mr. WILLEY, from the ComPatents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.150) for the relief of George B. Simpson, reported it without amendment, and submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 760) for the relief of James C. Cook, reported it without amendment.
Mr. WILSON, from the ComMilAffrs , to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 131) authorizing the SecyWar to convey certain lots in Har per's Ferry, WestVirginia, reported it without amendment, and asked that it be put on its sage.
Mr. JOHNSON. I prefer that that should lie over. There is some difficulty, I think, about the title, whether the U.S. have any authority to dispose of it. I would rather it should lie over.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Objection being made, the bill cannot be considered the day, it is reported.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the ComIndAffrs, to whom were referred the amendments of the HoRep to the bill of the Senate (S.No.204) to provide for an annual inspection into Indian affairs, and for other purposes, reported them, with a recommendation that the Senate do not agree to the amendments of the HoRep to the bill. He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the following bill and JtResolution, reported them with amendments: A bill (H.R.No. 588) to provide for the relief of Richard Cheney; and A JtResolution(H.R.No. 89) to provide for the payment of the claim of Martha A. Estill, administratrix of the estate of James M. Estill, deceased.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the ComDistCol, to whom were referred the following bills, reported them with amendments: A bill (S.No.371) to incorporate the Metro politan Hall and Market Company of Wash:ington, DistCol; and A bill (H.R.No. 571) to regulate proceedings before justices of the peace in the DistCol, and for other purposes.
Mr. FESSENDEN, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred the JtResolution (S.R.No. 163) to provide in certain cases for the removal of alcohol from bonded warehouse free from internal tax, reported it without amendment. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. HARRIS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.578) to extend the provisions of an act entitled “An act for the final adjustment of private land claims in the States of Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri, and for other purposes;” which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPrivLandClms.
Mr. DIXON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.579) to amend the postoffice laws; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPostOffices, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. PATTERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a resolution (S.R.No. 166) providing for the payment of the Tennessee home guards, organized under the authority of Major General Burn: side; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs . DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS.
Mr. LANE submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That all documentsordered by the Present Congress to be published, and which are actually printed prior to the 1st Monday of Decembero shall be allotted as heretofore to the members of PresentCongress, the and transmitted to as fast their residences as printed, unless otherwise ordered by the membersthemselves. compeNsATION of CIVIL EMPLOYees.
Mr. WILLIAMS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the Senate meet on Monday, the 11thinstant, at 7 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of considering House JtResolution No. 224, pro: viding extra compensation for civil employees at Washington.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERSoN, announced that the House had passed a JtResolution (H.R.No. 276) directing the SecyWar to furnish certain muster rolls to the different States, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. QUARTERMASTER SERGEANT OF ENGINEERS.
Mr. WILSON. I am directed by the ComMilAffrs , to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 1127) to fix the pay of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers, to report it back and recommend its passage. I hope it will be acted on at once. By unanimous consent the bill was considered as in ComWhole. It provides that hereafter the pay and allowances of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers of the Army of the U.S shall be the same as those allowed by law to the sergeant major of that battalion. The bill was reported to the Senate and ordered to a 3rd reading.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know that I have any objection to this bill, but I certainly do not understand it. I suppose it is one of those leveling up bills by which salaries are constantly raised. Somebody connected with the Army has had his salary increased, because he was supposed to be a particularly faithful officer, othen comes in a bill that somebody else shall have the same pay that he is receiving. I only call the attention of the Senate to it as an illustration of the way in which salaries are frequently increased. Some deserving person who is a favorite with Congress is suggested and a bill is introduced increasing his pay, and it is passed out of personal regard. at the next session a bill comes in to equalize somebody with him.
Mr. WILSON. This is a simple proposition which comes from the HoRep to increase the pay of this quartermaster sergeant of the Engineer corps, who has large responsibilities, to the amount received by another officer of less responsibilities. It is a small matter at any rate, but I hope the senate will pass the bill promptly. Although it is leveling up pay I think it is hardly equal to the leveling approposition we had yesterday from the committee of which the honorable Senfrom Illinois is chairman, which was to raise the salary of a judge of the U.S. in the little State of Delaware, who has little or nothing to do, from $2,000 up to $4,000, because the salary of some other judges ought to be raised. This judge had time to issue a habeascorpus to take the murderers of Union soldiers of Maine out of Fort Delaware. This is the case of an officer with large respon sibilities. This bill came from the Military Committee of the HoRep, and it is to correct a mistake made in the Army bill of last year.
Mr. TRUMBULL. When I was up before I stated briefly the objection to this mode of legislation of raising the salary of one person so as to correspond with that of another without stating in the law the exact amount of salary. I think I am correct in this objection. The Senfrom Massachusetts, before he got through with his remarks, placed this bill upon the very ground on. objected to it. He said that the person holding the office of quar termaster sergeant was a faithful officer. Is that the principle upon which salaries are to be fixed” It may be in the view of the Senfrom Massachusetts, because he has under taken to denounce a measure which fixes the salaries of the district judges of the U.S., on the ground, forsooth, that some in cumbent of the office of district judge somewhere is not a man according to his views. Are the salaries of the officers of this country to be fixed upon any such principle as that? You might as well undertake to discriminate in this body, to give one Senator one salary and another a different salary. The Senator says this is a very simple proposition. What is it? It is a proposition to allow to the quartermaster sergeant in the battalion of Engineers the same pay allowed by law to the sergeant major of the battalion. How many Senators know what that is? I think this is an improper mode of legislation, and I have objected to such legislation on previous occasions.
Mr. WILSON. This is a bill passed by the HoRep to increase the pay of an officer from 22 to 36 dollars per month, on the recommendation of the chief Engineer, accompanied by a letter from the SecyWar. To explain the matter more fully, I will read a portion of a letter from the head of the Engineer corps to the SecyWar: “I have the honor[says GenlHumphreys) to invite your attention to certain matters relating to the organization of the Engineer battalion, which, in my opinion, call for additional legislation; and to ask that they be brought to of the favorable attention 9 ba“t1ta.oliTofhnfe.sfhaootuioltdsf pbthreeesmqeuandatsreetetshrsmeioanssa. tmeresaesrgtehaanttooff the sergeantmajor. As the laws now stand the sergeant major receives 36 dollars per month; a geant34 dollars; ser a corporal 20 dollars; and the quartermastersergeant, who is the seconin rank among the non-commissioned officersof the vboaitvtainligon, only 22 dollars. His duties, in the care of much engineerproperty in addition to that belonging to the quartermaster'sdept, are of an important. ' responsible character, and it is but just that his pay should be made to respond, instead cor of being as it now is, 12 dollars. month less than the companysergeants, who rank elow him. The Present rate of pay is clearly our inadvertence, whichCongresswoul no doubt prompt ly correct on its being brought to its notice.'
Mr. TRUMBULL. Now, in my judgment we should have understood this bill better if it had provided that the salary of this officer should be increased from 22 to 36 dollars per month, which the Senfrom Massachusetts says is the effect of it. It is not framed in that way, but provides that one officer shall have the pay and allowances now given to another officer.
Mr. WILSON. If the Senator had asked me what change was made in the law by this bill as it came to us from the HoRep I could very readily have told him. I did not draw the bill; it comes from the House in this shape. I had the letters of the SecyWar and of the chief Engineer at my desk and could readily have answered any question in regard to it, and should have been glad to do so.
Mr. CONNESS. Time is very precious at this period of the session, and I hope it will not be wasted on this little matter. When a measure comes from one of the standing committees of this body it is always entitled to consideration. I am sure this bill need not occupy much time. I trust we shall have the vote upon it.
Mr. DAVIS. I think the exception taken by the Senfrom Illinois to the insidious manner in which this bill is worded is very proper and very just. That, however, is a favorite mode in which legislation for the purpose of an increase of salaries is introduced into the 2 Houses of Congress. I think it ought to be so distinctly reprobated that it shall not be repeated for the future. It is insidious, and it does not inform explicitly the 2 Houses of the nature or extent of the increase of salary that is proposed. I think the just and the true mode of raising salaries is by a distinct exPression of the amount to which they are to be raised. I myself have often seen the Senfrom Illinois interpose to prevent this and other improper legislation, as I conceive, and I think he ought to be sustained by the Senate, and receive its support, and respect for doing so. My only regret is that that Senator, with his strong sense and his correct statesmanship, does not more frequently interpose in such matters than is his habit. I trust that in the future we shall have his interposition much more frequently in this line. The bill was read the 3rd time, and passed. PUBLICATION OF DEBATES.
Mr. ROSS Presented a concurrent resolution directing the SecySenate and Clerk of the HoRep to contract with D. C. Forney for the publication of the debates of the 2 Houses in the Daily and Congressional Chronicle, and asked that it be referred to the ComPrintg.
The PRESIDENT protempore. This is a concurrent resolution. Is there any objection to its introduction?
The PRESIDENT protempore. being made, it lies over. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. RAMSEY. I move to take up Senate bill No. 527, to amend the postal laws.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The hour has come for the order of the day.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The unfinished business of yesterday must now be taken up, which is the bill (H.R.No. 896) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1868.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Before proceeding to take the vote on the adoption of the amendments made as in ComWhole, I wish to suggest to the honorable Senfrom Vermont, {Mr. Poland, l who moved the amendment with reference to the salaries of the district judges, that a slight alteration should be made in it which I suppose can be done by unanimous consent, so as to make these sala ries commence from and after the 30th of June, 1867, the beginning of the fiscal year.
Mr. POLAND. So far as I am concerned I consent to that modification of the amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think it will be better to begin the fiscal year with the new salaries.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That modi.fication will be made by unanimous consent, if no objection be interposed. The question is on concurring in the amendments made as in the ComWhole. The Chair will put the question on the amendments collectively, saving and excepting all such amendments as Senators may name, which will be excepted from the general vote of conCurrence.
Mr. SHERMAN. I ask for a separate vote on the amendment in regard to the salaries of the district judges.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for a separate vote on the amendment proposed by me increasing the salary of the Chief Clerk and of the Ser geant at Arms of the Senate.
Mr. CONNESS. I ask for a separate vote on the additional section I moved to the bill last night I wish to change a few words in it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Are there any other exceptions to be made? If not the Chair will take the question on the residue of the amendments which have not been especially named. The amendments not excepted were concurred in.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The excepted amendmew's will now be read in their order.
The Secretary read the 1st excepted amendment, which was to insert as an additional section: Abife:, That the salary of the district judge of California shall be $5,000;the sala criheussoeftttsh, e district judges of the districts of Massa southern and easterndistricts of NewYork, easterndistrict of Pennsylvania, Maryland, northern district of Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, and Nevada, sjuhdagllebe $4, 500each; and the salary of the district of every other district shall be $4,000each: and such salaries shall be in full compensation for all official services performed by such judges, and no other allowance or payment shall be made to them for traveling expenses or otherwise; and the amount necessary to f." pay the increased compensation for shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwiseappropriated.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is, Will the Senate concur in the amendment just read?
Mr. SHERMAN. Upon that question I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 30, nays 6;–16. So the amendment was concurred in.
The Secretary read the next excepted amendment, which was to insert as an additional section the following: Abife: That the SecyWar ogirsaphheirceably eaxuptlhooraritzioend to direct a geological and of the territory between tahinesR, oinecklyuding mountains and the Sierra Nevada mount the route or routes of the Pacific railroad nal Parpopvridoepdriathtieon same can be done without
Mr. CONNESS. I desire to substitute in place of the words “without additional appropriation” the words “out of existing appropriations.” It is a mere clerical correction. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to. l.n.The amendment, as amended, was concurred
The Secretary read the next excepted amendment, which was to insert as an additional section the following: Abife:, That the salary of the Chief Clerk of the Senate shall be$4,000 and that of the Sergeant at Arms $3,50o per annuin; and that thesumnecessarytopay the increased compensation herein provided for for the current and ensuing fiscal yearbe, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of oney in the Treasury not otherwise appropri ated.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after “$3, 500” in the 5th line the following: $2A, n5do0: tPhraotvidoefd, the asst doorkeeper shall be allowing 20 pTehrat section 18 of an act cent. on the pay of the officers and employees of the Senate shall not apply to the salaries hereby fixed. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was concurred
The PRESIDENT protempore. That completes the amendments made as in ComWhole that were excepted.
Mr. POLAND. I desire to move an amendment by direction of the ComJudiciary. It is to insert as an additional section the following: Abife:, That from and after the 30thday of June next the annual salary of each of the judges of the court of Claims shall be$5,000.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. The judges of the Court of Claims now get precisely the same that the district judges in this District get, with the exception of the chief justice. He gets $4, 500, and the other judges get $4,000. They were increased last year to that amount, and it was perfectly satisfactory to them. I think the salaries now allowed to the judges of the Court of Claims ought not to exceed the salaries allowed to the district judges and the U.S. district judges throughout the country. They do not render any more services; they do not sit all the year; whereas the district judges are here continually all the year round. I think there is no reason why this increase should be given to the Court of laims.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I stated last evenin why the committee moved this amendment, an should not now repeat it but that there are several Senators Present who were not here last evening. The Court of Claims is now a very important court as connected with the Government. It is required to hold its sessions here at the seat of Government. The judges of that court necessarily have to live here. They are here, have to be here most of the year; and I really know no reason why their salaries should not be as great as those of the justices of the SCOTUS I think they ought to be. The justices of the Supreme Court have $6,000, and the Chief Justice $6, 500 little enough, in my judgment. Now we are paying the judges of the Court of Claims but $4,000. They are required to reside here; it is an important tribunal; Congress is at every session devolving additional duties upon it. I believe that it is a court which saves to the Government of the U.S. annually very large sums of money by the investigation of claims against the Government, subjecting them to a critical examination, where we have attorneys employed to see that they are just and are proved before they are allowed. In my judg ment, no gentleman fit to be a judge of the Court of (i.can live in Washington upon $4,000 a year. I think the salary fixed by the committee is little enough, and I hope that the Senate will agree to it.
Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I am satisfied that if we increase the salaries of these judges, we shall have to raise the salaries of the judges of the courts of this District. At the last session of Congress we deliberately fixed the sal aries of the judges of the supreme court of the District. The judges of that court are just as much engaged in their business as the Court of Claims; they sit all the year round with scarcely any vacation. They are satisfied now pool, with the amount that we gave them. but who does not know that if we give this additional salary to the judges of the Court of Claims we shall have to make the judges of the district court even with them, and we can give no reason why it should not be done. Let us make them all alike.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Is the Senfrom Ohio aware that the chief justice of the district already has had his salary fixed at $4, 500, $500 more than the chief justice of the Court of Claims?
Mr. WADE. Very well. You propose to give the chief justice of the Court of Claims $5,000.
Mr. WADE. I propose to give him just the same as the other. I have no objection to that. Can you give any reason why they should not be precisely the same? If you do not do it you give general dissatisfaction, and they will be after you to make it even, and you cannot help yourself; you will have to make it so. Your sense of justice will compel you to do it. Let us put it the same as the others, and then it will stay where it is. If we do not it will not lay still until the next session.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I should like to ask the Senfrom Ohio before he takes his seat, if, in his opinion, it is not just to give that salary to the judges of the District, and also to the judges of the Court of Claims?
Mr. WADE. Well, sir, I am never in favor of very high salaries. I think the District judges are contented with their Present salary. I think it is enough. I do not jthe government should give any more than will satisfy the incumbents of these offices. They make no complaint; but we know how human nature works. They will think it is an impeachment of their dignity and standing if a court right by the side of them receives a higher salary than they do, and they will not be satisfied with it, and they otight not to be. Therefore I say let us give this court the same, graduate it in the same way, and I am content with it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly; all except the chief justice. The chief justice gets $4, 5the rest $4,000.
Mr. SUMNER. What is the salary of the chief justice of the DistCol?
Mr. HENDRICKS. While I am not able to agree with the ComJudiciary, I am not going to say anything derogatory of the dignity and importance of the Court of Claims. opinion is, that $4,000 a year for a life office such as this is very good pay, and I know that very many of the best lawyers of the country are willing to take the office at that aV. p The distinguished Senfrom Maryland refers to the compensation of members of Congress. Comparisons are never very agreeable; but I will ask the Senator to answer his own argument by replying to this question. He says that for 9 months of service members of Congress get $10,000. Does he say that the judges of the Court of Claims for 9 months' service ought to be paid out of the Treasury $10,000, they holding a life office?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is the case with the Comptroller, is it not?
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir, the same fact would apply to the case of the Comptroller. But a judge of a district court of the U.S or of a circuit court of the U.S., holding the court for the circuit or for the district, has to decide all questions of law and fact; he is a chancellor in his court, holds a court of chancery, and the most difficult questions that can arise in courts of chancery come before those judges. Questions in the courts of common law are as complicated as the business of this great country can bring before them. I of myself there is no comparison in the dignity and responsibility of the two. It would be very pleasant for me to vote this money; I would be glad to do it if I thought it was right; but I do not. There has got to be some end to this business of raising sala ries. At the last session we fixed $4,000 for the judges of the supreme court of this District, judges whose jurisdiction corresponds with the iurisdiction of the circuit courts of the U.S., and, going beyond that also, a local jurisdiction in the DistCol. Now, if $4,000 was right there, why shall these other judges have more?. The simple question is whether we shall raise both, for if we raise these we have got to go back and undo what we have done and raise the salaries of the judges of the supreme court of the DistCol. Although it is disagreeable to say no on a question of this kind, I am going to do it, for I do not think it is right. The people of this country that make their money by hard work do not make any such compensation as the lawyers; and the great body of the lawyers of this country, working all the year with very little relaxation, do not make more money than that. Some men who attain great eminence in their profession can make ten, 20, and 30,000 dollars; but they are rare exceptions. As I believe, the labor of the profession is much greater than that performed y these judges. I think the salary is enough.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ANTHosy in the chair) put the question on the amendment, and declared that the Chair was unable to decide.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Let us have the yeas&nays. That will settle it. The yeas&nays were ordered. Mr. PATTERSON. I ask for the reading of the amendment.
