Mr. BENJAMIN. I desire to say in regard to the amendment I have offered, that I have no desire to interfere with those assessors and collectors who" have been appointed to fill vacancies caused by death, resignation, or any thng else that should entitle them in justice to receive their pay. But we know this very well, that persons who have been rejected by the Senate, who have not been able to command a single vote in that body for their confirmation, have been reappointed by the President, and are now discharging the duties of assessors and collectors under the internalrevenue law. Now, we all agree that the Senate is entitled I have not said what I to a voice in this matter; that the Senate is entitled to a say so as to who shall discharge the duties of these offices. The Senate has expressed its opinion in condemnation of many of these persons; but in spite of that expression of opinion the President has appointed them, and they are now discharging the duties of these offices. It is to prevent payment in such cases that I have offered this amendment. There is a case of the kind in my own district. An individual was appointed there during the session of the Senate at the last session of Congress. He failed to receive in favor of his confirmation a majority of the votes of the Senate; I am not certain that he received one vote. Yet immediately after the adjournment of the Senate he was reappointed and commissioned, and is today the collector of the district which I represent in this House. And other members here know of other cases of the kind, not only assessors and collectors, but many other officers. I have, however, offered my amendment to this appropriation, which is for the purpose of paying assessors and collectors, to prevent the payment of such officers as I havementioned.
Mr. O'NEILL. I desired the floor a few minutes ago, in order to say a few words in reply to my colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALI] on the other side of the House. It may be a little out of order for me to do so upon this amendment, and yet I may as well state to the House the difference, so far as Philadelphia is concerned, between the politi: cal appointments of Mr. Lincoln and those of the present Executive of this country.
Mr. STEVENS. I wish to ask for the enforcement of the rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Debate is closed upon the pending amendment.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I hope my colleague [Mr. O'NEILL] will be allowed to [ and that I may be allowed to clean imout. [Laughter]
The CHAIRMAN. It requires unanimous consent. No objection was made.
Mr. O'NEILL. What Abraham Lincoln did during his administration, and what An drew Johnson has been doing during the last campaign, in the matter of political appointments, are entirely different things. The late POTUS, I do not think, ever permitted or ever acquiesced in any such acts as have been performed under the present Executive. For instance, the present SecyNavy within the past few months permitted a board of naval officers, 2 of them officers of the line, and another an officer of the engineers of the Navy, to sit in judgment upon the political status of the working men and master mechanics employed in the Philadel phia navy yard. He permitted these officers officially to ask the question whether these looogr owiorking men and master mechanics to a political organization opposed to the policy of AndrewJohnson. I do not know whether the present President ordered that to be done. But I do know that those officers of the Navy, departing from the true line of their duty; obliged, I have no doubt, to depart from it by an order; did sit as a board and inquire of master mechanics and others whether they belonged to the organization which elected radical Republican members to this House, and whether they marched in the processions of that organization. These inquiries were made a matter of record, which record I believe is now in the Navy Dept.
Mr. RANDALL, Mr. of Pennsylvania. Chairman, in repl
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I hope I shall be allowed the privilege
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can only proceed by unanimous consent. Is there any objection?
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I condemn as much as my colleague the act to which he alludes
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I object to the genofrom Pennsylvania proceeding out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The remarks of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania are out of order, objection being made. Mr. oS.of Pennsylvania. to amenil by striking out the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order. An amendment to the amendment is now pending.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I thought there was an understanding that I should be permitted to reply to the remarks of my coleague.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must rule that debate is out of order. The question being taken on the amendment to the amendment, it was agreed to.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word. I wish to say in reply to my colleague, that I condemn just as much as he does the sitting of that board, which emanated from the authority of the commandant of the }. a Republican; and so soon as the Navy dept was informed of the matter an order was issued countermanding the action of the commodore of the yard.
Mr. O'NEILL. I desire to say that this board did sit, and that after its sitting these working men and master mechanics and others were discharged for the reason I have mentioned.
Mr. FARNSWORTH, I rise to a point of order; there is an amendment pending, and debate is exhausted upon both.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I o: have a new amendment to strike out the ast word.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] was voted upon; and the question recurring on the amendment, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania moved an amendment to the amendment. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania is in order.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvaia. Now, desire to say one word as to what Abraham Lincoln and those under him did in that navy ard, during the period of }. his presidency. Abra Lincoln wrote with his own hand a letter, which was read individually to the workmen of that yard, demanding that at the election then about to take place I should be beaten at all hazards. Gentlemen may talk about men in high position descending to small things. Why, sir, I felt humiliated to think that, the POTUS should have done such an act. Again, sir, my colleague is perfectly well aware that during the Administration of President Lincoln a secret committee was organized in the city of Philadelphia, headed by an exsheriff, to inquire into the political sentiments of every man, woman, and child holding any employment under the Government; and according to my information every woman who had a brother who was a Democrat was deprived of employment as a sewing woman in the U.S. arsenal at Philadelphia. Yet my distinguished friend [Mr. BINGHAM] has the effrontery he will pardon the expression, for I entertain for him great respect to complain of AndrewJohnson because he has made removals from office for political reasons. I am only sorry that he ää not carry the war further into Africa than he did, and see how the action of Abraham Lincoln would stand the test which he would apply to the course of AndrewJohnson. The secret committee to which I have alluded did not emanate from any Dept: it had no legal authority whatever; it originated in a desire to persecute people for opinion's sake: and at that time my respected colleague was very ready to be the recipient of all the political benefits arising from that sort of a crusade.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I yield gu
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, I was very to my colleague.much pleased to hear my colleague say that he I felt humiliated at the fact of this board sitting in the Philadelphia navy yard. I could name the gentlemen who were upon that board distinguished officers of the Navy, some of whom had fought the battles of their country upon the sea. Not one of those men dared to protest officially against the requirement of this duty which they were called upon to perform. I will say here boldly that I consider it a high misdemeanor on the part of the SecyNavy, or any other officer, to call naval officers from the discharge of their legitimate duties to perform the miserable work which was required of these officers. Whether they were ordered to do it by the President or the SecyNavy or the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks or by the commandant of the yard, all I have to say is that the record of their examination into the political status of the employees in that yard is now on file in the Navy Dept, and those who did not pass the examination satisfactorily to the political exactions of the Johnson party were discharged, although many of them but one year before had successfully passed a competitive examination, open to the whole world, for the places which they filled.
Mr. o'. of Pennsylvania. And some of the men who had beef indicted or stealing were reinstated.
Mr. STEVENS. I must rise to a point of order, for the purpose of putting a stop to this discussion, which is clearly out of order.
Mr. O'NEILL. I want to say a word in reply to my colleague.
Mr. SPALDING. I hope Pennsylvania may have the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Subjects have been brought here and discussed which have nothing to do with this bill; and the rule is, in the 5 minutes debate, that gentlemen should be confined strictly to the pending amendment.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I thought my colleague was always in favor of a “scrim mage, “ and I hope he will not stop this one.
Mr. STEVENS. I insist the debate shall be confined to the pending amendment. The . The Chair sustains the point of order. The question recurs on the amendment of the Gentfrom Missouri, [Mr. BENJAMIN]
Mr. LeBLOND. I rise to a point of order. While the amendment of the Gentfrom Missouri was pending, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania moved to amend it by striking out the last 2 words; and the question now is, therefore, not upon the amendment of the Gentfrom Missouri, but on the amendment to the amendment moved by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understood the Gentfrom Pennsylvania offered his amendment merely for the purpose of making some remarks. Indeed, when it was offered no amendment was in order.
Mr. LeBLOND. I understand when a motion is made the Chair is not to determine whether it is made simply for delay, or for the purpose of speaking on it, or made in good aith. I. understand that to be the jurisdiction of this House. I insist, therefore, on the question being presented to the House in its proper form.
The CHAIRMAN. If the Gentfrom Pennsylvania will say that he made the amendment in good faith the Chair will put it to the house.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I did make my amendment in good faith, and I thought I had one minute left. [Laughter] If not, I will withdraw my amendment to the amendment. The amendment, as amended, was then agreed to.
Mr. LeBLOND. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last 2 words.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand the parliamentary rules the gentleman’s amendment is not in order, Mr. STEVENS. The words cannot be ! So, if we give him this $50,000, according to serted.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment, as amended, has been adopted, and is not subject to further amendment.
Mr. LeBLOND. I understand the amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania was still pending, and hence the other proposition could not be offered.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. The Chair has decided, and I object to further debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not want to be rude to gentlemen. He is only temporarily in the chair and he hopes the gentlemen will confine themselves to the rule.
Mr. LeBLOND. I take an appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment as amended were ndopted. From that decision the gentleman takes an appeal. While the question was being put to the House
Mr. LeBiose continued to seek the floor, but was not recognized by the Chair. The decision of the Chair was sustained.
Mr. LeBLOND. I yield to power but not justice.
The Clerk read as follows: Contingent expensesof the Treasury Dept. In the office of the SecyTreasury: For copying, labor, binding, sealing ships' registers, translating foreign languages, advertising, and extra clerk hire for preparing and collecting information to be items, $10l, a0i0do, beforeCongress, and for miscellaneous For temporary clerks in the Treasury Dept: Provided, That the SecyTreasury be, and he is hereby, authorized, in his discretion, to classify the clerks authorized according to the character of their services, $50,000.
Mr. MAYNARD. I move, in line 370, after the word “services, ” to insert the following: And in his discretion to employ ladies when their services can be made equally profitable. I do not propose to argue this amendment. It is a subject we have all had before us. I leave it to the good sense and good feeling of the House. It gives to the SecyTreasury, in expending this sum of $50,000 for temporary clerks, the discretion to employ ladies when they can be employed as econom ically as men. It has been tried for several years and in the main has worked well.
Mr. HILL. I would inquire of the gentleman what information he has as to the manner in which the money has been expended. A resolution was introduced a few days ago calling for that information, but I am not aware that it has been replied to.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I am not aware that any official information is before the House. I get my information from the persons about the Dept who say they know that the money has been distributed in this manner. So, I hope this giving the Secretary money to distribute to his clerks according to his discretion will be stopped.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to say that I said nothing of the sort? Here the hammer fell] The question was upon the motion of Mr. FARNsworth, to strike out the paragraph.
Mr. BINGHAM. I move to amend the paragraph proforma, by striking out the last word. It was very far from my purpose, when I introduced the proviso to the amendment of the Gentfrom Missouri, [Mr. BENJAMIN,) to excite or authorize any such remarks on the part of any gentleman as have just fallen from the lips of my friend over the way, [Mr. LeBLoND] On the contrary, lest there might be some apology or excuse for such utterances as the gentleman has just made, I qualified my meaning by my own language so as to exclude any conclusion like that which the gentleman has announced. I stated that where the POTUS makes a removal from office corruptly and for personal ends he was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, and that the Constitution charged us upon our oaths to make that inquiry and decide that question.
Mr. LeBLOND. Will my colleague permit me to ask him a question?
Mr. LeBLOND. Does my collcague wish it understood that a removal from office for political reasons merely is one of the class he speaks of?
Mr. BINGHAM. I have made no intimation that would even justify such an inquiry. So far as I am personally concerned I excluded all inquiries of that sort. But as the question comes up, I am free to say further and if anybody will persuade me that I am wrong in my judgment at any time, upon this or any other question, I will change it I am free to say that where the removal is made merely because of personal considerations toward the party removed, and not with any corrupt motive on the part of the Executive, the removal being made in accordance with the continued practice of the Government from its organization to. the time, it would not in my opinion be a high crime or misdemeanor. Is my colleague [Mr. LeBLoNill satisfied?
Mr. CHANLER. Will the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] yield to me for a moment?