The Secretary read as follows: Abife:, That from and after the 30thday of June next the annual salary of each of the judges of the Court of Claims shall be $5,000. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 15, nays 18; 19. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WADE. I move to amend the bill on page 3, lines 58 and 59, by striking out the words “in the Daily Globe.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the Senator, if he is going to make a motion to strike out those words, that he had better insert the words “of the Senate daily;” so as to read: For reporting and printing the proceedings of Senatedaily for theorst session the 40th Congress.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That will Present the question.
Mr. WADE. My object in making this amendment is barely to save a conclusion. If we permit this clause to remain as it stands and as agreed on by the House, we may be concluded by it. It is very probable that a good deal of money may be saved by transferring this whole business to the Government printer. I do not know that that ought to be done, but it is a subject worthy of consideration. I hope we jnot conclude ourselves now by settling the matter, because, if we wish to have it as it is here it will be very easy to do it on any other bill, as there will be so. several bills come up hereafter; but I believe on consideration it will be found that we shall save money if we take this matter into our hands, and perhaps make other amend Inents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senfrom Ohio proposes to amend the bill on page 3, lines 58 and 59, by striking out the words, “in the Daily Globe” and inserting of the Senate daily;” so that the clause will read: For reporting and printing the proceedingsof the Srenat, e$2dlai, l2y5,0f or the 1st session of the 40th Congress
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know, as the Senfrom Ohio says, but that it would be better to have the proceedings of Congress blished at the Government Printing Office. Fo may be so. I have not investigated that matter at all, and he has not laid before us any, facts. But we know this: that our proceedings for many years have been officially published in what is known as the Globe. The next Congress meets in about 3 weeks, and when it meets we shall want its proceedings published somewhere; and I suggest to the Senfrom Ohio that if we strike out the Daily Globe here we shall have no arrangement with anybody. Now, ought we not to have some arrangement with some one to print the proceedings when Congress meets? It is a very short time to make these arrangements. I am not very familiar with printing, but I suppose it would take a very considerable jobf. ment, and would occasion a very considerable outlay of money, to make preparation to publish the proceedings of Congress.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is only 3 weeks from now to the next session, and if you leave the thing loose who is to do it? I am not sure but that it would be best to have it done in some other way; but it seems to me that when we dispense with our Present arrangements for printing our proceedings we ought to substitute some other arrangement. The Senfrom Ohio, if I understand him, [. to have no arrangement with any ody, but to leave to the future to make an arrangement with some one. Who is to do it? There is nobody charged with that duty. We are within a little more than 3 weeks of the close of the session. The Senfrom Massachusetts says it would take an immense outlay of money and a very large establishment to publish our proceedings. You cannot make these arrangements in a day. I do not pretend to know whether the publication as we now have it is the most econom ical or best. I only know one thing: our proceedings are very faithfully reported. I think, so far as the Globe is concerned, it contains a very faithful report of our proceedings; and I think you cannot make an arrangement to have it done elsewhere in a moment. What I suggest, therefore, to the Senfrom Ohio is, that before we dispense with the Globe we see what we can do elsewhere. I have not looked into the laws; I have not read them; I do not know what our arrangements with the Globe are. I Presume the Senfrom Ohio has examined the subject and thinks we are under no obligation to continue the publication there. I have not looked into it. If that be so, of course we can dispense with it; but I suggest to him and to the Senate whether we i. had better dis. with our Present arrangements without having anything else?
Mr. SHERMAN. I had occasion to examine the relations of the Government with the printer of the Globe a number of times when I was a member of the House, and I think it is perfectly clear that there is no contract between the U.S and the publishers of the Globe which they cannot at any time annul and which we cannot at any time abrogate.
Mr. JOHN C. Rives in his life time took that position, and it has always been acquiesced in. He, by a public letter, which I think was Presented by the chairman of the ComPrintg, at one time said he would have to discontinue the publication of the Globe unless Congress would do so and so, and we complied with his terms on the ground that he had a right to discontinue the work, and he could have done it. The whole arrangement has sprung up from various resolutions passed from time to time extending the operations of The whole contract rests upon those resolutions which are like a contract from year to year; but I Presume myself that if we make now an appropriation for the next year for the Daily Globe, it would designate and make, a contract which in law would be binding upon the U.S., because it would be your offer continuing the Present arrangement and it would be accepted by them; the appropriations would be made and be beyond our power to recall. I think such an appropriation might be a contract.
Mr. SHERMAN. My friendfrom Maryland says it would make a contract, and I think it would; but that would be the only contract. Now, to avoid such a conclusion, I think it would be well to adopt this amendment so that if we choose we may select some other mode of publishing There has been a great deal of controversy about it, and my own judgment has been in favor of publishing it by the Public Printer, where it may be executed as cheaply as possible, in a building we now have the possession of, by officers under the control of the Government, where the paper is purchased in pursuance of bids invited, and where most of the work is done by the day's work; where we can control it at all times and regulate it. That is my Present judgment; but at the same time I am not prepared to give any decisive opinion upon that until we have the report of the ComPrintg. My colleague's amendment, I think, ought to be adopted to prevent the making of a contract, by this appropriation, and if it is adopted I shall offer a proposition, which I have written hastily, to provide That the JtCom on Public Printing be directed, o public advertisements, to posalsfor the execution of the work nowidnovnitee proin the publication of the Daily and Congressional Globe, and that they report whether the same may be done with greater economyby the public Printing Office or by acceptingone of the bids so offered. I think that will lay the foundation at least of a fair investigation of the whole matter. One word more. By the custom which has grown up in the publication of the Globe the proceedings of the called session of the Senate are always made a part of the previous session; so that there need be no trouble about the short session of Congress that will meet in mediately following the Present session.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That will not be a called session; it will be a regular session.
Mr. SHERMAN. The appropriation for the current fiscal year is probably amply sufficient to cover that. If not, it can be very easily done. This is an appropriation for the next fiscal year, commencing on the 1st of July, and it will give us all the time between the close of the 1st session of the next Congress and the regular session of the next Congress; so that there is no difficulty.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Allow me to ask the Senator if there is no danger of having no body to do the work. It will require, as I understand, considerable preparation to do this work, and unless it is understood that somebody is to do it can you be sure that you can get a person at the moment? Congress meets in 3 or 4 weeks again.
Mr. SHERMAN. The amendment of my colleague does not prevent a continuation of the work for the current fiscal year. Here is an appropriation for the next fiscal year.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Present publishers of the Globe. Their appropriation continues until the 1st of July next, and consequently all the proceedings of Congress until then would be covered by the past appropriation. There is no doubt about that. This appropriation commences from the 1st of July next.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The last appropriation covered only the Present Congress, I suppose.
Mr. By custom this is all a custom or rather by resolutions, the proceedings of the called session of the Senate, although it may be of a different Congress, have been included in the debates of the previous Congress, and I have no doubt that some such arrangement will be continued with regard to the short session we may have at the beginning of the next Congress.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator will look at the elause proposed to be amended he will see that it provides for the 1st session of the 40th Congress, and that will be the session commencing on the 4th of March.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That makes this more important.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That makes this specific for that time.
Mr. SHERMAN. That would be wrong. If that would be the construction put upon it the whole thing is wrong, and it ought to be stricken out. There is no necessity for such an appropriation as that for the 1st session of the next Congress, and perhaps the language ought to be changed. I ask the chairman to look at that. The proposition which I shall make, if my colleague's amendment shall prevail, will provide for that by referring the whole matter to the ComPubPrinting to make a new arrangement or continue the Present one.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, in relation to the printing of the Globe there is certainly some very strange misrePresentation. There has been placed upon the tables of some of the members of the Senate some publications, without the authority of a name, which states: “The 2nd section is intended to remunerate Mr. Rives for his real or allegedlosseson the publica ptiroinceosf the Congressional Globe andAppendix at the theretofore agreed upon, namely, $7 50 per &oiumn for reporting and publishing the number subscribed for.”. The publishers of the Globe cipher out this statement with the following result: “Three columns to a page, at $750 a column, is $2250a page. 4,908 pagesat $2250a page is $110, 430a copy. $le, 2le1v4e, n730th,0o0u0s.a”nd copies at $110, 430a copy is I am informed by the publishers of the Globe that they do not receive $22 50 per page, nor more nor less than 2 mills per page. There is such a vast difference between these 2 statements that there must be something very essentially erroneous in the one or the other. I suppose that the proper course for this matter to take would be a fair and true investigation of it by the ComPrintg. I think it ought to take that course. The subject ought to be investigated and reported upon by that committee before the Senate ceases to take its proper and usual action on the subject.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, I think it would be as well to understand this question definitely. I confess my mind is in a state of some confusion with reference to it. I believe on looking back that when this appropriation was 1st made it was not in the form of an appropriation for the Globe as it is now, but simply an appropriation of so much for publishing the proceedings of the 2 Houses.
Mr. JOHNSON. Does the honorable senator know how much that has amounted to in the past?
Mr. ANTHONY. I think about 40,000 dollars; I am not sure. I think it amounts to about that. But this act to which I refer contains in the 4th section this provision: Provided, however.That the above provisions are made upon the exPress condition that they may be abrogatedby either Congressor the publishers of Congressional the giving Globe and Appendix at any time after 2 years' noticefor that purpose. I am by no means prepared to say that I think a more economical arrangement could be made for the publication of the debates of Congress than now exists. It was the opinion of the late, and it is the opinion of the Present Superintendent of Printing that it might be done more profitably to the Government at the Government Printing Office. I do not know whether it could be done more profitably there. I state that merely upon their judgment, not upon mine. Their judgmentis better than mine. I have not given the subject any examination. I do not think it is wise for Congress to be bound by this contract to give 2 years' notice; and I notice in the bill under consideration that there is a proviso for giving the notice. It is on page 9, beginning at line 163: Provided, That notice is herebygiven that at the closeof the 40th Congress the U.S. will tCeornmgirneastseiotnhael purchaseof one complete set of the tor, RePresentative, Globe and Appendix for each Sena and Delegate, provided for by the act of July 4, 1864. That only gives notice for the abrogation of one of the provisions of this act. do not know that the act authorizes the abrogation of one or the other, and I suppose that whatever object there is to give notice of the abrogation of one provision applies equally to the other. Therefore the notice had better be general if it is to be given.
Mr. SHERMAN. If they do not get the proceedings and reports as a matter of course that will fall to the ground; they cannot deliver a copy for each member. That would follow as a matter of course.
Mr. ANTHONY. But this is for the delivery of the back numbers. They have them already printed and on hand. There is also a provision that requires 2 years' notice of the abrogation of the additional compensation of one cent for every 5 pages over 3,000.
Mr. SHERMAN. I know; but we may abrogate the whole arrangement by which they report and publish the proceedings daily, and as a matter of course there would never be any volumes published. ANTHONY. Have we a right to do that without giving them 2 years' notice?
Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly; there is no contract. I think the Senator will agree with me, if he examines the subject, that there is no contract except continuing the appropriations, as they have been from year to year, sim p.ly by common consent.
Mr. ANTHONY. It would be simply a question of good faith whether we are not obliged to do it.
Mr. SHERMAN. I know; but after that goes, there never would be any publication of more than 3,000 pages. As a matter of course that would fall with the abrogation of the original contract, the main contract.
Mr. ANTHONY. If the Government is not bound by the contract there is no need of giving the notice at all; but if any notice is to be given, I think it had better be given generally.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator does not yet understand me. If we continue the publication of the books and if they exceed 3,000 pages then undoubtedly we shall have to give them notice if we wish to get rid of the payment of the excess to them; but, as a matter of course, if we do not allow them to report the proceedings and they do not publish a volume they cannot publish more than 3,000 pages; neither can they give the extra copies. if we dispense with the old contract the original contract it is not necessary to dispense with the particular clause which depends upon the main contract.
Mr. ANTHONY. I can see no objection to the amendments proposed to this appropriation; and here I will say that I wish the appropriations for, publishing the debates of Con: gress were all in one clause, and not scattered over 7 or 8 pages. The effect of the amendment of understand, to leave it optional how the money shall be spent, but subject, of course, to any contracts we may have 3made, i.f we have made any, to publish the in the Globe. When I say this I o not mean to say I would advise it to be taken from the Globe by any means; but I do not think that Congress ought to be bound, or that anything should imply that the faith of Congress was bound, to gives 2 years' notice before the arrangement should be terminated. I think we ought to be free from that on both sides. After this motion is disposed of, if it is thought advisable to have any proviso at all, I would suggest that it should be in this language: That the noticerequired by the 4th section of the act entitled “An act to pay, in part, for publishing the debatesof Congress, and for other purposes, ” approved July 4, 1864, is herebygiven that Congress will in 2 yearsabrogatethe provisions of said act. But if in the opinion of legal gentlemen there is no contract to be abrogated, I do not know that it is necessary to put in that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think you had better substitute that for the other proviso; but this other motion is pending now.
Mr. ANTHONY. I have mentioned it that I shall offer this when the Present amendment is disposed of.
Mr. SHERMAN. My friend frem Indiana is a lawyer, and I will put to him a question wfiich I think will settle it. soan his tenant from year to year; tenancies that are made from year to yo by the custom of the country expire on the 1st of April; suppose while the tenancy is going on I make a bargain with him that I shall have firewood in his woods, and that he shall not deprive me of that firewood unless he gives me 6 months' notice; suppose the tenancy should terminate and the whole of the subsequent arrangement was made on the basis of the existing tenancy; I ask whether the right to get firewood would be continued, or whether he would have to give notice? That is precisely this case reduced to an ordinary case in court.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the contract in regard to the wood entered into and became a part of the contract under which the man his term you could not discontinue the term for the purpose of disturbing his rights under the subsequent contract. But I will ask the Senator a question which I think is more analogous. Suppose the term is held at a fixed rent, and then the parties agree for an additional rent, and it is agreed that that rent shall not be disturbed except there be a notice of 2 years by either party: can you affect that increased rent by putting an end to the term otherwise than by the notice required in the subsequent contract?
Mr. SHERMAN. That is not this case. Mr. Rives himself in his very claim admitted, and always claimed, that this was only a provision from time to time; and it was modified and changed to suit his convenience; and his claim was made at the time on the ground that he was not bound to publish the Globe; and he gave us fair notice that he would discontinue the publication of the Globe, he himself claiming the right to discontinue, and he said the only way he could continue it was by the government giving him additional compensation. That did not vary the original contract by which each party had a right to discontinue it; nor do I think
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not know what was the original understanding, for I have not examined all the statutes on the subject, nor any correspondence, nor is it important for the purpose of my Present argument to go back.act of 1864. This is the case: Congress paid a fixed price, but that price was limited by the number of pages. It only paid for 3,000 pages at the long session and 1500 pages at the short session. Then Congress said, “That compensation shall be changed thus: the pay shall extend to all the pages; it shall not be limited to 3,000; it shall not be limited to 1500; but Congress will pay for all the pages printed at that rate;” and in that very act Congress said it should not be discontinued except upon 2 years' notice. As a question of law, in my judgment, there is no question about it, because this change of compensation changed the whole contract; it entered into the whole. The Riveses could not continue the Globe; Congress said to them, “Continue it and we will pay you, not for 3,000 pages alone, not for 1500 pages alone, but we will pay you for all the ages. ublish, and the compensation shall e at this fixed rate.” In other words, Congress said in 1864 to the publishers of the Globe, “Go on and publish it and we will pay you at the rate of one cent for every 5 pages exceeding 3,000.” The effect of it was to say, “We will pay you one cent for eve 5 pages that you may publish of the ings of Congress.”
Mr. SHERMAN. Exceeding 3,000 and 1500 pages.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly; that is what it is; but that is the same rate; that is the old rate; that is no change of rates. It said, “Go on, and you shall have pay for all.” Here is the compensation fixed in 1864, one cent for 5 pages for all the pages published.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator is mistaken. For the 1st 3,000 pages, they do not get any pay at all in that way. They are paid in a different way. M."HENDRícKs. I was not aware of at.
Mr. SHERMAN. The 1st 3,000 pages are paid for by the subscriptions to the Globe. Formerly the Globe did not exceed 3,000 pages; but finally it became more bulky, and then this additional compensation was given some years ago. Sometimes Congress discontinued it, and sometimes continued it, according to the exigencies of the Case.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I desire to ask the Senfrom Hline is a question. Are the publications as we have them now partisan publications, or do you propose that they shall be partisan publications?
Mr. YATES. If the gentleman wishes a distinct answer (though the term “partisan.” seems to be employed by the honorable Senfrom Indiana as an odious term) I respond affirmatively. I g. that the public printing of the U.S.A shall be under the control of and shall be carried on by men who are true to the Union, who are true to the party, who are radical Republicans; and I propose that not one dollar, not one cent of public patronage shall be given to a party who sympathized with treason during the rebellion through which we have passed. These are my individual sentiments. These are the sentiments for which I have contended for years past and for which I shall contend until the last day in the evening of my life. Now, Mr. President, of course in this matter I have not pretended to refer to what may be the obligation of the Government by way of contract. If there is a contract by which we are bound to give the printing to the Globe, then I stand by the contract; but if the road is clear, I am for conferring this printing upon a man or upon a firm that are true ano have been true and will be true to the Republican Union party of the Government. I repeto what I said before, that after the trials we havejo.through, after the contests we y have had, I would not give a cent for a dom inant party which would not thus confer its atronage. Upon the subject of “plunder” is it true that in the millions which composed the Republican Union party of this country we have not men who can honestly discharge the duties of public printer or any other office? The country will expect of us that we shall be true to this principle and that we will carry it out, especially since it has been established and forced upon us by that party of which the honorable Senfrom Indiana is a very distinguished and worthy member.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I never did agree to the observation made many years since, “to the victor belong the spoils.” I think it as false a maxim as ever was incorporated into political policy. It has been well laid down that in republican States virtue is the true foundation, and not partisanry, not art, not manage ment, not fraud, not the results that may be culminated by these forces. Upon virtue the foundations of this Government must rest. I care not to embark in this particular argu ment, but I think the Senfrom Illinois is wrong; I do not care to discuss the matter with him, because I am afraid that he would be angrified if that is a good word if I should do it. The philosophy of the discussion can be better read in Butler's Hudibras, and there I will leave it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought, Mr. President, at the time this amendment was 1st offered, that this matter was open; but I have since examined with some care the act referred to by the honorable Senfrom RhdIsland, and the conclusion to which I have come is that, for 2 years at any rate we are bound, impliedly bound, to give this printing to the Globe.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We are impliedly bound. The enactment is this: “That the SecySenate and the Clerk of the HoRepbe, and theyarehereby, directed to purchasefrom the publishersof Globe and Appendix, for each Senator, RePresentative, and Delegate in the Present and each succeedingCongress, who has not heretofore received the same, one completeset of Globe and Appendix. “SEC, 2. Abife:, That there shall be paid to the publishers of and Appendix, by the Secretary Congressional Globe of the Senate and the Clerk of the HoRep, out of contingent the funds of the 2 Houses, according to the number of copies of Globe and Appendix taken by each, onecent for eyeryfivepages exceeding 3,000 pagesfor a long session or 1500 ofor a short session, including the indexesand the laws of the U.S. forthis and each future Congress.” That is specific; and then the 3rd section makes an appropriation for the Congress at which the act was passed. Then the 4th section provides: “SEC. 4. Abife: Thatt all acts and parts of acts inconsis10th erewith be, and the same are hereby, repealed: Provided, however.That the above provisions are made upon the express condition that, they may be abrogated by either Congress or the publishers of Appendix the Congressional Globe and the at any time after giving 2 years' notice for that purpose.” By the 1st section we agreed to take a set of Globe and Appendix for each new member. By the next section we agreed to pay them so much for the additional printing over 3,000 pages at a long session. Then we say that either party may abrogate the arrangement by giving 2 years' notice.
Mr. HOWARD. And that notice has not been given.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Notice has not been f. Mr. Rives, therefore, if he is the publisher, must publish for us for 2 years. We must pay him that amount of money extra. It assumes that they are necessarily to do this printing for Congress. It does not mean that they are bound to furnish this additional printing whether they do the other or not, and that we are bound to take it of them if they do. It imposes upon us an obligation to continue them; an implied obligation, not directly. It assumes that they are to publish the debates and imposes upon us an implied obligation to continue them as publishers and to pay them so much until we give the notice specified. That is my construction of the act; and that being so Y. not think we can very readily vary it; but I think the notice ought to be given and given at once in this bill.
Mr. ANTHONY. I wish to correct a mistake which I made a little while ago. One Senator asked me what the cost of this “one cent for 5 pages' item was, and I stated a much larger sum than it really amounts to. I must have got my imPression from taking a whole Congress, a long and a short session together. see the amount appropriated in this bill is $15,000.
Mr. ANTHONY. Imerely wish to make the correction. I thought, when the law of 1864 was passed, it bound us for 2 years, and that is the reason why I did not vote for it. I thought the proprietors of the Globe ought to have a larger compensation than they then received, but Íni not think we ought to bind ourselves for any specified time. I am not lawyer enough to decide how the law should be construed, but it seems to me the faith of the Government is pledged to it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The ques.tion is on the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio, {Mr. WADE] The amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest now that in line 59 we strike out the words “for the 1st session of the 40th Congress, ” as I do not see any necessity for having those words in; so as to make the clause read: eporting and printing t D?;?. . the proceedings in the There is no use in these words, and I move to strike them out. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In lines 63 and 64 I move the same amendment, to strike out the words “for the 1st session of the 40th Congress.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then on page 7, line 150, I move to strike out the words “the 1st regular session of.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. Those words will be stricken out to make the bill uniform. o
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then on page 9, lines 194 and 195, I move to strike out “for the 1st regular session of the 40th Congress.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. Thatamend.ment will be made to make the bill conform to the previous amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Now I move to change the proviso at the bottom of page 7, which reads: Provided, That notice is hereby given, that at closeof the 40th Congressthe U.S. wthilel terminate the purchase of one complete set of Congressional di. the ator, RePresentative and the appendix for eachSen and Delegate provided for by the act approved July 4, 1864. I move to strike out all after the word “provided, ” and to insert: That the notice required by the 4th section of the act entitled “An act to pay in part for publishing the debates of Congress, and for other purposes, ” approvedJuly 4, 1864, is hereby given that Congress will in 2 years from the close of the Present Congress abrogatethe provisions of sections of said act. the 1st and 2nd
Mr. MORRILL. By request I move a reconsideration of the vote whereby the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio {Mr. WADE] was rejected. I refer to the amendment striking out in lines 58 and 59, on page 3, the words “in the Daily Globe.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. He moved also to insert in their place the words “the proceedings of the Senate daily.
Mr. WADE. And to make the same change in the other places of the bill where it is necessary.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There are half a dozen changes which should be made to conform to this amendment if it is to be made; and when the vote is taken, if it shall be adopted, I shall suggest them.
Mr. SHERMAN. On this motion to reconsider I wish to say a word. The Senfrom Maine a while ago said it was his imPression that under the act of July 4, 1864, Congress could not without a breach of faith stop the publication of the Globe. if I thought so, if such was the effect of the law, as a matter of course it would end the argument, for I take it no Senator would violate a contract made by Congress with the publishers of the Globe. There would be no occasion to do it, and I certainly would not do it. I would even resolve a doubt in their favor, if I thought there was a doubt about it. I remember the circumstances under which that law was passed.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will excuse me for saying that I did not wish to be understood as suggesting that the making of this amendment would be a violation of the contract. If they have a contract we can just as well fulfill it with this amendment as without it.
Mr. JOHNSON. I think with the honorable member from Ohio, {Mr. SHERMAN,) that the printing of the Globe ought to be transferred as soon as we can do it to the public printing establishment; and if I thought there was no difficulty in the way of attaining that end now I would vote in support of the amendment of the honorable member from Ohio, {Mr. WADE] But in my opinioi there is a very clear contract between the U.S and the Present publishers of the Globe that they are to continue to be the publishers until the notice Prescribed in the law shall be given. The honorable member from Ohio {Mr. SHERMAN] construes the meaning of that law by facts outside of the law altogether. The true mode of interpreting a law is to interpret it by itself, without any reference to facts aliunde; and so interpreted by itself I think the honorable member would say that if the Globe never had been published before that law was passed the publishers would be entitled to the i. of the notice before their publication under that law should be terminated. Now, does it make any difference that they were at the time that law was passed, and had been for some time before, the publishers of the Globe? I think not. Upon what rule of construction can my friendfrom Ohio maintain that the last section of that law is to be applied only to one of the antecedent sections?
Mr. SHERMAN. I said it applied to both those sections, but not to any contract preexisting.
Mr. jOHNSON. My friend says there was no antecedent contract except from year to year, as we agreed that they should go on to publish the Globe. They were publishing the Globe at the time we passed that law. We say what is to be done there; that is to say, they are to publish the Globe and we are to pay them something extra for publishing the Globe; and we say that shall not be put an end to without giving 2 years' notice. I read that section as applying to the entire law, as covering everything which the law implies, if it does not in words direct, that the publishers of the Globe shall do. So construed, I cannot vote for the amendment.
Mr. STEWART. I am in favor of this amendment, not because I propose to disturb any contract if such exists, but I do not feel disposed to commit myself. I do not think it.for the Senate to commit itself on a question not under consideration. The question whether we shall continue this contract, if one exists, is not involved. I understand that every object desired by the appropriation will be answered by passing it in the form in which this amendment will put it. The effect of this amendment is simply to leave the Senate in a position to investigate the question. I am free. to confess that I have not enough of the facts before me, I have not sufficiently examined the law, to be prepared to pass upon that question, and I say it is not before us. I do not believe in determining such a question indirectly. But as the bill now stands the money must necessarily go to the Globe, and it commits us for the next 2 years. That may be proper or it may not. If there is a contract in existence which binds us to that the party holding the contract will get the benefit of this appropriation if it is put in this form. I think the amendment had better be adopted, so that we may investigate that question.
Mr. HOWE. When this question was 1st put to the Senate I had not had an opportunity of examining the law on the subject, and lis tened only to the statement of the Senfrom Maine commenting upon the act of 1864. Consulting the same authority from which he read, it seems to me that when the act of 1864 was passed there was no obligation of law requiring either the Senate or the HoRep, or any individual in either the Senate or the House, to take a single copy of the Globe except as that obligation was conferred by resolutions from session to session. Then laying out of view the act of 1864, where is the obligation on the part of anybody to order a single copy of the Globe? Where is the law which says that Congress shall pay for one copy or one million copies? I do not find it. What, then, is the act of 1864? What obligation did that impose upon Congress? 1st, the obligation to purchase at every succeeding Congress a full set of the Globe for new members; 2nd, an obligation to pay one cent for every 5 pages above a certain amount 3,000 pages for a long session and 1500 for a short session one cent for each 5 pages upon so many volumes as Congress might take, but not settling at all the question how many copies Congress should take. Congress was still at liberty to take few or many or none. The 4th section provides in the language which has been read fo these provisions the provision which requires Congress at each succeeding session to supply new members with full sets of the Globe, and the provision which requires Congress to pay one cent for every 5 pages above the given amount on so many copies as are taken these particular provisions shall not be repealed without 2 years' notice. What, then, if we do not give the 2 years' notice, but do not take a single copy of the Giobo who can find fault: Who: law is violated? What contract is impaired 7 I do not see, and therefore I shall vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the motion of the Senfrom Maine, {Mr. MoRRILL] to reconsider the vote by which the Senate refused to agree to the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio, {Mr. WADE] The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is on the amendment to strike out in lines 58 and 59, on page 8, words “in the Daily Globe, ” and to insert “of the Senate, daily.”
Mr. JOHNSON called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 24, nays 14; a 15. So
Mr. FESSENDEN. Regarding that as settled, it will be necessary to make several other amendments which I will suggest. In the same page, in line 56, the words “Congressional Globe” should be struck out, and “the reports and debates of the proceedings of the Senate in book form” inserted. I move that amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 62, on the same page, the words “for the Globe” should be stricken out.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Those words will be stricken out to conform to the previous amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 149, on page 7, the words “Congressional Globe and Appendix” should be stricken out, and “debates and proceedings of the House” inserted.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That correction will be made to make the bill uniform.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In lines 155 and 156, on page 7, I move to strike out “Congressional Globe and Appendix” and to insert “debates and proceedings of the House;” in line 189, on page 9, I move to strike out “in the Daily Globe” and to insert “of the House, daily;” and in line 193 to strike out “for the Globe.
The PRESIDENT protempore. These alterations will be made to make the bill uniform.
Mr. SHERMAN. I now offer an additional section to complete this matter: onAPnudbbliecit Pfruinrtthinegr ebneadcitreed c, Ttehdattothinevjioteinpt reoopmosmalistftoere the execution of the work now done in the publication of the Daily and CongressionalGlobe, and that the committee report whether the same may bedone with greater accuracy by the Public Printer or by continuing the Presentarrangement, or by accepting some other proposal; and the committee is hereby authorized, to contract with the publishers of the Globe for the publication of the debatesof the 1st session of the next Congressat rates not exceeding those now paid.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope that will not be adopted because that assumes that there is no contract existing. I think that matter can be arranged hereafter without putting it on this appropriation bill. We are not ready for that yet. Some part of the provision I might be in favor of. I have no. to an inquiry, but I do not wish it put in this form. I hope the imor will withdraw it and offer it separately.
Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to offering it as a resolution; but I submitted it to the chairman of the ComPrintg and he thought it ought to be done.
Mr. FES$ENDEN, it would be better to offer it as a resolution and let it go to the ComPrintin
Mr. POLAND. I desire to offer an amendment which is varied from one on the same subject formerly Presented: Abife:, That from and after the j2u0dtghedsay of June next the salaries of eachof the of the Court of Claims shall be $4, 500. I desire to say a word or 2 in reference to this amendment. Since the vote was taken on the amendment I offered, before, giving a sal ary of $5,000, I have looked into the statutes Very well; I withdraw in reference to the Court of Claims. This court a was established in 1855, and the salary then given was the same as it now stands, $4,000 a year. Every body undertands that the expenses of living haye doubled in that time. In 1855, when this Court of Claims was established, members of this and of the other House of Congress received 8 dollars a day during the session. Our pay was not raised to $3,000 a year till a year or 2 after that time. The Court of Claims at that time, and for some years, were simply a committee of Congress; their judgments were not final; they merely examined all cases that came before them and reported to Congress. There was no finality about their judgments, and no effectual responsibility about them, more than upon an ordinary master in chancery who reports a case to the court. Since that time the law has been altered, so that the judgments of this court are conclusive, binding between the Government and the claimant; their jurisdiction has been very much enlarged; their duties are altogether more arduous than they were at that time. While the pay of the members of Congress at that time was 8 dollars a day during the session, it has been raised to $5,000 a year more than double what the members received at the time the salary of $4,000 was fixed for the judges of the Court of Claims. Their expenses have doubled in that time, their duties have doubled; and it seems to me that it is not asking too much to ask that $500 should be added to their pay twimheen. ours has been more than doubled in that
Mr. FESSENDEN. The whole argument adduced with reference to the former amendment applies to this: it is raising salaries in another form. I think the Senate substantially decided that these salaries were about right as they are now: we had one debate upon it. I do not accede to the strength of the argument that because men have to work in a position you must therefore pay them more. If the salary of these judges was $4,000 some years ago, according to the Senator's statement, it was a great deal more than it ought to have been at that time. The question is whether it is not enough now in comparison with the salaries paid to other persons who perform duties which take their time as much as these. I hope this amendment will be voted down as decidedly as the other was.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The argument which was adduced before against $5,000 was that it was making a salary higher than that of the chief justice of the district. This places it at the same sum. It seems to me that the character of the service rendered by these judges is such that they should receive good, liberal compensation. Vast claims in which the Government is interested come before them to the amount of millions. There is no doubt that these judges will be a better character of men and will discharge their duties better receiving a proper compensation. There is something in the way a person is paid as to the manner in which he discharges his duties and the diligence with which he does it. I think the Government can well afford to pay judges who are competent to discharge o uties as those that are imposed upon this court $4, 500. This subject was before the committee; it was considered carefully, and I hope the committee will be sustained in their report.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If we have men who do not discharge their duties well because they do not get as much money as they would like to have, if that is the argument, it is high time that we abolished the court and gotrid of them, or got judges who would do their duty without regard to the amount of money they are paid.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That was not the argument. The suggestion I made was that the degree of diligence, the amount of wear and tear upon one's health that one will submit to, does depend something upon the obligations that receiving full compensation imposes on a person.
Mr. POLAND called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. ANTHONY. I understand this amendment comes from the ComJudiciary.
Mr. ANTHONY. I think the compensation is very moderate.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senate votes down a good many amendments that come from the ComFinance, and that is considered no great imputation on them. I take it we have a right to differ from the ComJudiciary. The Too being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 16, nays 20; 16. So the amendment was rejected. The amendments were orderengross and the bill to be read a 3rd time. The bill was read the 3rd time, and passed.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The title of the printed bill reads “1867” instead of “1868.” I move to correct that, and to amend the title by adding “and for other purposes.” The motion was agreed to. House BILL REFERRED. The JtResolution (H.R.No. 276) directing the SecyWar to furnish certain muster rolls to the different States, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs . ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA WETO.
Mr. WADE. I move to take up the bill for the admission of Nebraska with the veto message accompanying it. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.456) for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, which had been returned by the POTUS with his objections.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is, shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding” It is a question that under the Constitution must be taken by the yeas&nays. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 31, nays 9; 12.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Upon this question the yeas are 31 and the nays 9. 2/3rds of the Senators Present having voted for the bill, it is passed, notwithstanding the objections of the President, and will be sent. the House with the message of the presient. ADMISSION OF COLORADWETO.
Mr. WADE. I now move to take up the off: the admission of Colorado. [“No, In O.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I understood that the Senfrom Ohio was not going to call up that bill until we knew that it was coming up. He told me he would call up the Nebraska off.
Mr. WADE. Very well; I will not insist upon the motion against the Senator's wishes. e has lived up to his contract; and if he thinks this is not embraced in iIt will with draw the motion.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It was my understanding that the Nebraska bill would be called for, but not the Colorado bill.
Mr. WADE. I withdraw the motion, be cause I made an arrangement with the other side that they do not understand exactly as I did; but I want perfect fairness. I withdraw the motion. LEAGUE island.
Mr. GRIMES. Imove that the Senate take up for consideration the bill (H.R.No. 452) to authorize the SecyNavy to accept League Island, in the Delaware river, for naval purposes and to dispense with and dispose of the existing yard at Philadelphia. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SHERMAN. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, February 8, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNTon. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. MUSTER ROLLS FOR STATES.
Mr. BLAINE, by unanimous consent, reported from the ComMilAffrs a JtResolution directing the SecyWar to furnish certain muster rolls to the different States; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution was read at length. It directs the SecyWar to furnish, on the application of the adjutant general of any State, certified copies of the muster in and muster out rolls of any organization of volunteers from such State, serving in the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, on the rePresentation of such adjutant general that said rolls have not been returned to his dept by U.S. mustering officers.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the time, and passed. Mr. BLAINE mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. PACIFIC RAILROAD BONDS.
Mr. WENTWORTH, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:.R.eso.lved. That the SecyTreasury be to communicateto this House the amount pfanbyo, nadnsdissaulseodttoo the UCneniotnral Paciifc Railroad CCoomm pany, with the dateof their issue, and also the mumber of miles of road completed.
Mr. WENTWORTH mtRtv the resolution was agreed to; iaid on the table. agreed to. Foreign CONWICTs.
Mr. RAYMOND, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to prohibit the transportation from foreign countries to the U.S. of persons convicted of or charged with crime, and Prescribing punishment therefor; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. RAILROADS IN INSURRECTIONARY STATES.
Mr. SPALDING, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyWar be requested to report to this, House what railroad companies in tahnedroetbheelrliporuospeSrttayteosf hthaev U.S. Government after the surrender of the rebel army, the amount rtehmusapinuirncgh"ausnepdandn, ewaicthhintdhievindautaulrecaosfe, the saemcuoruintyt sheetld offfo, rifthaenys, ame; and that he further report what profess the said companies or any of them ment, antdo ihtsavseaidagcalianismtst, haeri U.S. Governf: said railroad stock, &c. ASSAY OF GOLD AND SILVER.
Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to establish certain offices for the assay of gold and silver; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCoinage, Weights, and Measures. MEXICAN CATTLE DISEASE.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComAg be instructed to inquire into the expediencyof providing for the appointmentof a commission to investigate the nature, causes, and results of what is commonly known as Spanish fever or Texas cattle disease, and to report by bill or otherwise.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. A message in writing was received from the POTUS, by Mr. MooRE, one of his Secretaries. AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.
Mr. BALDWIN. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution for consideration at this time: Resolved, That the comRules be directed to considerthe expediencyof amendingthe rules of the House so as to provide that when, on a call of the House after 8 o'clock in the evening, it is ifmoumneddtihaatet layq audojoruurmn is not Present, the House shall o'clock a.m. to meeton the next day at ten
Mr. RADFORD. I object. GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. The House then resumed the consideration of House bill No. 1143, to provide for the more effectual government of the insurrectionary States, upon which Mr. SHANKLIN was entitled to the floor.
Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman allow me to make a motion that speeches be limited to 20 minutes for the remaining discussion of this bill?
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. THAYER. I cannot yield now; my time is brief, and I have promised to give a." of it to other gentlemen who desire to SPpea:k.
Mr. THAYER. I now yield the residue of my time to the Gentfrom Ohio, {Mr. SHELLABARGER]
Mr. DAWES. With the permission of the Gentfrom Ohio, I desira to get his views upon a single point. I agree with the gentleman that the POTUS is, under the Constitution, the commander of the Army and the Navy, but that the lawmaking power is here; and I understand this bill to be proposed because this Congress has confidence in the officers of the Army. Without such confidence I suppose we never would contemplate for a moment putting into the hands of the General of the Army the vast powers proposed to be intrusted to him by the bill. Now, the question which I wish to put to the Gentfrom Ohio is an inquiry practical in its application to this bill. The 2nd section of the bill provides That it shall be the duty Army of the General of the to assignto the command of each of said districts an officer of the regular Army, not below the rmainliktaroyf brigadier general, and to detail a sufficient force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the district to which heis assigned. Now, I concur with the framers of this bill in the confidence they repose in the General of the Army that he will appoint to this duty men in whom we shall have confidence. In the hands of one man the powers to be exercised under this bill might be an engine of terrible evil; while under the control of another man the exercise of these powers might be productive of most beneficent results. But, Mr. Speaker, the inquiry I desire to have answered is this: the moment the General of the Army has under this bill assigned a competent and trustworthy officer to the duties Prescribed in the bill, what is to hinder the POTUS, in virtue of his power as Commander in Chief, from removing that officer and putting in his place another of an opposite character, thus making the very instrumentality we provide one of terrible evil?
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my friendfrom Massachusetts has suggested to my mind a difficulty to which I had intended to allude, but which I omitted to notice in my haste to get through and give a portion of my time to my friendfrom New W. Mr. Hotchkiss] The gentleman inquires whether the President, in Virtue of his constitutional power as Commander in Chief, would not be able to remove any officer who might, under this bill, be assigned to a particular district by the General of the Army. Answering that question. my own convictions now, I say “yes.” But then I remind my intelligent friendfrom massachusetts that Congress has again and again done the identical thing which we propose to do by this bill. We have assigned officers of the Army to particular duties.
Mr. DAWES. I do not doubt the power, Mori.ntS. peaker; I agree with my friend on that
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Take the act of August, 1852, to be found in Brightley's Digest, page 151. That law provides that lieu tenants in the Army, graduates of WestPoint, shall be sent to the coast survey. Now, the President could command that those lieutenants should not go there. If he did so in purstance of duty, to meet the exigencies of the public service in a time of war, he would be justified as well by the Constitution as by the fact. But suppose that in time of peace he should disregard and wantonly refuse to execute that provision of the law, then he would render himself liable to impeachment, just as, according to Mr. Madison, the wanton exercise by the President of the power of removal from office which he believed the President to possess, would be a good ground for an impeachment. Here the hammer fell]
Mr. RAYMOND obtained the floor, and yielded ten minutes to
Mr. RAYMOND. I now yield to my colleague {Mr. GR1swold] ten minutes of my time.
Mr. HOTCHKISS. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. HOTCHKISS. I wish to ask if it is not the universal testimony of the loyal men of the South that if we should withdraw the armies we now have there their lives would be sacri ficed; and if these loyal men are not as good witnesses as northern men who have not been there to observe the state of things for themselves?
Mr. RAYMOND. That question would be more pertinent if I had said one word in favor of withdrawing that portion of the Army that is now there. I am in favor of having the Army in the South today in a sufficient force in every southern State to enforce such laws as may be made by civil authority, and as may be necessary for the protection of the lives and property of the loyal citizens of the South. hat I object to in this bill is not the Presence of the Army; not the protection to be extended by the Army over loyal citizens, black as well as white. But I object to clothing the military officers of that Army with power to make just such laws as they please, to establish their oown defoinitions of the rights of liberty and which are to be protected y them and the forces under their command.
Mr. HOTCHKISS. Will my colleague {Mr. RAYMoND] allow me to ask him one other question?
Mr. HOTCHKISS. I would ask my colleague if the loyal men of the South those of them who are still permitted to remain there do not say that the military protection afforded them at the Present time is insufficient?
Mr. RAYMOND. That question is no more pertinent than was the other. If the Present military protectibn is not sufficient, then increase it.
Mr. HOTCHKISS. That is what this bill proposes to do.
Mr. RAYMOND. This is not what the bill proposes to do. It proposes much more than this. It proposes not only to increase the military force in those States, but to enlarge the scope of its authority; to make it supreme over the civil power; to make it absolute and sovereign in Ali that part of this Republic.
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Will the Gentfrom NewYork {Mr. RAYMoND] permit me to correct what I conceive to be an error into which the gentleman has fallen in reference to my position?
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Yihink the gentleman is under some misapprehension of what I meant to say, if I did not say it; and I would not interrupt him but for that reason. I have reference to the condition of things contemplated by the Constitution, when it said that the writ of habeascorpus should be suspended if the public safety required it; and which condition of things I said was now upon us. The gentleman says that I misquoted the Constitution in that respect. Now, I desire to state my view of that subject, and then see if I am misapprehended. The Constitution of the U.S., as the gentleman has rightly said, provides that “The privilege of the writ of habeascorpus shall not be suspendedunlesswhen in cases Qfrebellion or invasion the public safetymayrequire it.” According to my apprehension that is equiv alent to saying that when the public safety does require a suspension of the writ of habeas cor pus in cases of rebellion or invasion it is the duty of Congress to suspend it. And I take the converse as following as a matter of course. Now, let me make one other suggestion to my friend. He says that the military are now in the South; they are therefore there for some purpose, and not for a vain purpose. They are there for the purpose of protecting the people there. Now, I ask him as an intelligent gentleman, if not a lawyer, what can the military do there; what useful purpose can they accomplish in the way of enforcing the safety of the citizens if they have no right to interfere? And if they have a right to interfere, how can it be done except under that provision of the Constitution which recognizes the right to enforce the public safety in cases of war?
Mr. HOTCHKISS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will allow me
Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman before he takes his seat permit a question?
Mr. THAYER. I ask the gentleman whether in his opinion the President has any constitutional authority to interpose the weight of his official influence to prevent the effective operation of the legislation of Congress or to dissuade the southern States from accepting the proposition made by Congress.
Mr. RAYMOND. His official influence; certainly not.
Mr. THAYER. Then he must agree with me that in so doing the President has violated his official duty.
Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I should wish before I pronounced an assent or dissent upon that judgment to have some satisfactory roof of the fact that he has done so. I do not. that he has, and I certainly see nothing in the paragraphs lately published in the papers to which I suppose the gentleman alludes which connects him with such action in any other way than possibly this: that he may have exPressed his personal opinion that it would not be just for the southern States to accept the constitutional amendment. Is that an im too. offense? I take it he is not deprived y the Constitution of his right to exPress his opinions as an individual citizen on any and subjects that may come before him. As to the exercise of any power he has by virtue of his office to defeat the action of Congress that is entirely another matter. I am not aware that he has done anything of the kind. But I am looking to the future rather than the past, and if we can now see any prospect of securing, through the President's aid or otherwise, the assent of the southern States to the terms we have laid before them, with the addition of impartial suffrage, our duty to ourselves and our country demands that we shall not lightly throw it away. But I will not pursue the discussion any further as I have promised to yield to the Gentfrom Ohio {Mr. GARFIELD] a portion of my time.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. STEVENs] gave notice that he would call the previous question at one o'clock.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I have allowed the hour which I indicated for the close of this debate to pass because there were several gentlemen who wished to speak. It is now so late that unless the House orders the previous question now it will be impossible to reach a vote today. We have but 8 days this side of a veto in which to pass this bill. I feel it, therefore, to be my duty to call the previous question now, and then there will be an additional hour for debate.
Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the previous question will not be 2nded.
Mr. BANKS. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania allow me to make a remark?
Mr. BANKS. I would not oppose a vote upon this question now if I did not think that there is an opportunity to do more toward a settlement of the difficulties in which the country is involved at this time. I believe that a day or 2 devoted to a discussion of this subject of the reconstruction of the Government will bring us to a solution, in which the 2 Houses of Congress will agree, in which the people of this country will sustain us, and in which the POTUS will give us his support. And if we should agree to a measure satisfactory to ourselves, and in which we should be sustained by the people, and the President should resist it, then we shall be justified in dropping the subject of reconstruction and considering the condition of the country in a different sense. I ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania to devote a day or 2 to the discussion of this question of the reconstruction and existence of the Government so as to bring this subject to this issue before the people of the country, whether we can act with the President in the measures necessary for the peace and prosperity of the country, or be compelled to consider the condition of the country in a different sense and in a different way. I hope he will allew that or else that the House will not sustain the previous question.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to make an appeal to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania on another othan that of the Gentfrom massachusetts. There are several gentlemen upon this side of the House who desire to put themselves upon the reedrd upon this great and important measure. They expect, however, that the decree has gone forth that this bill is to pass the House; and it is for that reason, because this is the only opportunity they can have to place themselves before the country in the attitude in which they desire to be placed, that they ask but little time for the discussion of this measure. They know that it is to be. forced upon the country by the immense power of the majority here, and they ask but the poor privilege of entering their protest on the record. I. hope the Gentfrom Pennsylvania will not refuse this small boon, but will give the gentlemen upon this side of the House an opportunity of exPressing their opinions.
Mr. STEVENS. not the advantage of the secret negotiations which the distin uished Gentfrom Massachusetts {Mr. jhas, and from which he seems to expect such perfect harmony between the President and the Congress of the U.S. within a few days. if I had that advantage I do not know what effect it might have upon me. Not having it, I cannot of course act upon it. I should be very glad to give more time for discussion to the Gentfrom Wisconsin {Mr. ELDRIDGE] and others, but I believe that we have already occupied 3 or 4 weeks in discussing this question. The gentleman says the decree has gone forth that this bill is to pass. I do not know that.
Mr. BANKS. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment further?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. SteveNs] is entitled to the floor, unless he wields to some member.
Mr. SCHENCK. Will the gentleman yield to me to make a suggestion for a verbal alter o: which I think should be made in this bill?
Mr. STEVENS. I will hear the suggestion of the gentleman.
Mr. SCHENCK. In the 2nd section of the bill reference is made to officers of “the regular Army.” Now, we have but one Army of the U.S., and it seems to me to be keeping up an unnecessary and invidious distinction to use the term “regular Army” in this bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the gentleman that that is a mistake, and I hope that by general consent the word “regular” will be stricken out of the clause referred to.
The SPEAKER. That requires unanimous consent, the motion to recommit being now pending. The question was submitted to the House, and the Speaker announced that there was no objection.
Mr. LeBLOND. I object to any amendment being made in this bill.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman did not rise in his place and state his objection.
Mr. LeBLOND. I had not arisen to my feet when the Chair announced that there was no objection.
The SPEAKER. Then the objection of the gentleman was made too late.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I arose in my place the moment I heard unanimous consent was asked for some purpose, in order to ascertain what was the nature of the proposition.
The SPEAKER. That may possibly be. The gentleman can state whether he objection made in time.
Mr. ELD RIDGE. I cannot state what the Chair would regard as being in time. But I arose instantly for the purpose of ascertaining what the object was for which unanimous consent was asked.
The SPEAKER. The recollection of the Chair is that the gentleman arose just as the Chair stated there was no objection. The gentleman was therefore too late to make an objection if he desired to make any. The bill was amended accordingly.
Skip Skip Mr. STEVENS. I now call for the vote upon my call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The question was taken, and upon a division there were ayes 62, noes 82. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. GRINNELL called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. GRIN NELL and LeBLOND were appointed. The House again oand the tellers reported that there were ayes 61, noes 98. So The previous question was not 2nded. The question recurred upon the motion to recommit the bill.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom massachusetts {Mr. BANKs] having spoken against the previous question will be recognized as entitled to the floor.
Mr. KASSON. Will the Gentfrom Massachusetts {Mr. BANKs] allow me a few moments to explain a substitute which I desire to propose for the bill now before the House whenever an opportunity shall be offered me to move it?
Mr. BANKS. I will yield to the gentleman for ten minutes.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, that embraces the proposition I propose to bring before the House. When there is disorder in any district amounting to violence the military officer is to declare martial law over part of the distorict, or over the whole of the district if neces to continue until order is restored. Thereis another provision for the payment of damages for losses occasioned by any disorder. I move that the bill be printed while the debate is going on. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move the following amendment: Abife: That the commanders of the military deptsherein named shall causeall property now in existence, belonging to loyal citizens of the U.S., which during the rebellion was seizedor confiscated, either by confederate or rebel State governments, to besummarily restored to said owners. Abife: That wheneverthe people of any State namedin this act shall adopt a constitution of State government which shall secure to all citizensof the U.S. within said State, irrespective of race or color, the equal protection of the laws, including the right of the elective franchise, and shali ratify the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., then the provisions of this act shall ceaseto have force and effect in such State.
The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, all amendments proposed to be offered to the bill will be ordered to be printed. There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly.
Mr. BANKS. After what I have said in the Presence of the House, it will be expected that I should suggest some plan of reconstruction which accords with my own ideas and which would lead to the conclusion I have suggested. Nothing was further from my mind than to enter upon the discussion at this time; but if the debate should go over till tomorrow I should be glad to be accorded such privileges as are allowed to other members in exPressing my views upon this question. And I beg leave to say to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, and to some of my colleagues who have spoken to me, that they cannot name a condition necessary for the protection of the Union men of the South, black or white, to which I should olject or which would be excluded from any plan that I might suggest. All I desire in any plan of reconstruction submitted to the Houte is that it shall embody all the measures n&cessary for the protection of the loyal people and the Preservation of the Government, and exclude all extraneous personal and hostile considerations. In a word, I want the proposition that shall be adopted by the House, and upon which an appeal shall be made to the people, to be a business matter, and not a personal or hostile one. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title: “An act (H.R.No. 1127) to fix the pay of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers;” when the Speaker signed the Sanne. HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION, ARKANSAS. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House the following message from the POTUS; which, with the accompanying documents, was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed: To the HoRep: I herewith communicate a report of the SecyInterior, in answer to a resolution of the HoRep of the 22d ultimo, requesting information relative to the condition, occupancy, and area of the Hot Springs reservation, in the State of Arkansas. ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGToN, February 7, 1867. ReSOLUTIONS OF INDIAN A. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the lieutenant and acting Governor of Indiana, transmitting a copy of the JtResolution of the Legislature of that State ratifying certain amendments to the Constitution proposed by Congress; which were laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. MAIL CONTRACTORS IN TENNESSEE. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter of the PostMGenl, in answer to a resolution of the House in reference to certain mail contractors in the State of Tennessee; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the SecyState, transmit ting, in compliance with law, a report of the commercial relations of the U.S. with foreign nations for the year ending September 30, 1866; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. EVENING SESSION.
Mr. SPALDING., I move a recess be taken to day from half past 4 till half past 7 o'clock, this evening.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest whether, it is necessary. There is unlimited time for debate, and we had better go on till daylight.
Skip Skip The question was put; and there were ayes 67, noes 53. Mr. ANCONA demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. ANconA and SPALDING.
Mr. DAVIS. I wish to know whether the proposition is to devote the evening to debate alone.
The SPEAKER. If the motion is adopted the House will proceed with the regular order, which is the bill now under consideration. To order a session for debate alone requires unan imous consent.
Skip Skip The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 51, noes 73. So the motion was disagreed to. Mr. BANKS resumed the floor, but gave way to Mr. STEVENS, who moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and thereupon (at 4 o'clock and 15 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. SATURDAY, February 9, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with, by unanimous consent, on the motion of Mr. CONNESS. ExeCUTIVE COMMUNICATIONs. the thSeen PReESIDENT protempore laid before a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting a report from general Grant, in reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant, relative to the protection of trains on the overland route; which, on motion of Mr. HENDERSox, was referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed. He also laid before the Senate a communication from the SecyWar, transmit ting, in compliance with the 13th section of the act of July 17, 1862, a statement of the QuarterMGen, showing the contracts made by him during the month of January, 1867, and those not received in time to be included in previous reports; which was referred to the ComMilAffrs . CorrectION OF A MISTAR re.
Mr. DIXON. I ask the consent of the senate to correct a mistake made by the tele h in reporting the resolutions which I jo. honor to offer to the Senate the other day on the subject of amending the Constitution of the U.S. Of the 1st section of the article of the amendment proposed by me there was given only the 1st sentence in the telegraphic report, as I see in all the news papers. The 2nd sentence, “No State shall pass any law or ordinance to secede or , with from the Union, and any such law or ordinance shall be null and void, ” was omit ted. I merely desire to correct this error.