Mr. BINGHAM. No, sir. I o introduced that for the purpose of preventing what I believed would be a flagrant violation of the written text and spirit of the Constitution of my country. I was provoked into these other remarks in the course of the debate, yet I intend to ask no pardon, to offer no apology for what I have said upon that subject. But I will take care that no man shall make a speech for me, or put into my mouth words which I never uttered or intended to utter. I think it would be well when this bill comes into the House to amend this portion of it the amendment of my friendfrom Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] so as to make it conform to the exact words of the Constitution. Gentlemen may say that it would be nugatory. I admit that it would be unless we proceed with the legislation already inau gurated to determine by law the legal effect of the words in the Constitution. I have said this much to vindicate my own position, and to correct the impression which might otherwise be produced by the remarks made by my colleague, [Mr. LeBLoND] I now withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Mr. CHANLER. I renew the amendment. Mr. Chairman, in the remarks which I made in regard to the original motion of the Gentfrom Missouri the same question arose as to the patronage of the Administration. With such patronage, whether it be in the hands of the Executive, or directly in the hands of the people's representatives in Congress, I wish to have nothing to do.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to a point of order. I must insist that this debate is entirely out of order. My amendment has no political bearing whatever.
Mr. CHANLER. I am not speaking on any political question.
The CHAIRMAN. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CHANLER] will confine himself to the amendment, which is to strike out the word “dollars.”
Mr. CHANLER. of the whole paragraph as proposed to be amended. The paragraph was read.
Mr. I modify my amendment, and move to amend by striking out all after the word “employ.”
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will proceed in order.
Mr. CHANLER. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment. The question then recurred on Mr. FARNsworth's amendment, and it was agreed to.
Mr. MOI&RILL asked and obtained unanimous consent to return to the following para graph: For rent, dies, paper, and so forth, for stamps and incidental expenses, including the cost of subscriptions, and so forth, of such numbers of copies of internalrevenue records and customs journals thaes the SecyTreasury may deem necessary to supply the revenue offices, $250,000.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the words “and so forth” in lines 348 and 350, and also in i. 350 and 351 to strike out “In ternal Revenue records and customs journals, ” and to insert in lieu thereof, “Internalreve nue Record and Custom Journal, ” it being a newspaper published in NewYork.
The Clerk read as follows: For compensation of additional clerks in the Gene ral Land Office, under the act of 3d March, 1855 granting bounty land, and for laborers &mployed therein, $58, 540: provided, That the Secyinterior, the at hisdiscretion, shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to use any portion of said appropriation for piece work, or by the day, week, month, or year, at such rate or rates as he exceeding may deemjust and fair, not a salary of $1, 20oper annum.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. lowing amendment: PArdodvitdheedf, oflulorwthinerg,: That said work shall be given only to persons in indigent circumstances, and to soldiers and to widows of soldiers who served in the oUnnliyonbyArmy during the late rebellion, and to be done the employee in person. I do not intend to take up the time of the House with any lengthy remarks on the subject. I wish to correct an abuse I understand to exist relative to the service contemplated by this section. I hear, sir, that persons obtain work under that section and sub let it so that they are able to make quite a sum of money, and are thus enabled to travel for pleasure and to spend a considerable portion of the summer at the springs. I know that persons, competent, to Fo the service, widows of soldiers who fell at Gettysburg, have been turned away after repeated efforts to procure some portion of this work to pay their daily board. I think I can assure the House, if proper investigation be made, it will be found that persons not at all in indigent circumstances, who have friends high in office, are receiving most of this work, for which they are receiving high compensation. I have for this reason moved the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I believe what the gentleman says about the employment of clerks, and it is true in regard to all of the Depts. I believe a great many who do not need it are appointed. A great many are appointed because members of Congress insist upon the employment of their friends; and they are employed without regard to their merits and necessity. I suppose it is so with regard to those who have been appointed at the suggestion of members on the other side of the House, as we have no power of appointment. It has been the practice, and I do not see how the ComAppropriat can refuse to pay those who are there under the law. We Inust make the appropriation if they are there according to the law.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I beg leave to correct the gentleman; it is not to refuse to pay but to limit the employment to persons in indigent circumstances and soldiers and the widows of soldiers.
Mr. STEVENS. I suppose they will say anyone is indigent who wants money. [Laughter]
Mr. GRINNELL. I move to strike out the following: Bureau of statistics: furFnoitrucroen, tcinagrpenetts, efxitptienngseusp, nfialemse, ly: laborers, office items, $4,000 and miscellaneous
The Clerk read as follows: For compensation of the Secretary or War, Asst Secretaries of War, solicitor, chief clerk, and the clerks, messenger, asst messengers, and laborer in his office, $51, 380.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to insert the word “Secretary” instead of “Secretaries.” I do not suppose there is any necessity for 2 Asst Secretaries of War.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to strike out the word “solicitor.”
Mr. FARNSWORTH, I move to strikeout this item under the head of “Post Office dept:” For additional and temporary clerks, $40,000. I would like to understand the reason for the employment of these additional clerks, and what reason there is for employing more clerks in the postoffice Dept than they had before the war. During the war they were employing not so many on account of?. postoffices being closed in all the southern part of the country. Now, I suppose the postoffices are reopened and the post routes restored, but there is yet no addition, as I conceive, to the duties of the Post Qffice Dept beyond what they were before the wal. I know it is the I offer the fol custom of the heads of the Depts to increase their estimates from year to year. If you give them the right to employ additional clerks this year they send in an estimate for more the next year. They always increase but never diminish their demands.
Mr. STEVENS. This is the usual appropriation. year. The Dept always finds it convenient to employ others than the regular clerks from time to time.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think my friendfrom Pennsylvania is mistaken. This has been going on for the last year or two, but I do not think a precedent can be found for it before the war. The excuse for the last year and the ear before was the additional labor in the ost Office Dept, in consequence of reopening ooffices and post routes throughout the South. Now, I admit that they are entitled to all the clerks they had when all the postoffices in the country were in operation, but I see no necessity for more. The question being taken on the amendment, it was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows: For compensation of ComrAg. cehmiepflocyleersk, entomologist, chemist, and the clerks and in his office, $38,020
Mr. MAYNARD. I move to insert after the word. “chemist” the words “and assist. ants.”. I am aware that this Dept of Agriculture is in a little bad odor with this body, and perhaps elsewhere, but that it is a most important Dept in the economy of our Government I have long been satisfied. And there is no branch of it I think of more importance than the chemist's laboratory. At present the laboratory is confined to a very small, dark, unhealthy room, hardly sufficient for a private gentleman to conduct experiments as an amateur. The amount of appa ratus is also very small and wholly insufficient. The principal chemist is expected, as some one has expressed it, to be “his own glass holder and bottle washer, ” and perform all the manual operations without assistance. The chem ist of the Dept ought to have leisure for a many other things than the mere mani pulation of the laboratory. This dept of agricultural chemistry connected with the Dept of Agriculture should, in my opinion, be enlarged and made more serviceable and effective than it now is. In order to do that it is necessary to give the chemist at least 2 assts, and I think we might as well make the prevision to that effect at this point in this bill as at any other. I do not desire to detain the committee by enlarging on this subject. It is one of not very lively interest, I am aware, but one of great practical importance to a great number of agricultural people. The amendment was not agreed to.
The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read as follows: For purchaseand distribution of valuable seeds, namely: For purchase of cereal, vegetable, and flower seeds, and for labor in putting up seeds, seed bags, and miscellaneous items, $80,000: provided, That the ComrAg shall only purchaseand distribute, with the fund herein appropriated for that purpose, such seedsas are rare and uncommon to the country or such as can be made more profitable by frequent changes from one part of our own country to another.
Mr. WENTWORTH, I think there should be another proviso to this paragraph. I there. fore move to amend it by adding the following: And providedfurther, That he shall purchase seeds in this equntry, only for distribution in foreign countries, and that he shall distribute in this country only seeds purchased in foreign countries. I have, as an agriculturist, been familiar with this Dept of Agriculture from its origin. I think it has gone far beyond the original intention of the agriculturists who labored for its establishment.
Mr. BIDWELL. I would suggest to the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WENTwoBTh] that he can accomplish his object better upon It has been going on from year to another bill, upon the bill for the reorganization of the Agricultural Dept.
Mr. DAWES. And I would suggest another amendment to this effect; that the beans which have already been left with members be returned. [Laughter]
Mr. ASHLEY., of Ohio. I 2nd that amendment.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I very frequently find that I have been sending home to my constituents seeds that can be bought anywhere in the West. Now, I do not censure the present ComrAg for this. All other Commissioners of Agriculture have done the same thing, and the present Commissioner is expected to continue doing what they did. I find, upon going to the seed dept, especially in the spring of the year, the inhab itants of this city and the neighboring country up there begging for seeds. A great many of them have learned to go there to get their supply of seeds from the Dept. Yet I am not one who entertains the opinion of the present Commissioner which seems to be entertained by many gentlemen in this House. I think he is a very worthy gentleman, one well qualified for the place he occupies. I jk'. will comply with any restrictions or limitations which we may apply. Those of us who have paid any attention to this subject certainly know that great abuses have crept into that Dept, abuses which the Commissioner may not feel authorized to remove at his own instance.
Mr. MAYNARD. I wish to call the attention of the gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. WExt worth to this fact, that different portions of our country with different climates and different soils require different seeds. Those that flour ish very well in one locality will not flourish in another. By changing seeds from one part of the country to another, their growth is vastly improved. For example, the growth of wheat in our country has been almost entirely reno vated, once if not twice, within a few years past in that way. That feature of the Agricultural Dept, the transmission of seeds from one portion of the country to another, has been of great service. i. WENTWORTH. I think I understand this subject as well as the Gentfrom Tennessee, [Mr. MAYNARD,) for I have thoroughly investigated it. The people of the North are raising and sending seeds all through the country, North and South and the people of the South are raising seeds. You can buy almost anywhere such seeds as are required in this country. But I have no objection to the purchase of foreign seeds for this country, or the purchase of seeds in this country for foreign countries.
Mr. STEVENS. I know that every year some assault is made upon this Dept of Agriculture. I know also that there is no branch of this Government in which the peole generally take so much interest as in this dept. The distribution of seeds especially is valued very highly in the agricultural portions of the nation. I do not know anything in which my constituents feel more interest than they do in getting a change of seeds even from portions of our own country. Transferring.]". one locality to another, as the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARn) has well said, is a very excellent thing, having very often a most remarkable renovating effect. If you strike out this appropriation, therefore, you strike out that which is very much desired by all the agriculturists of Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. I know that in the distribution of these seeds there are many things that look frivolous. There are somethings done, I suppose, to please the ladies, and somethings to please the gardeners; yet this distribution of seeds is all very useful, and I do not think that heretofore there has been any abuse in this matter except such as is incident to all human affairs. I believe that this distribution of seeds, together with all the other operations of the Dept of Agriculture, has been of great public advan tage, and the Dept ought to be cherished for the benefit F.public at large. Although it is easy to ridicule a few items introduced in this bill, yet I think that these appropriations for the benefit of the agricultural interests of the country are of great importance. The dept of Agriculture has been so conducted that it has proved more valuable than I ever expected it to be.
Mr. BIDWELL. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word. Notwithstanding all the embarrassments and imperfections that may be connected with the operations of the Dept of Agriculture, I think we ought not to do anything which may have the effect of crippling it and marring still further its efficiency. I believe that this dept might be and should be reorganized and made more efficient. It is a Dept in whose operations the entire country takes an interest and a pride. The proposition of the Gentfrom Illinois is one which cannot be introduced here so as to be made effectual and practical. There is no doubt that seeds can be purchased in Europe and introduced in this country to very great advantage; and the practice should be continued. I think, also, th. it is of advan tage to purchase seeds in our own country and send them to Europe, exchanging them perhaps for European seeds. It is also desirable to exchange the seeds of one part of our country for those of another portion. But the necessary legislation for carrying out this object cannot be properly embodied in a brief amendment to an appropriation bill. We cannot in this hasty manner prescribe the necessary legislation as a guide for the ComrAg, so that the object we have in view may be put into practice. We had better allow the clause of the bill to stand as it is, and let a bill be introduced hereafter for the reorganization of that Dept. This is myj.On the matter. I hope that the amendment will not prevail.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would like to ask the Gentfrom California [Mr. Bidwell] a question: is there not as much difference between the crops of his State and those of mine as there is between the crops of either of our States and those of any country in Europe?