Mr. YATES. Massacre, as the Senator more justly and properly characterizes it, should have the protection of the U.S. government. It is therefore that I move to refer this memorial to the ComPensions, and hope that the name of this lady may be placed upon the pension list. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. YATES. I move that the JtResolution of the Legislature of the State of Illinois on the subject of the navy yard at Mound City in that State be printed. I Presented them yesterday, but omitted to make a motion for their printing. I now submit that motion. The motion was agreed to. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. LANE, from the ComPensions, to whom was referred the petition of Charles N. Weiss, praying for a pension, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.580) granting a pension to Charles N. Weiss. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd read and the report was ordered to be printed. e also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 1058) for the relief of the mine r children of Solomon Long, reported it with an amendment. e also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.556) for the relief of Caroline McGee, of Greene county, Tennessee, widow of femuel McGee, deceased, reported it without amendment. e also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Olivia W. Cannon, praying for a pension, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.581) granting a pension to Olivia W. Cannon. The bill was read and passed to a report 2nd reading, and the was ordered to be printed.
Mr. VANWINKLE, from the ComPostOffices, to whom was referred the petition of Jacob Shave r and Albert C. Corse, praying for compensation for past and future use of a patent upon post marking of letters, &c., for the cancellation of postage stamps, known as the Norton invention, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.582) to provide for the payment of past and future use and purchase of the in vention and patent upon “post marking of letters, packets, &c., and for the cancellation of postage stamps thereon, ” made by and ateented to Marcus P. Norton, of W. Troy, New April 14, 1863, and reissued August 23, 1864. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. POMEROY, from the ComPubLands, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.489) to provide for giving the right of precmption to settlers on the Cherokee neu tral lands in Kansas, and for other purposes, reported it with amendments.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the ComIndAffrs, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 92) authorizing the SecyInterior to pay certain claims out of the balance of an appropriation for the payment of necessary expenditures in the service of the U.S. for Indian affairs in the Territory of Utah, reported it without amendment. DEFICIENCIES IN HOUSE CONTINGENT FUND.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am directed by the ComFinance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 1144) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the contingent expenses of the HoRep of the U.S. for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, to report it back to the Senate without amendment. It contains but 3 items, about which there is no dispute, and the Clerk of the House is very anxious, as he is out of funds, that it should be passed to day. I therefore ask that it may be considered now. It will take but a moment, and it is a matter about which there is no diste. By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to appropriate for miscella neous items, $40,000; for folding documents, $27, 500; for fuel and lights, including pay of engineers, firemen, and laborers, repairs, and materials, $7,000. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. FUNERAL, EXPENSES OF MR. HICKEY.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred a resolution relative to the payment of the funeral expenses of the late William Hickey, Chief Clerk in the Senate, have instructed me to report it back and recommend its passage; and I ask for its Present consideration. By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, and it was agreed to, as follows: Resolved, That the amount directed to be H. to the legal rePresentatives of the late William Hickey, for funeral expenses, &c., by Senate resolution of July 9, 1866, be paid by the SecySenate out of the contingent fund of the Senate. interocEANIC ROUTES.
Mr. ANTHONY. The ComPrintg, to whom was referred a resolution for the printing of 1,000 copies of the report of Admiral Davis in regard to interoceanic routes, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment reducing the number to 500. I ask for the Present consideration of the resolution. By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution, Ys amended, was adopted, as follows: Resolved, That 500 additional copies of the report of Admiral Davis, oftory. oninter oceaniccanalsandrtahielroNaadysa, lbOebpsrienrtvead; for the use of the observatory. DEBATES OF CONGRESS.
Mr. SHERMAN. I offer the following resolution, and ask that it be considered now: Resolved, That the ComPublic Printing be authorized to invite proposals for printing the debates of Congress, andreport whetherthesameshould be published as heretofore or by the Public Printer, or by letting the contract to the lowest bidder, or by acceptingany one of the proposalsmade.
Mr. CRESWELL. I think that had better lie over.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Objection being made to the Present consideration of the resolution, it will lie over. ROCKISLAND IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. TRUMBULL submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyWar be directed to furnish the Senate a copy of the report of mission of which Major General John M. tShcehocfoiemld: was President, in relation to RockIsland. the improvements at PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS.
Mr. CHANDLER. I offer the following res. olution, and ask for its Present consideration: Resolved, That the ComJudiciary be directed to inquire and report to the Senate whether AndrewJohnson, VEEP and acting President, had any authority of law or under the Constitution to appoint provisional governors for the States lately in joi. against the Government.
Mr. BUCKALEW, Mr. JOHNSON, and others objecting to the Present consideration." resolution, it was laid over under the Irules. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.588) to restore the jurisdiction of Indian affairs to the Dept of War; which was read twice. by its title, referred to the ComMilAffrs , and ordered to be printed.
Mr. PATTERSON asked, and by unanimous consent, obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.584) for the relief of Elias Beale, late captain of company H, 8th regiment Tennessee volunteer infantry; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs .
Mr. MQRRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.585) to amend and simplify tha acts relating to the Metropolitan. of the DistCol; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComDistCol. COURTS IN RHDISLAND.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to take up House bill No. 643, to change the place of holding the courts in RhdIsland. The district attorney has written me and desires to have it passed; the Senators from that State are in favor of it. It will take but a minute, and I am sure there can be no objection to it. The motion was agreed t;o and the bill (H.R.No. 643) to alter the places of holding the circuit courts of the U.S. for the RhdIsland district was considered as in ComWhole. It provides that from and after the 1st day of July, 1866, the circuit courts of the U.S. for the district of RhdIsland shall commence and be held at the U.S. court room in the city of Providence on the 15th day of November and on the 15th day of June, annually, instead of the places hereto fore established by law. But when either of the days named shall fall on Sunday the session of the court then next to be held is to commence on the Monday next following. All indictments, informations, suits, or actions, and proceedings of every kind, whether of a civil or criminal nature, pending in the circuit court on the 1st day of July, 1866, are hereafter to be proceeded in, heard, tried, and determined on the days and at the place herein appointed for holding the court in the same manner and with the same effect as if the court had been holden on the days and at the places hereto fore directed by law.
Mr. TRUMBULL. This bill was passed by the House at the last session, and if heard it read correctly it speaks of suits pending on the 1st day of July, 1866. That will have to be altered. I move to strike out “1866” and insert “ 1867.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. That change will be made.
Mr. TRUMBULL. A similar change will have to be made in the 1st section as to the time when the change shall be made.
Mr. JOHNSON. Then the bill will have to go back to the House.
Mr. TRUMBULL. We cannot help that. The time named has passed.
Mr. JOHNSON. Why confine it to those States?
Mr. STEWART. This is a substantial revival of the law of 1841, allowing the town authorities to enter a certain quantity of land. In the western States some speculation arose in those town sites, which caused a law to be passed professedly to stop that, but it was really at the instance of the registers and receivers so that they would get a special fee for each lot. That was soto the whole country, but in California, and Nevada the people have gone en under the old law. Their towns were located with a view of complying with the provisions of the old law; and an attempt to enforce the new law there interferes with the entire property of the country. They cannot comply with it. The petitions from California and Nevada for a change of the law are very numerous. The ComPubLands think it would be wise to limit the change to that part of the country from which the demand for it comes, and leave the question of changing the whole system generally for future consideration. From California and Nevada we have petitions and letters from almost every town asking that this change be made. For instance, in the town where I live, Virginia City, the sizes of the lots do not correspond with those fixed in the new law; the Gould & Curry, mill there cost $1, 200,000; several parties have attempted to enter portions of the lot upon which it is located arbi trarily, whereas the town authorities, if they were allowed to go on under the old law, would give the company title to what they have in actual possession. The billis confined to those States from which this demand specially comes. Several Terri tories have applied to have the provision extend to them. Judge Goodwin, of Arizona, wishes it extended to that Territory, but until there is further investigation the committee think it safer to apply this bill only to the States from the inhabitants of which we had petitions on the subject.
Mr. JOHNSON. Is it not necessary in Oregon also?
Mr. STEWART. It may be equally necessary in Oregon, in Montana, in Idaho, and in Arizona. My opinion is that they will need it there, but my imPression is that this bill had better go through now in this way, and at the next session we can attend to those other cases if on investigation it is deemed desirable to extend it to them. I think the new law was a very great mistake. The old law, as it stood, worked well. Certainly it places people in States which had been long settled in an awk w.ard position, where they had not perfected titles under the old law, to have the change in a Cie.
Mr. HENDRICKS This is not the enactment of a law unknown to our system. For a great number of years this law as proposed now substantially applied to all the States and Territories. Under it it was found in the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and perhaps Minnesota and some other localities, that very gross and disgusting frauds were perpetrated. Men would secure proof of the establishment of a town, and plat it out in very magnificent style, and come to eastern States and cities and sell corner lots and perpetrate very gross frauds upon the unwary. I suppose it was in view of that fact that Congress changed the law so that each settler upon a particular lot should enter it for himself. That is the existing law now. But we are informed by the Senators from the Pacific coast that their interests are pecu liar and need the reenactment of this law, and therefore I did not object to it. I was unwill.ing, unless we should have the opinion of the GLO on the subject, to extend it to all the States and Territories. I can very well see why there could not be such frauds perpetrated on the Pacific coast as on this side. At any rate, if they are perpetrated they will be upon their own citizens. If a town is built up in California that is a mere sham and a fraud the people of California are likely to know it. There cannot likely be frauds under this law, and it is a matter of convenience to the people out there, and I therefore support the bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to offer an amendment. It may not be necessary, but it is a precaution to avoid the difficulty that arose under the old law.
Mr. CONNESS. There are amendments pending from the committee.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There are amendments reported by the committee still undisposed of.
Mr. SHERMAN. As I shall not occupy the attention of the Senate again, I desire now to except from the operations of this bill all military or other reservations made by the U.S.
Mr. CONNESS. Certainly, there is no objection to that.
Mr. SHERMAN. Under the old law they attempted to cover the military reservation at Leavenworth, worth $1,000,000, and they also endeavored to cover the Spring reservation in Arkansas, which was worth an immense amount.
Mr. HENDRICIWS. But that effort was not a success. They cannot do that under the existing law.
Mr. SHERMAN. I know the effort failed, but it was made, and I think we should adopt this precaution.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The existing law is against it, and the uniform decisions of the office.
Mr. SHERMAN. There will be no harm In 11.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My attention has not been directed to this bill. It is a bill that is called up this morning for the 1st time; but I should like to hear from the chairman of the committee, or some other member of it, the specific advantages that this law has over the old law. If the States of California and Ne vada derive any particular benefit from this enactment I do not see why Oregon and the Territories on the Pacific coast should not be included, for they are very similar in many respects, particularly so far as their public lands are concerned. I should like to know from that statement as to whether or not it would be desirable to include Oregon in the bill, because I want the State of Oregon to enjoy all the advantages that the other States on the Pacific do.
Mr. STEWART. I have no doubt it would be an advantage to Oregon and to Idaho and Arizona to be included in this bill; but the committee felt disposed to confine it to those States where we had information from almost every town that could be built, and where there are now towns building for speculative pur. ses. This is intended to cover the cases of those actually and bona fide occupying the land at Present. Probably the same condition of things exists in Oregon, in Arizona, and in Idaho. If the Senator will move an amendment to include Oregon I shall not oppose it.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the amendments of the committee will be acted upon 1st.
The PRESIDENT protempore. As soon as the debate closes the Chair will put the question on the pending motion, which is the amendment of the committee just read.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to have an explanation, if it is agreeable to the members of the committee, as to the particular advantages of this bill over the old bill.
Mr. CONNESS. If the Senator will allow the vote to be taken on these amendments we will give that, explanation in its proper order.
Mr. HOWARD. Why not give it before we vote?
Mr. CONNESS. These are amendments verbal in their character and should be made rst.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have no particular desire to have any explanation made at this time, unless by the adoption of the amendment here, confining the bill to the States of California and Nevada, we are concluded from including other States.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If that is not the case I do not care as to the time when I hear the explanation.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator wants Oregon included it can be done. I have no objection to that, and I Presume no member of the committee would have any. The inconvenience under the existing law is that for many purposes a sufficient quantity of land cannot be entered. The law as it now stands limits the entry to a very small lot. It is inconvenient in carrying on manufacturing and mineral enterprises in that distant country.
Mr. CONNESS. I will make a brief statement for the information of the Senfrom Oregon and of the Senate. I have in my hand a petition from the citizens of one of the towns in California. They have undertaken to enter the land of their town under the existing socalled town lot law. The result is, that under that law, after 2 years of time, not more than half the people of the town have been able to get a title to their lots. Others own lots jointly, and the laws make no provision for joint entries. In addition to that they find that they cannot enter the streets nor the public squares in the town. The title to those is in the U.S. The law, as it exists, is totally inap plicable to those towns. What we want is to enable the authorities of each town to enter at the minimum price of the public lands a given number of acres, graded according to the population of the town or locality, so that it may be entered in trust and then deeded according to the possessions to the people. If the Senfrom Oregon desires the benefit of the law for his State and I have no doubt it would be beneficial to his State of course he will move to insert it. But there is nothing so necessary as the provisions of this act for our towns.
Mr. HOWARD. Does the Senfrom California mean to be understood that this bill provides that the corporate authorities of the town may become the purchasers? Is that the scheme here?
Mr. CONNESS. They simply enter the land as agents in trust for the occupants, those in possession.
Mr. CONNESS. A title for the occupants from the U.S.
Mr. HOWARD. Then they become the owners in trust.
Mr. CONNESS. I will answer that in a moment. Where there is no corporate body for organization the judge of the county enters the land in trust. That is the old law. This is simply a revival of the old law, which is very much the better law. In the case of a town with a population of between 1200 they are to enter 320 acres. The amount to be entered is graduated according to the recommendation of the ComrGLO.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the senate ready for the question on the proposed amendment? That is it ex
Mr. HOWARD. I hope the amendment will be reported.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line 3 to strike out the word “sur veyed” before “public, ” and after the word “lands” to insert “of the States of California and Nevada.”
Mr. STEWART. It is proposed to include Oregon shall I put in Oregon?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I think it would be better.
Mr. STEWART. I move to insert “Oregon” before “California.”
Mr. HOWARD. I wish to inquire of some member of the ComPubLands the reason they have for striking out the word “ surveyed” before “public lands” in line 3. Is it their purpose to allow any lands that have never been surveyed at all to be entered upon by the corporate authorities of the township and appropriated in the manner prescribed in the bill?. not the law as it now stands confine such entries to lands which have been surveyed?
Mr. STEWART. The bill requires the entry to be made in conformity to the surveys. Of course we shall have to extend the surveying system; but it is not necessary that the town shall have been sectionized and surveyed. The latter portion of the bill, however, requires it in its exterior limits to conform to the general surveys, so that there will be no confusion about that. It is intended that they shall acquire title to the property before the ground is all surveys. Otherwise, I am afraid there are a great many towns where they never will acquire a title. In the mining region it is not expected that all those deserts will ever be surveyed. You find there a town located probably 50 miles from any arable land, for mining purposes exclusively, and if you waited until the surveys were extended to thatland they never could acquire title to the property at all, because it would cost so much to survey it. It is not the policy of the Government to survey all those deserts. In surveying under the mining law it is provided that they shall connect with the general system by running standing lines to make the general system conform; so that if the land is ever surveyed there shall be uniformity; but there are large portions of the public lands in the great desert there that will never be sectionized.
Mr. HOWARD. It comes to this, then, I suppose: that under this bill any person may enter upon public land, although it may be unsurveyed, and acquire it as a town plot in the future, and may hold it.
Mr. HOWARD. That is the effect of bill. the
Mr. CONNESS. Only where they have settled and made a town.
Mr. HOWARD. The bill is prospective I Suppose. K. STEWART. There must be a certain number of inhabitants there.
Mr. HOWARD. I confess I have a little hesitation about granting this privilege to enter upon.; public land and convert it into town plots. It will open the door to great speculations, to great frauds, and greatinjustice to the public to grant this H.with reference to unsurveyed land. There may be some reasons for it in Pacific States which are not applicable to other States.. "
Mr.. CONNESS. It is not made applicable to any other States. o
Mr. HOWARD. I say there may be reasons why this should be applied to the Pacific States and not applied to the other States, but I have not seen them very clearly.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am satisfied that this amendment proposed by the committee is asolutely necessary to this bill any practi; cal value. Now, in the State where I live I doubt very much whether any town, has ever been commenced upon the surveyed lands of the State; but wherever the advantages of a location seem to indicate that a town is desirable people congregate there and proceed at once to make a town, and some of these local ities are removed at a great distance from the surveyed portions of the country. Now, if the people of the State, before they can enter a town site under this law, are compelled to wait until the lands are surveyed, there will be no town sites as a general rule to which this law will apply, because generally the surveyed lands are taken as soon as they are surveyed and in many cases before they are surveyed by private individuals. As has been suggested by the Senfrom Nevada, there is no regular system of surveys in the State of Oregon, but the lands are surveyed in different localities according to the topography of the country. Some portions of the . are agricultural, and they are surveyed. Then there are other large portions of the State that are not surveyed because they are not agricultural lands but abound in mineral resources; and wherever a discovery is made of a mine in any particular locality hun? dreds of people will settle there at once and make a town, and that town may be a great distance from any of the regular surveys of the State. The object of this bill is to enable the citizens of that town to enter their land when ever the surveys are extended to that locality. When a town of that kind is made, when people settle upon unsurveyed public land in order to make a town, this bill provides that it shall be understood that the land upon which the town is located is not subject to private entry, but whenever the surveys are extended to that lo cality then it shall be entered for the advan tage of private individuals.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment to the amendment, to insert “Oregon.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was adopted. The next amendment was in line 18, after the word “entry” to strike out the words “of the land intended by this act be made prior to the commencement of the public sale of the body of land in which it is included, and that the entry;” so that the proviso will read: Provided. That the entry shall include only such lands as are actually occupiedby the town, &c.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in line 22, after the word “and” to insert the word shall.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in line 32, after the word “provided” to strike out the word “further.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to add at the end of the bill the following proviso: And providedfurther, That this act shall be construed subject to the provisions of the act entitled o"Awnnearcstogvraenr ttinhge tphuebrliigchtlaonfdwsa, ayntdo dfiotrchoathnedr, cpanuarl poses, ”approved July 23, 1866;and nothing in this act, shall be construed to grant any right in conflict with, the rights, of miners upon the public lands which they hold under any faw of Congress or by virtue of the rules or customsof miners.