Mr. BIDWELL. Oh, yes, sir. And I believe that the ComrAg ought to require every person upon the Pacific coast to whom seeds are sent, to send in return a certain quantity of seeds raised in that region. In other words, seeds raised in the Atlantic States should be distributed on the Pacific coast, and those raised on the Pacific coast should be distributed in the States of the east. There are great advantages in exchanging seeds, as I know by experience. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I renew the amendment; and I desire to say that I trust nothing I have said may be construed as reflecting in any way upon the Dept of Agriculture, and least of all upon the Commissioner, although I think that great abuses have crept into the Dept with reference to the purchase of American seed for American distribution. But, as the Gentfrom California, [Mr. Bip well,) who is the chairman of the ComAg, and no doubt understands this subject thoroughly, has declared his intention or willingness to introduce a bill for the reor ganization of this Dept, a measure which will provide a cure for existing abuses and secure the intended efficiency of this branch of the governmental administration, I am willing to withdraw my amendment. I shall look to him to introduce a proper measure for rem edying alloects.
Mr. BIDWELL. I pledge myself to the gentleman to usemy urgent exertions to accomplish that end.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Then I withdraw the amendment to the amendment, and also the original amendment.
Mr. FARNSWORTH, I move to amend by striking out in the 786th line the word “ 80 ” and inserting “ 60;” so that the clause will read: For purchase of cereal, vegetable, and flower seeds, and for labor in putting up seeds, seedbags, and miscellaneous items, $60,000. This will make the appropriation correspond in amount with that made last year.
Mr. BIDWELL. I trust the gentleman will give us some reason why this amendment should be adopted.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. 60,000 dollars was considered sufficient last year; and I do not see why the same amount should not be enough now.
Mr. BIDWELL. I think that $80,000 was the amount last year.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. The document in my hand shows that the appropriation last year for this item was $60,000. This year the amount called for by the estimates of the Commissioner was $90,000. The committee reduced it from $90,000 to $80,000, striking off $10,000; and fdesire the ComWhole shall reduce it to the appropriation of last year. It will be observed by the House that these estimates are increasing from year to year. If Congress gives every time they ask all they ask, they will run up 1000s every year. It is our duty to keep them in bounds. I wish to keep this within the bounds of last year. My proportion of seeds under that appropriation is all I ask.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend the amendment by reducing the sum to $40,000.
Mr. SPALDING. I move that the committee now rise. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and
The SPEAKer having resumed the chair, Mr. LAwkENCE, of Pennsylvania, reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union having had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and particularly House bill No. 896, making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1868, had made sundry amendments thereto. OCCUPATION OF SAN JUAN.
Mr. DENNY, 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 this can be done compatibly with the public interest, a copy of all correspondence between the Government of the U.S and Her Britannic Majesty's government on the subject of the joint occupancy of the island of SanJuan, in Washington Territory. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to move to take up House bill No. 623, to enable the States lately in rebellion to regain their privileges in the Union, for the purpose of offering some amendments and having them printed. It is an important bill lying over from the last session, and ought to be taken up and acted on after the holidays.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to postpone all the preceding special orders. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I present certain amendments to the bill and move that they be printed. The motion was agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. JOHN W. For NEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had framed a JtResolution (S.R.No. 146) for the relief of Charles Clark, mar shal of the U.S. for the district of Maine, in which he was directed to request the concurrence of the House. ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR TOMORROW.
Mr. HALE. I ask unanimous consent that the House devote tomorrow to the consideration of the President's annual message, in ComWhole on the state of the Union, and that no other business be transacted. Several MEMBERs. Oh, that will not do.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope we will have no such understanding. If there is no quorum here that will be the fact, but I object to losing another day in addition to the 2 weeks' recess.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As chair man of the ComWhole on the state of the Union, I desire to say that there are many gentlemen, some. I believe, who desire to make speeches; and I hope unan imous consent will be given to devote tomor row to speech making. We lose no time by it.
Mr. STEVENS. Suppose we say tomorrow and during the vacation. [Laughter]
The SPEAKER. That will not be in order, as the 2 Houses have resolved not to be in session.
Mr. SPALDING and Mr. FINCK objected to making the order.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had exam. ined and found truly enrolled a bill (S.No.92) to amend an act entitled “An act granting lands to the State of Oregon to aid in the construction of a military road from Eugene City to the eastern boundary of said State;” when
The SPEAKer signed the same. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.
Mr. HAYES, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the ComPrintg under the law: reRpeosrtolved. That, the usual number of copies of the of the Librarian of Congress for the present session be printed for the useof the House. U.S. TROOPS IN MEXICO.
Mr. RANDALL, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate with the Hpuobulsiec, iinfteinrehstis, aonpyinfiuornt, hneor ti, ninfocromnation in regard to the occupation of the Mexican Territory by the troops of the U.S. which hmeesmsaaygehave received since he sent to this house his of the 8th instant.
Skip Skip LEAVE OF ABSENCE. On motion of Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts, leave of absence was granted to his colleague, Mr. Hooper, who had been called home on account of death in his family, And then, on motion of Mr. FINCK, (atten minutes before 4 o'clock p.m.,) the House adjourned.
Skip Skip PETITIONS. The following petitions were presented under the By Manrd. rHeAfeYrrEeSd to the appropriate committees:. The petition ofernst F. Klein schmidt, of Hamilton county, Ohio, for the return of 1250 paid to the collector of the 2nd district of hio at a tax sale made without authority of law." By Mr. STOKES: A petition from a portion of the loyal colored, men of Tennessee, asking for justice and equal rights.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. THURSDAY, December 20, 1866. Prayer by Rev. A. WRIGHT, of Fort Lara mie, Dakota Territory. The Secretary proceeded to read the Jour nal of yesterday. After the reading had continued for ten minutes, Mr. WILSON. I move that the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with: The most of it is taken up with the record of the yeas&nays on motions to adjourn.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do not see how any action of Congress can be had on the sending of an anonymous letter to members of congress, or to the POTUS, or to the judges of the SCOTUS Those things are very common, I am sorry to say. It is an outrage, but perhaps one which Congress is incompetent to correct. I cannot imagine by what legislation they can provide practically against it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have asked for no legislation.
Skip Skip PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. Mr. RAMSEY presented the petition of clerks of inspectors of provisions and clothing at navy yards, praying for an increase o compensation; which was referred to the ComNavAffrs. Mr. VANWINKLE. I present the petition of William T. Connell, John Keplinger, and Isaac Conrad, 3 WestVirginia soldiers who enlisted in August, 1861, but within a month prior to their being mustered in were taken risoners, and were held as prisoners until anuary, 1863. They say that the accounting officers decide that they cannot get their pay for the time they were prisoners without the action of Congress, and they therefore petition Congress for pay as privates from August 17, 1861, to January 9, 1863. I move its reference to the ComMilAffrs . The motion was agreed to. Mr. WADE. I present a memorial and resolutions, adopted by the Southern Republican Associations, at a meeting held at their rooms, No. 226 F street, Washington, DistCol, on the 8th of December, setting forth their views of what ought to be done and on what principle the State of Texas and the other rebel States ought to be reconstructed. The resolutions are long and volumine us, and I shall not undertake to read them through, nor even to state all the principles which they deem important. I move that the memorial and resolutions be referred to the ComReconstruction. The motion was agreed to. Mr. CATTELL presented the petition of carpet manufacturers of the city of Philadelphia, praying for the repeal of the 5%. internalrevenue tax on manufactures; which was referred to the ComFinance. ADMISSIONS TO THE FL00ft.
Mr. GRIMES. I offer the following order, which, under the rule, will lie over until the next meeting of the Senate: Ordered, That the 48 h standing rule of the Senate be, and the same is hereby, repealed and abolished.
Mr. GRIMES. It is the rule which excludes all persons from the floor of the Senate except persons therein named. Until within a few years it has been regarded as unsenatorial and improper for members of this body to violate that rule; but it has been relaxed to a very great extent, and every day some gentlemen see fit to introduce their friends upon the floor; others choose to abide by the rule. The result is, that when their friends, who think that they possibly ought to be admitted on the floor as well as other people, go into the gallery atd see persons who are not authorized on. floor, an explanation is required which is exceedingly undesirable for anyone to give. If we are going to have the rule relaxed in regard to one person, or the friends of one person, I want it relaxed as to all. I shall therefore call up this order at the next meeting of the Senate.
Mr. WILSON. I hope this matter will pass over for the present. JtResolution.
The PRESIDENT protempore. over under the rule. LIBRARIAN's REPORT.
Mr. ROSS. I move to take up the JtResolution that I introduced yesterday in relation tloionth.e government of the States lately in rebel
The PRESIDENT protempore. Reports from committees are 1st in order.
Mr. ANTHONY. The ComPrintg, to whom was referred a resolution to print the report of the Librarian of Congress and 500 copies for the use of the Library, have directed me to report it back without amendment and recommend its passage; and I ask for its present consideration. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, which is as follows: Resolved, That, the usual number of copies of report the of the Librarian of Congressfor the present year be printed for the information of the Senate, ra 500 extra copies for the use of the
Mr. SUMNER. Is that a report from a committee?
Mr. FESSENDEN. This is the report of the Librarian of Congress made to the ComLibrary, giving information which they called for and which is important. The resolution was adopted. GOVERNMENT OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, I suppose that by unanimous consent, the honorable Senfrom Kansas [Mr. Ross] may now be permitted to call up his resolution. I understand that he desires to call it up in the morning hour with a view to make a few remarks upon it, and as this is the last opportunity he will have before the recess, I think the Senate will be disposed to indulge him.
Mr. POMEROY. I hope the resolution may be allowed to be considered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If the Senator now makes his motion, I presume, by unanimous consent, it will be allowed.
Mr. POMEROY. It will occupy but a few moments.
The PRESIDENT protempore, No objection being interposed, the motion of the Senfrom Kansas [Mr. Ross] will be entertained. The motion is that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the JtResolution named by the Senfrom Kansas. Is there any objection to its present consideration.
Mr. HOWE. I shall not object to this motion of course under the circumstances, though it embarasses me somewhat to allow it to be done, considering that I was deeply interested in the business pending in the morning hour yesterday; but P shall waive that out of deference to the wishes of the Senfrom Kansas.
Mr. SUMNER. I will make a similar remark. I have given notice that I should call up this very day the JtResolution reported from the ComForRel, tendering the thanks of Congress to Cyrus W. Field; but as the Senfrom Kansas desires to occupy the time, I shall let that pass over until after the recess.
The PRESIDENT protempore. No objection being interposed, the resolution named by the Senfrom Kansas is before the Senate. It will be read.
The Secretary read it, as follows:JtResolution (S.R.No. 152)relating to the government of the States lately in rebellion. Wheres the amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., proposed at 39th Congress, the 1st session of the known as article 14th, and submitted to the several States for their accept: 9r rejection, not having been accepted by a stitutional majority of the States, and certain sections of the country oin rebellion being deemed er of fall thereby in dange alling into a state of anarchy, y reason of their having no legitimate civil govern ine t: Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congressassem od. That the JtComReconstruction be to inquire into the expediency of establish I desire to introduce a It liesing such regulations for the government of such districts lately in rebellion against the U.S. as shall have refusedor may hereafter refuse to adopt the said proposedamendment, as may be found necessary for the preservation of the peace and the protection of society and the interests of the government in those districts.
Mr. STEWART. I am instructed by the ComPubLands to report the following resolution: Resolved, That there be printed of the report of the ComrGLO, with the copies large connected map, 5,000 in the German language, 5,000 copies in the French language, 5,000 copies in the Englisih language,, and 5,000 copies in the for distribution in foreign countries; and 5,000 copies for the use of the Senate; and the SecyState is requested to cause the distribution of the aforesaid 20,000 Expositione, s tohrrsouucghho the repoemrsmonisssaiosninerh, oisf dthisecrPeatiroisn he may deem proper. The cost of this printing with the large connected map will be $27,297 25, according to the estimate of the Superintendent of Public Printing. That estimate includes the printin of 25,000 copies, 5,000 for distribution in this country, and 20,000 for distribution in foreign countries with the large map. The large map includes all that is in the other maps and excludes a variety of maps that accompany the report. The large map will be sufficient for all purposes. The translation is to be done in the nterior Dept, where there are several clerks competent to that duty, and of course that will involve no expense except the employment of their time.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair understands the Senfrom Nevada to ask for the present consideration of the resolution now reported by him from the ComPubLands. It requires unanimous consent to consider it at this time. Is there any objection?