Mr. STEWART. In line 22, after the word “town, ” I move to insert the words “the title to which is in the U.S.;” so that it will read: That the entry shall include only such lands as actually occupied by are the town, the title to which is in the U.S.
Mr. STEWART. After the word “ shall.” in the same line, I move to insert the words “in its exterior limits.”
Mr. STEWART. Now, I hope that the amendment offered by the Senfrom Ohio will be adopted.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The following amendment is moved by the Senfrom Ohio, to come in at the end of the bill: And.further, That the provisions of this set shall not apply to military or other reservations heretoforemade by the U.S.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It is right, lest I might be misunderstood in what I said a few minutes ago, to say that this bill changes the act of 1841 in regard to the quantity of land that shall be entered. The act of 1841was arbitrary, allowing a section of land to be entered in all cases, or a half section, I forget which. This bill regulates the amount that is to be entered according to the population of the town. It is right that I should also add, perhaps, that the existing law requires the occupant of a town lot, a small lot, to pay to the Government ten dollars for the entry. This bill will allow the land covered by the town to be entered at the Government price, whatever it may be, either $1 25 or $2 50 an acre. I think that feature of the bill is right, because if the town lots are worth ten dollars apiece that value is given them, not by the Government, but by the people in making their improvements. M. CONNESS. In that connection I desire simply to say that the recommendation as to the quantity came from the Land Office, because it was found that special acts had to be passed for particular towns extending the quantity. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. LEAGUE ISLAND.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday, which is House bill No. 452, being the League Island bill.
Mr. GRIMES. When I made the motion yesterday to call up that bill, I had forgotten that on a former day the Senfrom Maine, the chairman of the ComDistCol, had had today assigned for DisCol business. I consider it very important that this bill should be considered at an early day by the Senate, but I have no disposition to allow it to interfere with the business which at a previous day was assigned for consideration today. I therefore move that it be postponed to and made the special order of the day for Tuesday next at one o'clock. I understand that the chairman of the ComFinance has some business that he desires to transact on Monday.
Mr. HOWARD. Let us vote on it now and dispose of it.
Mr. GRIMES. We cannot do that, because the Senfrom Maine o MoRRILL] has had today assigned for the consideration of District. business.
Mr. GRIMES. No; I move that it be made the special order for Tuesday next at one o'clock. The motion was agreed to. T. bankrupT BILL.
Mr. WILSON. With the consent of the Senfrom Maine I desire to have a vote taken on the motion that I entered some days since, to reconsider the vote rejecting the bankrupt bill, and then after the reconsideration it can lie over for future consideration.
Mr. MORRILL. If it takes no time and leads to no discussion I shall not object.
Mr. WILSON. I do not wish to take up any time upon it except to have a vote taken on the motion to reconsider, and then if the bill is reconsidered it can lie over.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is moved that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the bankrupt bill, which was acted upon by the Senate a few days ago. The motion to take up the mtR agreed to.
Mr. LANR. I ask for the yeas&nays on the motion to reconsider. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. POLAND. I think it is very apparent Do you want to have the that a majority of this body are in favor of the bankrupt law; but the friends of the measure were so unfortunate as not to agree in some of its details. I hope without any question that this motion to reconsider will be allowed to prevail, and then the matter can be brought under consideration again, to see if the views of the friends of the measure may not be har monized. I hope that it will be reconsidered. The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RoR (when his name was called) said: I am paired off on this question with the Senfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. CowAN] who is not in his seat; otherwise I would vote in the affirmative, and if he were here he would vote in the negative.
Mr. SHERMAN (after having voted in the negative) said: I inadvertently voted. I am paired off on this question with the Senfrom Vermont, {Mr. EDMUNDs] who has been called away by illness in his family. I therefore ask leave to withdraw my vote.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The vote will be withdrawn, no objection being made. The result was then announced yeas 22, nays 14; 16. So the mtR agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed to another day.
Mr. WILSON. I will say tomorrow. I mean tomorrow legislatively. That means that we can take it up when we choose. The motion was agreed to. MILITARY bills.
Mr. WILSON. I desire to give notice that on Wednesday I shall ask the Senate to consider the bill for a temporary increase of the Army and some other Army bills. There were referred to us from the HoRep 18 bills yesterday; we have nearly 30 military bills from that House unacted upon, and I desire a few hours to dispose of them one way or the other. I merely wish to say that at one o'clock on Wednesday I shall call them up. JAIL IN TIME DISTRICT.
Mr. MORRILL., I propose now to proceed with the District business. I move 1st to take up Senate bill No. 550. The motion was agreed t;o and the bill (S.No.550) to amend an act entitled “An act authorizing the construction of a jail in and for the DistCol, ” approved June 25, 1866, was considered as in ComWhole. It proposes to repeal so much of the 6th section of the act approved June 25, 1866, as specifies the amounts to be raised and paid into the Treasury of the U.S. by the cities of Washington and Georgetown respect ively, before the completion of the jail, and to make it the duty of the proper authorities of the city of Washington to raise, by tax or otherwise, and pay into the Treasury of the U.S., at or before the time of the completion of the jail, $78,000, and the duty of the proper authorities of the city of George town to raise, by tax or otherwise, and pay into the Treasury of the U.S., at or before the time of the completion of the jail, $12,000.
Mr. MORRILL. Perhaps I ought to make a word of explanation as to the bill. On the 20th July, 1866, an act was approved entitled “An act to authorize the construction of a jail in and for the DistCol;” and it was provided in this. act that a portion of the expense of the construction of the jail should be devolved upon the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and the county of Washington, and in these proportions: $70,000 upon Washington city, $10,000 upon Georgetown, and $10,000 upon the country quarter of the district. A memorial was sent to the Senate at this session from the authorities of Georgetown saying that there was an inequality in this proportion, and they satisfied the committee that it was so. I understand that upon the basis of population, if it were allowable to base the proportion upon population, the proportion of Georgetown would be something less than 11,000 dollars, about 10,000 dollars; but if based upon population and property combined, it would be 11,900 and some odd dollars. That is, comparing the population and property of Georgetown with those of the city of Washington and the country quarter; so that this bill oto change the act referred to and evolve $78,000 upon the city of Washington, $12,000 upon Georgetown, and $10,000 upon the country quarter of the District.
Mr. MORRILL. The aggregate is the same; the only real change in the law is that it now devolves $78,000 upon the city of Washington instead of $70,000, and $12,000 instead of $20,000 upon Georgetown, which the committee find to be in accordance with the fair proportions estimating both population and property. There is no new obligation. o Mr. JOHNSON. I inquire of the honor chairman what is the estimated cost of the jail?
Mr. MORRILL. 200,000 dollars was appropriated. The SecyInterior was authorized to incur an expense not exceeding that, and half of that amount was to be supplied by the District. The bill was reported to the Senate, orderengross for a 3rd reading, and was read the 3rd time, and passed. HOWARD UNIVERSITY.
Mr. MORRILL. This bill is to relieve the trustees of a trust which was confided to them, and which is substantially recited in the bill itself. A portion of the property which was conveyed to the trustees for church purposes, in trust for the church named, they have used for a burial ground, and parties have been permitted by the church to bury there. It has gone into disuse now for that purpose; the fences are down about it; it is undesirable for that purpose; and not only is it undesirable, but undoubtedly the time has arrived whene the city authorities might properly enough invoke the power of Congress to prevent burials there. It being no longer useful for that purpose, the trustees desire to convert it to other purposes, and they propose to dispose of it for other purposes, taking upon themselves by the provisions of this act the obligation and the expense of removing the dead that are now buried there, and give them decent sepulture elsewhere. I did not know but that there might be some legal question about it, as the honorable senator suggests at the 1st start. The Senfrom WestVirginia Presented the bill and examined the question somewhat, and he saw no difficulty in it; but I sent for the deed of trust and for some of the parties whose interests were adverse, if there were any, to wit, those who had burial licenses there, and I came to the conclusion from the best exami nation I could make of it that there was no legal proposition involved in it; that these parties might be empowered to do what they propose to do without violating the individual rights of any other parties. That is about all there is in the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON. It suggested itself to me from hearing the bill read that we were about by act of Congress to change the contract made between the original donors or grantors and the person for whose benefit the trust was created. The deed is not before us. The honorable member from WestVirginia perhaps can tell what the trust is.; suppose that under the trust, as it exists by the deed the trustees would have no authority to dispose at all of the title which is in them legally, and purchase property elsewhere. It also suggested itself to me that if there was a power, notwithstanding the trust, in Congress to legislate as proposed, there might be some objection to legislating for the particular object that is in view. I am exceedingly unwilling, as we all are, to disturb the It is rather revolting to the feelings of all humane men to have the bones of the dead dug up and transferred elsewhere, unless there be some commanding necessity looking to the health or the actual interest of the locality in which the burials may have taken place. I should like to know from my friendfrom WestVirginia what is the trust which prevents the trustees themselves accomplishing the same end that is proposed to be accomplished by means of this legislation.
Mr. WILLEY. I am certain the city will have to interfere before long, and as a police regulation take these remains away. The bill, I understand, makes ample provision for the removal of the remains and their decent sepult ure elsewhere. It is a matter of necessity to the church to have this lot sold. The city will be benefited by it; the friends of the dead will be benefited by it, and the church will be benefited by it, in my estimation. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. MORRILL. I wish to say a word in response to the remark of the Senfrom Maryland, that the dead ought not to be disturbed. That question arose whether suitable provision ought to be made and whether this was an adversary proceeding. A letter was addressed to me by the parties interested saying that if provision should be made for the removal of the dead and their decent sepulture elsewhere all concerned were satisfied there would be no objection to the measure. I did not, therefore, regard the bill as in any sense an adversary proceeding. The bill was reported to the Senate, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION.
Mr. YATES. I move to take up No. Senate bill 175. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S.No.175) to incorporate the Pharmaceutical Association of the DistCol was considered as in ComWhole. It proposes to constitute Valentine Harbaugh, John L. Kid well, Joseph W. Nairn, Francis S. Walsh, John A. Milburn, Joseph B. Moore, James N. Callan, Samuel E. Tyson, and such other persons as are now members of the association in the DistCol known as the Phar maceutical Association of the DistCol, or shall hereafter become members of the same, a corporation and body politic, for the purpose of cultivating, improving, and making known a knowledge of pharmacy, its collateral branches of science, and the best modes of preparing medicines and of giving instruction in the same.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure that I understand the extent of the limitation as to the value of the property which this corporation is to hold. P". the bill says that the amount of real and personal property which they may hold is not to exceed $20,000 in value. That limitation is too small to carry out the purposes of the corporation if that be the meaning of the limitation. They are to buy a lot and build a house, and I suppose the house and lot would cost at least $20,000. Then they are to buy all the personal property absolutely necessary to the objects of the corporation. I suggest to my friendfrom Illinois that he had better look at the limitation to be found in the 1st section and see whether it is not too small a limitation, pro." it applies to all the property they may O1(1.
Mr. YATES. This is an enterprise inaugu rated by the young men in the apo the cary stores, more particularly to have some means provided to secure the correct preparation of medicines according to physicians' Prescriptions, and to promote medical sciences generally. I to: the suggestion of the Senfrom Maryland is very correct, and I move to amend the bill by striking out in the 19th line of the 1st section the word “ 20 ” and ions “ 40, ’” so as to make $40,000 the imit.
Mr. HENDERSON. I think it would be better to say $50,000.
Mr. YATES. Very well; I move that amendment.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred 111.
Mr. MORRILL. I call the attention of the Senfrom Illinois to the phraseology of the bill in the 12th line of the 1st section, where these words are used, “and as such to have continuance forever.” I do not see any very great objection to this clause, as it is qualified by the succeeding words, “ or until Congress shall direct this charter to cease and deter mine;” but I think the language is a little unusual, and if there be no objection I move to strike out “to have continuance forever or until “ and insert “ shall have perpetual succession unless.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. WAGRANT CHILDREN. On motion of Mr. MORRILL, the bill (S.No.573) supplementary to the act incorporating the Newsboys' Home and providing for the relief of certain mine r children in the DistCol, was read the 2nd time, and considered as in ComWhole. Itproposest? change the name of the “News boys' Home of Washington city” to that of the “Newsboys' Home and Children's Aid Society of the DistCol, ” and to enlarge the powers and duties of its President and board of managers as to embrace mine r children committed to their care by the parents of such children, or by the persons charged with their maintenance, and also other mine r children, being vagrant, destitute, or deserted by their parents or by the persons charged with their maintenance, and proceeds to make provision for the mode of committing such children.
Mr. MORRILL. I do not think that ought to be allowed.
Mr. MORRILL. I do not think we ought to legislate for a sectarian affair. I do not think the courts of law ought to be charged with the duty of settling whether this child or that child belongs to a particular theology or a particular sect or a particular denomination. I should regret exceedingly to see the day when it should become the duty of the judieial tribunals of this country to settle whether the custody of a particular child should be given over to a particular sect or denomination. If the charity herein provided for is not broad enough, and if it is not safe to trust this authority in the hands of these persons, irrespective. the religious creeds of the parents, and we are to remand a child to custody according to the religious opinions of the parents, I think we had better abandon the whole thing. That is the way it strikes me. It would be inevitable in the nature of the case, according to the provisions of this amendment, that if a child were brought before a magistrate the magistrate must inquire into the facts, the religious character of the parents; and further, whether the society of the church or denomi nation or sect to which such parent or child belonged, the parent particularly, is in a condition to make suitable provision for the child. I do not see but what you would have arrayed before that magistrate a war of sects inevitably, which, it strikes me, is very much to be deprecated.
Mr. GRIMES. I beg leave to inquire of the chairman of the ComDistCol whether there is an appeal from the decision of the magistrate, so that we can get the benefit of the construction of the supreme court of the District or the SCOTUS upon the theological questions that will be sure to arise under this proposition.
Mr. MORRILL. No, sir; there is no appeal provided for here.
Mr. GRIMES. I am afraid there will be a great diversity of construction put upon the theological dogmas of various religious societies by the several magistrates who may have the power to commit these waifs to the care of this corporation. I do not see how under the amendment it can be otherwise than that they must enter into the question as to what are the particular theological beliefs of the parents. I think, therefore, if the amendment of the Senfrom Maryland is adopted there should be an allowance of an appeal, so that we can have the question finally and authorita tively settled what are the tenets of the various religious denominations.
Mr. JOHNSON. Without some such amendment as this the result will be that this corpo ration will have the right to take care of the children, irrespective entirely of what may be the religious faith of the parents. You cannot. an appeal to the SCOTUS; but when you authorize a magistrate to take up a child it would seem to be no great stretch of power to say that he is to send the child to the church to which its parents belong if he can find it out. If he cannot find it out, it goes to the institution that these corporators may establish.
Mr. MORRILL. The practical effect of this amendment, if I understand it, is this: the bill provides that destitute, vagrant, aban doned children may be taken before a magistrate with a view to examining into such vagrancy, destitution, or abandonment. If that fact is found to exist, then the judicial authorities are authorized to transfer the care and cus tody of such children to this public charity. That is the object of the bill. Now, the amendment provides that if upon such proceedings in the case of "a destitute, vagrant, or abandoned child before the court, any party shall appear and suggest for sectarian considerations, or religious considerations if you please, that there is some other body that desires the cus tody of the child, and then satisfy the court that the party so interposing will take care of this.". provide for it, then the object of this law is to be thwarted, the whole proceedings are to be suspended, and the judge, instead of conferring the custody and care of the child on this charity or to these persons, is to confer it upon the parties who interpose. In this way the objects of this bill are frustrated. Clearly it is so when you put it in the power of anybody to interpose. There is no propriety in this bill except upon the ground that vagrancy, destitution, or aban donment does exist; and if it does exist, and it is proper for the civil authorities to interpose and confide the care of such children to such an institution as this, then I submit that it is not proper that parties should have the right in this way to interpose to prevent it. This is a reason, in addition to those I suggested when I was up before, why I think this provision is not only incompatible with the objects of the bill, but highly inexpedient, and will render this whole bill, I should say, worse than useless.
Mr. MORRILL. The fallacy of the argument of the honorable Senator is that he as sumes that we propose to take children who are not destitute.
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member from Maine rests his opposition to this amendment on grounds altogether fallacious. This is not an attempt suggested by me or by any persons from whom I got the suggestion to interpose any religious controversy in the administration of this charity. It is not designed to interfere with the charity at all. The charity is to provide for destitute children a means of maintenance and an education. Now, what says the amendment? That if these corporators find a destitute child and find that the parents of that child belong to any religious sect, not the Roman church, but any particular religious sect, and that sect has an institution of its own for the maintenance and education of its own children, they are to hand the child over to that institution. That is all. What possible interference is that which can be denominated a controversy such as the honorable member denounces as unjust? He says that no religious sect has any right to interfere with the general jurisprudence of the country in taking care of the wants of the people. That is true; and this is not intended at all to interfere with it. We leave the duty precisely as we find it, but only say to these corporators, “If you are satisfied not without that the parents of the child belong to a particular religious association, and that association has a charity like this, competent to do all that the bill expects or wishes to be done, you are to hand the child over to that particular institution instead of taking charge of the child and educating it in a different religious faith.” I am convinced, Mr. President, that so far from its impairing or weakening the object of the association it will very much strengthen it and increase the numbers who are to be benefited by the contemplated charity.
Mr. JOHNSON. I must ask for the yeas&nays upon it.
Mr. MORRILL. That will break us up by disclosing the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment reported by the ComDistrict of and the Senfrom Maryland asks that the vote be taken by yeas&nays.
Mr. JOHNSON. I withdraw the call for the yeas&nays, and move to postpone the consideration of the bill.
Mr. MORRILL. With the Senator's permission, I will ask that the bill may be inform ally inid aside, so that we may proceed to the consideration of some other bills.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It can be done by common consent, no objection being made.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The bill is laid aside by common consent.
Mr. MORRILL. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 492. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.492) to protect the rights of married women, and for other purposes, in the DistCol.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am not o: to say that the provisions of this bill are not right. They strike me as such as the Senate ought very carefully to deliberate upon before we adopt them. The bill changes the whole law which now controls the rights of married women and their husbands. One of the sections, if I understand it aright, says that upon the death of the wife the husband shall in herit no property at all, and have no interest of any kind in the property which may have belonged to the wife. The law makes him, if there are children, a tenant by courtesy. This bill abolishes that title in the District. It seems to me, looking to that provision, and to several of the other provisions of the bill, it almost destroys the relation of husband and wife as it now exists. I will ask my friendfrom Maine if this has been taken from any law to be found in any of the States or in England, either now existing or that ever did exist? I think it would be in accordance with the spirit of the bill to add another section, if the bill is right, to say that they might separate whenever they thought proper.
Mr. JOHNSON. No; they do not destroy the relation. What I mean is, that they may divorce themselves, a statutory divorce, so as to enable them to marry again. The principle of the common law, which has recommended itself to adoption almost universally, is to avoid, if all causes of dispute between husband and wife, to make them in point of fact one. So they are regarded in point of law; and, generally speaking, I do not think the wife has suffered at all by force of the doctrine that they are to be considered as one, for generally she is that one [laughter] and controls everything, as she ought. But to deny the husband any right to the property at any time, and to make her a femme sole for all purposes during life and at the moment of death, so as to be able to dispose of her property, seems to me to be legislation of very doubtful expediency.
Mr. MORRILL. I was about to explain to the Senate the character of this bill when the honorable Senfrom Maryland rose, and I am always so much edified and instructed by him that I was glad to see him take the floor before I was quite ready to explain it. But I am i.surprised that, the Senator should think that the features of this bill are novel in the legislation of the country. They are novel in this District, it is true. if I supposed the honorable Senator meant to convey the idea that this legislation has escaped his attention for the last 25 years in the country at large it would be surprising to me. That the bill is not in harmony, however, with the principles of the common law, I concede. The object of the bill is to relieve the wife from some of the principles of the common law. Now, in our portion of the country we have got over those principles a long time ago. The husband has no right to flog the wife in my country. It would be considered an indecorum and a public outrage, but, the common law justifies it; and it may be done here in this District I suppose. We have established that right.
Mr. JOHNSON. He is a tenant by courtesy, then.
Mr. DAVIS. I think this bill ought to go to the ComJudiciary, and be carefully considered by that committee. if I understand the bill, the old rule that the hus band is bound to support his wife is not interfered with by it, and yet against the consent of the husband, and in defiance of it, the bill, if I understand it, authorizes the wife to sell any or all property that she may own at the time, or during the coverture. Now, Mr. President, this feature of the bill, it strikes me, might lead to a great deal of domestic strife, and it might operate unjustly and opPressively upon the husband. If the wife has property, the avails of which may be appropriated to her support, and the husband is left with the legal obligation upon him to support, his wife, it seems to me it would be very unjust and very impolitic to give her the absolute power to dispose of her own estate. There is a great disposition, I think, in this ComDistCol, and especially in the chairman, to transfer NewEngland to the DistCol, and to adopt the institutions, laws, and customs of NewEngland for the government of the peole of this District, both white and black. ow, sir, that might in some respects be very well; but I think the honorable Senator, in this and in other bills, is bringing rather too. much of NewEngland to the DistCol. I think that in a thin Senate, when not more than 1/3rd or one 4th of the members are Present, a bill of this importance, and which may have such results as the one under consideration ought not to be allowed to pass. F. amendment made as in ComWhole was concurred in.
Mr. MORRILL. I do not know but I ought to say a word in reference to the remark of the honorable Senfrom Kentucky, though I do not understand whether the honorable Senator intended it as a comliment or as a censure. He thinks there is a strong purpose on the part of the chair: man of the ComDistCol to incorporate NewEngland into the DistCol. I hope the honorable Senator will do me the credit to believe that I would not wish to transfer NewEng land here in any other sense than that in which I have so often heard the honorable Senfrom Kentucky speak of it. whatever is good in NewEngland, in NewEng land ideas orinstitutions, I should be extremely glad to see incorporated in the laws of the DistCol, and I know that the honorable Senfrom Kentucky would 2nd me in that effort as cheerfully as any other niember of the Senate. I am not conscious that I have any other purpose or haye legislated with any other view than to what I believed to be the best interest of the DistCol. I certainly am not conscious of having exercised the position which has been confided to me by the Senate with any other view than to advance the general interests of the District, whether they were notions peculiar to NewEngland or any other section of the country. But, sir, I see that I shall hardly get on with the opposition that is made to this bill at the Present moment, and if it is the purpose of the honorable Senfrom Kentucky to divide the Senate on this question I shall be obliged to ask the indulgence of the Senate to lay it aside for a moment and proceed to the consideration of some other bill.
Mr. DAVIS. I will thank the honorable Senator to take that course.
Mr. MORRILL. I hope, then, the Senate will indulge me by laying this bill aside for the Present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HAR RIs.) It will be laid aside if there be no objection. NATHAN SARGENT DUSTIN.
Mr. MORRILL. I will ask the Senate now to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 470. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.470) to authorize the change of a name. It authorizes Nathan Sar gent Dustin, to change his name by dropping therefrom the name of Dustin, and o that of Nathan Sargent, to take effect from the 1st of January, 1867. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, order engross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. The following message was received from the HoRep by Mr. McPER son, its Clerk: Mr. President, I am directed by the HoRep to inform the Senate that the HoRep having proceeded, in pursuance of the Constitution, to reconsider the bill entitled “An act for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, ” returned to the Senate by the POTUS with his objections, and sent by the Senate to the HoRep with the message of the President returning the said bill, have passed said bill, 2/3rds of the House having voted therefor. FNROLLED BILL SIGNED. The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled bill (H.R.No. 1127) to fix the salary of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers; and it was thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate. bill, S deCOMie LAWs.
Skip Skip A message from the POTUS, by o G. MooRE, his Secretary, an nounced that he had approved and signed on the 8th instant the following bill and JtResolution: A bill (S.No.433) for the relief of E. J. Curley; and a JtResolution (S.R.No. 94) providing for the payment of certain Kentucky militia forces. MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Mr. MORRILL. I now ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of the Senate bill No. 295 repealing 34th section of the declaration of rights of the State of Maryland asodopfaterdas the same has been recognized or in the DistCol. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. Legislation on the subject matter of this bill was had at the last session of Congress which renders this bill unimport ant, and I therefore move its indefinite post ponement. The motion was agreed to. special JURIES IN The DISTRICT.
Mr. JOHNSON. I hope my friendfrom Maine will not insist on a vote on this bill now. I have not considered the constitutional question, or the question of power rather, which I think is involved. the bill, it authorizes the court here to summon a jury from Maryland and Virginia to try cases, civil or criminal, in this District.
Mr. JOHNSON. The power conferred upon Congress over the District is to legislate in all cases whatever for the District; and how they can under that power go out of the District and compel the people of Maryland to come in to aid them in the administration of justice in the District I am unable to perceive. In deed, my Present imPression is very strong that Congress has no such authority. In the case of Cohen vs. the State of Virginia, which involved the right to sell lottery tickets, I think in a lottery authorized by Congress in this District, it was conceded by the Supreme Court, that under the authority to legislate for the District there was no authority to make any tickets which might be authorized to be sold in a local lottery here salable outside of the District in any other State. This is worse than that. We owe no allegiance at all to Congress except the allegiance which the Constitution cre ates. The power which Congress has over the District is neither more nor less than the power each State has over its own territory, its own legitimate concerns; and it seems to me it would be just as much in the power of Maryland to pass a law authorizing. summoning for the trial of cases in Maryland of citizens from the District as it is in the power of Congress to if I understand summon persons from Maryland to try cases arising in the District. The whole effect of the constitutional clause in relation to the Dis. trict is that the U.S. are made the State for the District, just as Maryland is a State for its own district of territory. Unless my friend, therefore, can satisfy me that the power exists, I hope he will permit the bill to lie upon the table for the Present at any rate, more especially as there are not more than 15 senators Present.
Mr. MORRILL. I suppose I shall have to ask that the bill be laid aside with the consent of the Senate.
Mr. Pow ERoy in the chair.) The bill will be laid aside if there be no objection. NATIONAL CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
Mr. MORRILL. I now ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of House bill o. 234. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (H.R.No. 234) to incorporate the National Capital Insurance Company. It. to create Green Adams, Erastus oulson, Joseph J. Coombs, Robert Leech, John B. Clark, jr., J. P. Reznor, f. M. Blair, Robert L. Owen, and Joseph W. Parish, and others who may become members, a body politic and corporate, by the name and style of the “National Capital Insurance Conpany, ” for the purpose of o, on the business of insurance at the city of Washington, in the DistCol, and elsewhere, with the usual powers of a corporation, authorizing them to effect all kinds of fire or life insurance, either on the cash or stock plan, with a capital of not less than $20,000 nor more than $1,000,000. The ComDistCol. reported the bill with various amendments, the 1st of which was to strike out the 9th section of the bill after the enacting clause in the following words: Sec. 9. Abife: That this company may, effectall kinds of fire or life insurance, either on the cash or stock plan, without premium notes, or may require, premium notes and a cash amount in addition, as hereinbeforeprovidedfor; but any person insuringon the premium noteplan shall be bound to pay his or her share of all lossesand expenses incurred by the company, whetherthesamearise out of losses or expensesgrowing out of a cash, stock, or a premium note insurance. And to insert in lieu thereof: That said company shall be conducted on the plan of mutual assurance; may open books to propositionsand enter into arrangementsforreincesiuvreance, but shall not commencebusinessuntil agreementshave been enteredinto for assurance with at least 100 applieants.
Mr. MOIRRILL. oIought to explain this amendment in a word. It will be seen that by this section as it stood as passed by the HoRep, all sorts of insurance were provided for. There was the ordi: nary insurance against fire, and marine, and life, and health. There is no instance that I know of where a company has been chartered with such large powers. I believe the principle of insurance is, that these, should always e separate, and the law usually imposes very much larger obligations and greater securities on those companies, that propose to insure upon life or health than upon ordinary companies. We propose to amend the bill so as to confine the corporation simply to fire and marine insurance.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to insert as section 13 the following: Sec. 13.Abife:, That it the duty of the Presidentor VEEP asnhdallsebee retary of said company annually, on or before the 1stday of January, to prepare under oath, and deposit in the office of the secyInterior, and shall also cause to be published, in sounenewspaper published in the DistCol, a exhibiting the total amount of premiumsstraetceemiveendt and the total amount of lossespaid and ascertained, including expensesduring the year; also the amount of debts owing by said company at statement, the date of the and the amount of pany claimsagainstthe corn for losses; also a statement of the funds of the company and the grossamount of outstanding risks ereon.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend the bill in the 1st section, line ten, by striking out the words “and elsewhere.” As the bill now stands it would authorize them to insure in the DistCol and elsewhere.
Mr. JOHNSON. The power of Congress to authorize them, as against the States, to contract insurances out of the limits of the District is one question; but whether we should take from them the authority altogether, if the States do not deny it, is quite another question. There is no State in the Union that has any authority to charter a company to do business out of its own limits; but there is hardly an insurance company in any State that is not in the habit of insuring in other States than in the State where it is incorporated. If this amendment should be adopted, this company can insure only in this District, and it will be compara tively of little or no importance to the corpo rators or to anybody else. I think the companies now chartered here are authorized to perfect policies outside of the District. They can only do it with the consent of the States where they may undertake to do it. Some of the States require licenses to be taken out by foreign corporations. I am not aware that there is any State which hibits a corporation chartered by a sister State, or an English corporation, from effect.ing insurances outside of its limits. There are now in active operation numbers of such companies with a long line of risks taken by them. A corporation chartered by Parliament has its agency here, with the consent "of Congress, and nobody doubts that whatever contracts they enter into will be binding upon the corporation at home, if there should be any contest on the subject. So in relation to State corporations of this description. If they are not prohibited by the law chartering them from effecting policies outside of the State and they effect such policies with the consent of the State where the risk is taken they are bound. I do not see any want of power involved in our not excluding from the authority to effect policies outside of the District.
Mr. HEND RICKS. I do not understand that the amendment proposes to prohibit them,: simply that we will not exPressly authorize them.
Mr. MORRILL. My understanding was the same as that of the Senfrom Indiana. The bill proposes to authorize them to go elsewhere.
Mr. JOHNSON. We cannot authorize them to do so. I will ask for the reading of the amendment again.
Mr. MORRILL. My notion about that was that if they were incorporated a body politic, &c., with these powers to transact business in the city of Washington, they would have the same power to transact business anywhere else that a company chartered by one of the States would. What is that power? Simply by the consent of the authorities of the several States. They must take their chances. We make them a body politic and corporate. We make them a person in law, and they must take their chances about establishing business anywhere else. We authorize them to establish business here. I think that the use of the words “and elsewhere” in the 1st section would seem to imply that we authorized them to set up business elsewhere. It does not occur to me that the amendment is open to the criticism of the Senfrom Maryland.
Mr. JOHNSON. It may be very right to strike out the words “and elsewhere;” but then striking out those words and authorizing them to effect insurances here will place them in the situation that if they insure upon a risk that will occur elsewhere it will not bind the party to the risk he assumes.
Mr. HEN ORICKS. I thought the argument of the Senfrom Maryland a little while ago was very conclusive that we could not go outside of the DistCol to select a jury for this District, because the right to make laws is only for this District. So I think in regard to the organization of a corporation. We can simply, to make a corpo ration, give it life and existence in this district, and if it is the pleasure of the States to allow that corporation thus created to exercise their privileges in those States, I Presume it will be all right.
Mr. JOHNSON. If that is the understanding I have no objection to it.
Mr. HEND RICRS. That is the way I think it ought to be.
Mr. DAVIS. The principle suggested by the honorable Senfrom Indiana is certainly correct. By the comity of States the corporation of one State is allowed to do business in another State unless in the latter State it be exPressly prohibited. Certainly one State, the State of Indiana for instance, could not by legislation authorize these corporations to do business in any other State; and as the power of Congress over the DistCol is restricted territorially to the District, Congress cannot have any more power in relation to the matter than one State would have in relation to legislating for a corporation to transact business in another State. I think that is a very plain proposition, and I hope the honorable chairman of the committee will make his bill conform to what I think is the plain power of Congress.
Mr. MORRILL. I move further to amend the bill on page 2, line 14, by striking out the words “ or elsewhere, ” So as to make it conform to the amendment just adopted.
Mr. MORRILL. I now move to strike out the 10th section of the bill. It is rendered o by the amendments that have been inade.
Mr. MORRILL. " It is providing for the capital stock of the company. As it is now changed to the character of a mutual insurance company the section is unnecessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The section proposed to be stricken out will be read.
The Secretary read it, as follows: SEC. 10.Abife:, That the capital stock of the company shall not be lessthan $20,000 onfor$2moo,0reotoshhaanll $ble,opoa0i, DOOw0, hich 1st named amount in previous to effectingin surances; and the residue may consist of cash prebmyiutmhesacnodmppraenmy, iourmsnuocthesortehceeriveaepdiutaplo, n risks taken in 50 sharesof dollars each, as may by the by laws be added.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am sorry that the bill is changed so as to make this a mutual insurance company instead of an ordinary company. I do not think in their very nature the mutual companies are very safe companies. To meet losses calls have to be made othe stock holders, or rather the persons who are insured. It is a very unreliable fund, and the most unsatisfactory sort of insurance company. While I do not oppose the bill seriously I do not want by my silence to acquiesce in that principle.
Mr. MORRILL. I am very much of the honorable Senator's opinion myself; but I saw no option. The bill, as it passed the HoRep, provided in the 9th section i. this company might effect all kinds of fire or life insurance, either on the cash or stock plan. That certainly was a novel feature. We have endeavored to guard against abuse or fraud by inserting a provision directing the officers of the company annually to make a return of the exact condition of the affairs of the company, which is to be filed with the SecyInterior, and also to be published in a news paper in this city.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Some companies, I know, that are based on this mutual principle have been great evils to the country. Perhaps some have been successful; but they ean only be successful by requiring a reasonable amount of money to be kept on hand to meet losses.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in, and orderengross, and the bill to be read a 3rd time. It was read a 3rd time, and passed. ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA VETO.
Mr. WADE. I will ask the Senfrom Maine to permit me to offer a resolution that is necessary to complete some legislation, and which will take but a moment:. Resolved, That the SecySenate, be directed to Present to the Secretary of entitled “An act for the admission ofStthaeteStthaeteboilfl Nebraska into the Union, ” togetherwith the certif icatesof the SeySenate and Clerk of the HoRep, showing that the said act was passedby a vote of 2/3rds of both Housesof Congressafter the same had been returned to Senate by the President with his objections, atnhde after the reConsideration of of Congress said act by both Houses in accordancewith the Constitution. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. REPEAL OF DISTRICT LAWS.
Mr. MORRILL. I now move to take up Senate bill No. 15. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.15) to repeal certain laws and ordinances in the DistCol, and for other purposes, which had been reported adversely by the ComDistCol.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not think it is necessary to read that bill, as I observe that the committee report it adversely. I move its indefinite postponement. The motion was agreed to. WASHINGTON FIRE DEPT.
Mr. MORRILL. I now move that the senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 183. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (H.R.No. 183) concerning the fire dept of Yoo city. It proposes to grant the right to have, use, and occupy all the several buildings, with their appur tenances, known as the Union, Franklin, Columbia, and Anacostia engine houses to the city of Washington, in the DistCol, the possession and occupation to continue so long as used for the purposes of the fire dept and the pleasure of the Congress of the U.S.; but the use and occupancy of the Columbia, engine house is not in any way to interfere with the possession and occupancy by the Columbia fire company of the rooms now used as library rooms in that building. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. DISTRICT BUSINESS.
Mr. MORI’ILL. I think we are not in a condition to proceed today with the legislation of the District in matters that are controverted. I therefore send to the Secretary's table the following resolution and ask for its Present consideration: Resolved, That Tuesday evening next, at half past 7 o'clock, be assigned for the consideration of legislation for the DistCol. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. BILLS RECOMMITTED.
Mr. WILSON. I desire to recommit 2 or 3 bills, if the Senfrom Maine will allow me to do so.