Mr. WILSON. It is evident that it will lead to debate, and I hope it will not be pressed as another question is to come up very soon.
Mr. JOHNSON. I suppose the probability is that the expense will be $100,000 instead of $27,000.
Mr. WILSON. The proposition will evidently lead to debate.
Mr. STEWART. If the resolution is to be }olid.aysa.t all, it ought to be passed before the
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is there any objection to the consideration of the resolution at this time?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The resolution must lie over under the rules. NAVY REGISTER.
Mr. ANTHONY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Commit.tee on Printing: Resolved, That 1,000 extra copies of Navy Register the of the U.S. for the year 1867 be printed for the use of the Senate. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. POMERQY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.484) to secure the speedy construction of the Union Pacific railroad, southern branch, and telegraph line, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPacificRR, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a JtResolution (S.R.No. 153) authorizing the POTUS to prevent the infliction of corporeal punishment in the States lately in rebellion.
Mr. GRIMES called for the reading of the resolution at length; and it was read.
Mr. JOHNSON. Is that offered for consideration now?
Mr. WILSON. No, sir; for the purpose of reference.
Mr. JOHNSON. Then I have no objection to its introduction. The JtResolution was read twice, and wood to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed.
Skip Skip ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERSoN, its Clerk, announced that The SPEAKer of the House had signed an enrolled bill (S.No.62) to amend an act entitled “An act granting lands to the State of Oregon to aid in the construction of a military road from Eugene City to the eastern boundary of said State;” and it was thereupon signed by the President protempore.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERson, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a 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. The message further announced, that the House had passed the JtResolution (S.R.No. 123) in relation to the settlement of the accounts of William P. Wingate, collector at the port of Bangor, Maine..House BILLS REFERRED. The following House bill and JtResolution were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below: A bill (H.R.No. 553) to amend section 2 of an act entitled “An act to authorize the Legislatures of the States of Illinois and Tennessee to sell the lands heretofore appropri ated for the use of schools in those States” to the ComPubLands. A 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 to the ComJudiciary. U.S. TRoops IN Missouri.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The hour has arrived for the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.
Mr. HENDERSON. With the permission of the Senfrom Ohio, who has charge of that business, I desire to state that I have just received a dispatch from the Governor of my State which makes it necessary, in my opinion, to offer a resolution of inquiry. I submit this resolution: Resolved, That the President be requested to inform the Senate whether since the 1stday of iS56, he has causedtroops I?ecember in the service of the U.S. to be marched to the interior of the State of Missouri, for any Fowhatever; and if so, that he communicate the reasons for such orders, and also whether such action has been taken on the applica: . of the Legislature or the Executive of said e. By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution.
Mr. HENDERSON. I have just received a dispatch from the Governor of the State, in the following words: JEFFERson City, Missouri, December19, 1866. GenlGrant has sent U.S. troops to Lexington. I have protestedagainst their presence there unless asked for by me. I will not submit to the interference with a matter of exclusive State jurisdiction. I ask Congress, if he does not remove them, to require him to do so. Correspondence by mail to Henderson. THOMAS C, FLETCHER. Governor of Missouri. To Senators HENDERSox and Brown of Missouri, und Representatives Blow, KELso, McClung, WANHorn, LoAN, BENJAMIN, and ANDERSON. Mr. President, I know nothing, of course, in regard to the matters upon which the dispatch is predicated. The Constitution requires that the President shall interfere upon the request of the Legislature, or, if the Legislature be not in session, on the request of the Executive of the State, in order to suppress domes tic violence. I suppose that the object of sending the troops there is merely to enforce obedience to the laws of the State. I understand that the State Executive feels himself perfectly capable of doing so, perfectly able to enforce obedience to the laws. The people of the State take it upon themselves so to do, and do not ask the interference of Federal troops. I desire merely to get the facts, because I do not know from the dispatch the Governor sends me what the facts are, and it is better that the President communicate them; and until he does communicate them, or until I receive a letter from the Governor, I am utterly unable to explain the reasons for his action. Of course there will be no objection to asking for the information.
Mr. DAVIS. I am no advocate for the enlargement of executive power, nor am I an advocate for the enlargement of congressional power. I want these branches of the Government to be restricted by the Constitution and to know no call except that which the Constitution makes. Now, if I understand the communication of the Governor of Missouri, which has been read by my honorable friend, he simply states the fact to be that the General in Chief of the U.S. ordered some government troops to be stationed at Lexington, and that he requested their removal and the President had not removed them.
Mr. HENDERSON. It was to suppress domestic violence.
Mr. DAVIS. I did not so understand the communication of the Governor.
Mr. DAVIS. I am not speaking of the news papers; I am speaking of the communication officially sent by the Governor of Missouri to her Senators. Does the Governor of Missouri intend to controvert the position that the POTUS has the perfect and the undeniable constitutional power to locate the troops of the U.S. in any State he may choose, and in any locality in any State? Is there any plainer principle of constitutional law than that? Was it ever thought of being controverted before? Are the times becoming so out of joint, so frenzied, so utterly mad, as deny propositions so unquestionably true as at? Mr. President, it is not my purpose to interfere in any way to prevent the object which the honorable Senfrom Missouri has in view. I merely state my understanding of the law that regulates the case as presented by the Governor of the State of Missouri. I have nothing more to say. 4
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, 1 of course cannot take up the time of the Senate now, because I have asked this only as a favor of the Senfrom Ohio, who has charge of the business regularly before the Senate. The Governor, I may state, cannot be expected to state all the facts connected with this matter in a telegraphic dispatch. He states that he has written to me. "I do not know the circumstances, nor has the Governor undertaken to communicate them to me. I suppose that this was not the case of a mere order that the troops should go to the city of Lexington, there to be stationed; and my friend is mistaken when he supposes that to be the purpose of the order. I find outside of this dispatch, in the newspapers, that they have been sent there for the purpose of suppressing domestic violence, that they have been ordered there for the purpose of enforcing obedience to the laws of the State, and that the Governor has protested against their interference.
Mr. DAVIS. Will the gentleman just allow me to make a suggestion?
Mr. DAVIS. The communication of the Governor of Missouri to my honorable friend, is not that the President had ordered those troops there, but that GenlGrant had sent them there.