Mr. MORRILL. Certainly; I am pretty much wound up.
Mr. WILSON. There are some bills here which I think can be put together, and thus save time, and therefore I desire to have them recommitted. They are the bill for the national cemeteries, the bill in relation to the National Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, and the bill temporarily to increase the pay of the Army.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that the bill (H.R.No. 848) to amend an act entitled “An act to incorporate the National Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home” was passed on the 30th of January, and the next day a motion to reconsider was entered by the Senfrom Illinois, {Mr. TRUMBULL, and that motion must 1st be disposed of by the Senate before it can be recommitted.
Mr. WILSON. Then I should like to have the motion to reconsider acted upon now. The motion was made with a view to amend the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair then will put the question on the reconsideration, if there be no objection. The mtR agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now move to recommit the bill to the ComMilAffrs . The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. Now, I hope the other 2 bills I have mentioned will be taken up and recommitted.
Mr. HENDRICIXS. I move that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. WILSON. The committee meet on Monday, and as I desire to have these bills before them, I hope the Senator will allow these motions to be made.
Mr. HENDRICKS. We cannot consider any bill of importance tonight.
Mr. WILSON. My motion simply is to recommit the bills to the committee, which meets on Monday morning, with a view to their aomendment. HENDRICKS. I have no objection to that.
Mr. WILSON. I move that the bill (S.No.568) to provide for a temporary increase of the pay of the officers of the Army of the U.S., and for other purposes, be recommitted to the ComMilAffrs . The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. now move that the bill (H.R.No. 788) to establish and protect national cemeteries be recommitted to the same committee. The motion was agreed to. EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mr. SHERMAN. Before the question of adjournment is put I desire to have a short executive session. [“Oh, no.”] It will take but a moment.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Very well; I withdraw the motion to adjourn.
Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened. POSTAL LAWS.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The purpose of that bill seems to be to create offices.
Mr. RAMSEY. No, sir; it diminishes them rather.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I cannot understand tolerably plain reading. I think there are 2 or 3 additional officers created by it.
Mr. RAMSEY. It merely elevates the character of some of the clerks, putting them in the position of heads of bureaus.
Mr. HENDRICKS. How much does it incMrera.seRAthMeSirEpay? It does increase their pay some, but not very much.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Does it not create 2 officers unknown before, one to have the super intendency of dead letters?
Mr. RAMSEY. No, sir; the officer was there before, but not by that name. There has always been some one clerk in the dead letter office assigned to the superintendency. It has grown to be a very important branch of the postoffice Dept. There are some 80 clerks employed in that particular branch, and it is thought well to appoint some one of sufficient capacity to manage that branch of the business.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I was right in saying the office was created.
Mr. RAMSEY. No: the person who now superintends it will probably be appointed superintendent unless some one better be found.
Mr. HEND RICKS. I suppose the place will probably be filled by the same man. I thought the Senator said the object was to get somebody of considerable capacity. I want to ask the Senator if it will probably improve the capacity of the gentleman who has charge of this business if we give him more money and call him by another name? I think this bill increases offices and salaries, and that we had better not pass it now. I move to postpone the consideration of it.
Mr. RAMSEY. I hope the Senator will allow the Senate to pass at any rate upon the amendments reported by the committee.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I have objection to that.
Mr. CONNESS. I will say that this is a bill which is very much desired by the PostMGenl, and has been very fully considered by the ComPostOffices, and unanimously recommended by them. There is no doubt in the world as to the necessity of passing it. Besides, the Senator well knows that it is very difficult to get the floor here in the Senate for the passage of these measures, and this bill may as well be acted upon now as at any other time.
Mr. RAMSEY. I hope the Senate will act on the amendments at least before we adjourn.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The 1st amendment reported by the ComPostOffices o Post Roads will be read. The 1st amendment was in section 3, line 20, to strike out the words “a period of not less than 2 years nor, ” and to insert the word “not;" so as to read: shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for not morethan 5 years, &c.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in section 4, lines 2 and 3, to strike out the words “his dept” and to insert “the bureau of the 1st Asst PostMGenl.” and at the end of the section to add “and that the superintendent of the money order system shall receive an annual salary of $3,000;” so that the section will read: Sec. 4., Abife: That, the PostMGenl be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint in the bureau of the 1st Assistant PostMGenl a superintendentof foreign mails, at anannual salary of$3,000 and oneadditional clerk of classfour for that branch of the postalservice, and that the superintendentof the money ordersystem shall receivean annual salary of $3,000.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in section 5, line 3, to strike out the word “office” and to insert the word “bureau.”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in section 6, line7, to strike out the word “a” and to insert “an annual;” in line 8 to strike out the words “per annum;” inline 9 to strikeout the word “a” and insert “an annual, ” and in line ten to strike out the words “per annum.”
Mr. RAMSEY. I offer this amendment under instructions of the ComPostOffices, to be called section 7:. Abife:, That the PostMGenl be, and he is may hereby, authorized, whenever he deem it necessaryor expedient, to consolidatethe 3 blank agencies of the Post Ofice Dept into one blank agency, to be located in Washington, the city of DistCol, and to appoint one superintendent, at an annual salary of $1, 800, and 1/3rd classclerk, and one2nd class cler and 2 porters or laborers, at an annual salary o $900each.
Mr. RAMSEY. I offer another amendment to come in as section 8: Abife: That letter carriers employed under the direction of the PostMGenl shall severally receive a salary to by him not be Prescribed., peryear: Propided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to repeal the JtResolution approved June 6, 1866.
Mr. CONNESS. I am authorized by the committee to offer the following as an additional section: Abife: That the PostMGenl be, and he is hereby, authorized to adjust and settle the accountsof postmasters accruing prior to the establishment of the system of salaries for deputy postmasters upon the basis of equity and .: Provided That esluincqhuseenttcleymbeynatnssyhdaelpl nuotyt ipnocslutmdeaasnteyr case I will simply say that the PostMGenl desires this authority, and it is very essential that it should be extended to him.
Mr. RAMSEY. I have one further amendment to offer. At Present the law requires that a letter on wo the postage is not prepaid shall be passed through the dead letter office, which seems to be unnecessary. This amendment Prescribes that a letter shall be returned to the writer when he can be ascertained by the name upon the back of the letter.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment will be read.
Mr. MORGAN. I really think the Senate is too thin to act on so important a bill as this making so many changes. There are not a dozen Senators Present.
Mr. RAMSEY. The changes are not very numerous.
Mr. MORGAN. There are not a dozen Senators Present; and I know that Senators left the Chamber because it was understood that the business of the DistCol alone was to be transacted today.
Mr. RAMSEY. I think the Senator is mistaken in his conception of the bill. The changes are not very numerous. No new office is created by the bill. It simply makes new divisions for officers who already perform duties in the Depts.
Mr. RAMSEY. Some salaries are raised, but not very much.
Mr. CONNESS. I desire to say to the Senfrom NewYork, as this question is raised again, that every point and proposition in this bill have been thoroughly considered as between the whole ComPostOffices and the PostMGenl, and is recommended by the unanimous report of the committee. The change in salaries is a very slight one. The changes made by this bill will bring about reforms that will save vast sums. In paper and twine and all that goes to the stores of the postoffice Dept the changes proposed will make very great reforms and great savings. The investigation of this subject has been very thorough and complete. The Senator will also understand that it has been exceedingly difficult to get this bill for the last 2 weeks before the Senate by reason of a Press of business, and the same thing will occur again on Monday. There was no division of opinion in regard to the necessity of this bill in the committee.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment proposed by the Senfrom Minnesota will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was to insert as an additional section the following: Anot Abife:, That when any letter hveellodpfeor postage shall bear upon the faceof the en the nameand addressof the writer or sender of the same, it shall be the duty of the postmasterat the officewhereinsuchletter shall have beendropped tsoenrdeetur, renhasragidingletthteerreimupmoendoiradtienlayrytopsoasitdagwer;iter or but if any such letter soo shall for any causecome toopethneeddead letter office, it shall be returned unto the name and address of the writer or senderunder envelope, charging thereuponordinary postage.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. Salaries are changed in NIAGARA SHIP CANAL.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 344, to incorporate the Niagara Ship Canal Company.
Mr. CRESWELL. I hope that bill will not be taken up now.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move to proceed to its consideration.
Mr. MORGAN. For the same reason that I objected to the passage of the postoffice bill, which I think was entirely wrong, with only a dozen Senators Present, I shall object to taking up so important a bill as this, appropriating $6,000,000 from the Treasury to a private corporation.
Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senate to take it up for consideration, not to consider it this evening. The motion was not agreed to.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. DAVIS. I hope the Senator will with draw that motion. We are expecting an an nouncement from the HoRep in a few moments of the death of a colleague of mine.
Mr. CHANDLER. Certainly; I withdraw it if that is the case. GREATHOUSE AND RELLY.
Mr. VANWINKLE. I ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill o. 338. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.338) for the relief of Henry Greathouse and Samuel Kelly.
Mr. VANWINKLE. This bill was fully considered by the Senate at the last session, and I believe the Senate were satisfied on the subject, except that it was thought there ought to be some limitation on the amount which the PostMGenl could disburse in this way; and while we were preparing an amendment which, I believe, would have brought it within the views of the Senate, the morning hour expired, and the bill never got another chance. I am now instructed by the ComPostOffices to move to amend the bill by adding to it the following: Provided, That the amount to be so allowed shall not exceed$12,000. That amount is just about 1/2 of what the ordinary compensation would have been for this service if there had been a contract.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. CODIFICATION OF CUSTOMS LAWS.
Mr. CRESWELL. The ComCommerce, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 251) further to extend the time for codifying the laws relative to the cus toms, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment, and to recommend its passage. I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate to consider the JtResolution on the day it is reported.
Mr. POMEROY. Let it be read for the information of the Senate so that we may know what it is.
Mr. CRESWELL. I will state that it is a JtResolution to extend the time for the action of a commission appointed during this Congress with a view to the codification of the revenue laws.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will receive a message from the HoRep. DEATH OF HON. HENRY GRIDER.
Mr. McPHERson, the Clerk of of the House appeared below the bar and Said: Mr. President, I am directed to communicate to the Senate the proceedings of the HoRep on the announcement of the death of Hon. HENRY GRIDER, of Kentucky. The proceedings of the House were read.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, February 9, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. WILLIAM PAToN, D. D. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message was received from the Senate by Mr. MCDo NALD, its Chief Clerk, notifying the House that that body had passed, without amendment, House bill No. 1127, to fix the pay of the quartermaster sergeant of the battalion of Engineers. The message further announced that the Senate had passed House bill No. 896, making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1867, with amendments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. The message further announced that the President having returned to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill (S.No.456) to admit the State of Nebraska into the Union, with his objections thereto, the Senate had proceeded to reconsider the same, had resolved that the said bill do pass, (2/3rds of the Senate agreeing thereto,) and had directed the message of the President and the bill, with the proceedings of the Senate thereon, to be communicated to the HoRep. cHANGE of NAME of A YACHT.
Mr. O’NEILL. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table for the purpose of reference Senate JtResolution No. 159, authorizing the SecyTreasury to permit the owner of the yacht Mayflower to change the name to Sylvie. No objection being made, the JtResolution was taken up, read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCommerce. BOSTON CUSTOMHOUSE.
Mr. HULBURD. I ask unanimous consent to report from the ComPublic Expenditures a part of the investigation in regard to the officers of the Boston customhouse.
Mr. PLANTS. As a member of the committee I ask to have the report deferred a day Or two.
Mr. HULBURD. The report has been submitted to the sub committee, and all of them concur in desiring the chairman to report it at this time.
Mr. PLANTS. I was not aware of that fact, but I still object. CALIFORNIA LAND GRANT.
Mr. DAVIS. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to take from the Speaker's table bill of the Senate No. 461, an act for a grant of lands to the State of California to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State, ” for the purpose of reference to the ComPacificRR.
Mr. COBB. I object. INDIAN APPROPRIATION IbiLi,
Mr. KASSON. I ask to report back from the ComAppropriat the Indian appropriation bill; and as I do not propose to go into any debate upon it myself, I will ask its consideration in the House in order that it may go to the Senate.
Mr. THAYEIR. I object and insist on regular the order.
Mr. RASSON. I will say that under the circumstances, as general debate on the special order is going on, it is really important that this bill should be disposed of. The bill can be disposed of in ten or 15 minutes.
Mr. THAYER. I would not object if the committee could give me any guarantee that this bill would not occupy more than half an hour.
Mr. KASSQN. I do not propose to debateit.
Mr. THAYISR. I must insist on the regular order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will give notice to the House that at half past 3 o’clock the Kentucky delegation will announce the death of the late Mr. GRIDER. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. The SPEAKER. The Chair asks leave of absence for one week for Mr. BERGEN." No objection was made, and the leave of ab sence was granted. GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. The House then resumed the consideration of House bill No. 1143, to provide for the more effectual government of the insurrection ary States, upon which Mr. BANKs was entitled to the floor.
Mr. BROMWELL. I would inquire of the Gentfrom Massachusetts if it will make any difference to GenlGrant whether the bill is amended in the respect he speaks of or not? It strikes me, if it is to grind GenlGrant between the upper and nether millstone, any amendment that may be made as to the character of powers conferred upon these military officers cannot relieve him.
Mr. HISE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. BANKS. Certainly, if for a question only; I cannot yield for general remarks.
Mr. HISE. It would be necessary for me to make some preliminary observations.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM The PRESIDENT. A message in writing from the POTUS was communicated to the House by Mr. Moore, one of his Secretaries.
Skip Skip MESSAGE Fito M THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. MCDonALD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the senate had passed without amendment House bill No. 1144, making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the contin gent expenses of the HoRep of the U.S. for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867; also, House bill . 643, to alter the place of holding the circuit courts of the U.S. for the RhdIsland district, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. Also, without amendment. House bill No. 505, to authorize the trustees of the Foundry (Methodist Episcopal) church to sell and convey square No. 235 of the city of Washington; Also, Senate bills of the Eio. titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested: An act (S.No.550) entitled “An act authorizing the construction of a jail in and for the of Columbia, ” approved June 25, 1866; all An act (S.No.532) for the relief of the inhabitants of cities and towns upon the public lands. ADMISSION OF NEBRASRA.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move that the House now take up from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 456, for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, for the purpose of putting it on its passage.
The SPEAKER. That is a privileged question, and the bill is now before the House. The Clerk will read the message from the Senate. The message from the Senate was read, as follows: Ordered, That the Secretary communicate the bill for the admission of the State of Union, Nebraska into the with the message of the President returning the same with his objections, and the proceedings of the Senate thereon, to the HoRep.
The SPEAKER. The Chair now lays before the House the message of the President communicating his objections to this bill.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I rise to a question of order. The message of the President havin been directed to the Senate of the E. States, in which the bill originated, and it having been read there, it is not required under the Constitution that it should be read in the House.
The SPEAKER. By the Constitution the message of the President must be spread on the Journal of the body to which he sends back the vetoed bill. The bill with the objections of the President is before the House; it is, however, for the House to say whether it desires the reading of the message.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I desire the reading of it:
Skip Skip Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Upon that question I demand the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The SPEAKER. The Constitution requires that this question shall be taken by yeas&nays.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were yeas 120, nays 43, not voting 28; During the roll call the following announcements were made: Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. My colleagues, Mr. AMEs and Mr. ALLEY, have been called away from the city on business. If they had been Present they would have voted for the bill. Mr. GLOSSBRENNER. My colleague, Mr. ANCONA, is absent on account of indisposition. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I desire to state that Mr. HUBBARD, of NewYork, has been called home on account of the death of his father. Mr. GRINNELL. I desire to state that my colleague, Mr. HUBBARD, is still detained from his seat by illness. If he were Present he would vote for the bill. When the call of the roll had bgen concluded, The SPEAKER said: The Clerk will call my name as a member of the House. The clerk called the name of Schuyler CoLFAx, and Mr. Col.FAx voted “ay.”
The SPEAKER. On the question: “ shall this bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the President?” the yeas are 120 and the nays 44. 2/3rds of the House having upon this reconsideration agreed to the passage of the bill, and it being certified officially that a similar majority of the Senate, in which the bill originated, have also agreed to its passage, I do therefore, by the authority of the Constitution of the U.S., declare that this bill, entitled “An act for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, ” has become a law. [The announcement of the result of the vote was received with applause both on the floor and in the jENROLLED BILL SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title, when the Speaker signed the same, namely: An act 'H.R.No. 1144) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the contingent expenses of the HoRep of the U.S. for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
The SPEAKER. The Chair asks indefinite leave of absence for his colleague, {Mr. WASHBURN] No objection was made and leave was granted. GOVERNMENT OF INSURIRECTIONARY STATES. The House then resumed the consideration of House bill, No. 1143, to provide for the more effectual government of the insurrectionary States; upon which Mr. NIBLAck was entitled to the floor.
Mr. NIBLACK. I will yield for 5 minutes to the Gentfrom NewYork, {Mr. Roo!
Mr. AYER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. THAYER. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he has any reason to believe that the POTUS will approve of and cooperate with any plan embracing the constitutional amendment?
Mr. RAYMOND. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is Pressing me perhaps a little further than I care to be Pressed on such a point as that.
Mr. THAYER. I do not wish to Press the gentleman if he cannot answer.
Mr. RAYMOND. I do not know whether the gentleman insists, upon my setting before him and the House all the reasons which lead me to such a belief as I have exPressed; but I have no hesitation in saying to him and to the House that, in my judgment, a bill embracing the provisions I have indicated, if it should be passed by this House and the Sen. ate in a proper spirit and with a sufficient approach to unanimity, would obtain the assent of the President. That is my personal belief.
Mr. SPALDING. I desire to ask the Gentfrom NewYork whether he has become thoroughly satisfied that the pending bill cannot pass.
Mr. RAYMOND. I have become satisfied, Mr. iro that the pending bill, even if it should pass, will not pass. such a degree oflo as will make it acceptable to the country and effective as a law.
Mr. SPALDING. I mean by a constitutional vote of 2/3rds.
Mr. RAYMOND. I have my doubts whether it could; but even if it did that would not alter the case.