Mr. DAVIS. That is the power which has made the order, but of course the General would act in subordination to the President.
Mr. HENDERSON. I suppose that there is no objection to the resolution, and I desire that it be passed. The resolution was agreed to. ADMISSION OF NEBRASRA. The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.456) for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The pending question is on the motion of the Senfrom Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKs] to postpone the further consideration of the bill to the 7th of January and make it the special order for that day.
Mr. WADE. If the Senator will allow me, I wish to ask him a question. If this amendment or any other amendment which may be made here should beingrafted on the constitution which Nebraska has presented with her application for admission, cannot the State after her admission alter it at any time? Can we make such a permanent regulation with regard to suffrage here that will continue against the will of the State after her admission?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I am very happy to an swer the question of my honorable friend. Speaking for myself. I have not a particle of doubt that we can. If we cannot, in what condition do we find ourselves? If we cannot admit States upon a condition, what becomes of our condition on the subject of slavery? If we have the power to provide that Kansas or Nebraska shall never set up slavery, have we not the power to provide that she shall never set up any other arbitrary or unjust or unequal distinction among her citizens?
Mr. WADE. I never supposed we could prevent a State setting up slavery unless by an alteration of the Constitution. Now, of course she cannot do it, because the Constitution for bids it. Before that time I supposed that she could.
Mr. WADE. I am willing to answer that. I do not think that the right of voting is like the right that a man has to personal liberty. I think it is subordinate perhaps to that; but undoubtedly I think it is right and proper that all mankind, certainly without any distinction of color, and perhaps without regard to sex, ought to have the right of voting. Iagree to that; but I know it has been the practice of all our governments to deny that right for certain political reasons that they believed justified them in doing so. It has been the habit of our government from its foundation, and it has met the approbation of all the just men in it up to a very recent period.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If my friend will allow me, I wish to ask him how can he ever have it determined whether he can impose such a condition or not unless we 1st make a law which shall propose such a condition? We can never reach the point of finding it out if we do not do that.
Mr. WADE. We cannot foresce exactly what the courts will do, who are supposed to have the construction of the constitution in the last resort, and even their decisions are enot like those of the Medes and Persians; they do not always stand. There is no such thing as absolute certainty. There is no test of the constitutionality of a law, perhaps, except it is the final decision of the court of last resort upon full deliberation.
Mr. SUMNER. Will my friend allow me to call his attention to the very enabling act. under which the people of Nebraska have acted? I find by referring to that that, it requires that the constitution shall provide by an article forever irrevocable without the consent of the Congress of the U.S. 3 different things: 1st, that slavery shall be prohibited; 2nd ly, that there shall be perfect toleration of religious sentiment; and 3rd ly, that the people inhabiting the Territory shall disclaim all right and title to the unappropri ated public lands.
Mr. WADE. I understand all those provisions.
Mr. SUMNER. The question is whether those conditions are not irrevocable.
Mr. SUMNER. Very well; let us add another to them.
Mr. WADE. They are in the nature of a compact between the people of the Territory when they apply and Congress who have made the proposition. They have agreed to frame their constitution upon that hypothesis, and although we could not bind them from here bingrafting upon their constitution any o provision as this, I have no doubt that we may make stipulations with regard to the public lands, because they have been in every constitution that ever has been made and admitted here, of the western States at least. But they should have been put into the enabling act. If at the time when we told them that on complying with the propositions we made in that act they should. admitted, we had said to them, “It shall be an irrevocable condition of your entering into this Union that you shall make a provision for the elective franchise, so that no person shall be excluded on account of color, ” and they had complied with it and placed it in their constitution in accordance with the requisition we made, then it would have partaken of the nature of a compact between the General Government and the people of the Territory, in such sort that I am by no means ready to pronounce that it would not be binding forever, except by the mutual consent of the parties that agreed to it. But this proposition stands in no such position. I wish the Senfrom Vermont would convince me that it does. I am perfectly willing that the proposition he has made, as I under stood him, should be placed upon this constitution, provided it can be done constitutionally. He aims at a thing that I am not averse to but I am averse to sacrificing the opportunity and doing a wrong to ourselves, to the people of the Territory, and to the gentlemen who are seeking seats upon this floor, upon what I fore See. never touch the rights of a man.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Then I wish to suggest to my friendfrom Ohio that if my amendment, being incorporated into this o should turn out to be unconstitutional it will not do any harm; the State will be in. Why does he object to it?
Mr. EDMUNDS. If the Senator will allow me, the objection to that is, that the theory upon which my amendment goes is, that having full power over the creation of new States we may create them upon such conditions as we please. Those conditions have force, not because that State having accepted them becomes willing or unwilling afterward to fulfill them, but because it is the paramount law of the land which operates upon every citizen in the new State. how are we to enforce the paramount law of the land other than as we enforce all other laws, by providing and penalties for its infraction? n that case a colored citizen of f. Nebraska and offering to vote, being refused, brings his action precisely as he would in Massachusetts or Vermont, against the polling officer, whatever his title may be, for a.to him a right, and goes to a jury of his country for damages. That is all the way men enforce their right to vote in our own States. Then in addition to that you proceed to punish the officer by fine and by imprisonment ordinarily, but not in this amendment, for violating the law. Therefore, this section of punishment is not offensive, or ought not to be offensive, to the people of Nebraska, because it being a part of the paramount law, the condition on which we create the State, we only punish the citizens of the U.S. who choose to violate the law.
Mr. WADE. I do not suppose that the senator wishes to put any more stringent provision into the constitution than the people of Nebraska themselves would have put in it probably if their attention had been called to it. They would not have gone on with all the provisions of a lawmaking penalties on that subject, but they would have declared proba bly that there never should be any discrimination on the subject of the franchise on account of color or race. You would be willing to trust that people with making their own penal laws to enforce a constitutional duty, I hope. Let us not be over jealous about these things. When you make it their duty, create it so in their constitution, you ought to have the charity to believe that that people will enact a law on the subject sufficient to enforce it; but when you undertake to specify severe penalties and force them on the people from the outset, it does seem to me they might think it was objectionable. I think a other would be just as well. I think we ought to trust the people with that. When you have made it their absolute duty to make a provision of law on that subject, who can doubt that they will do it?
Mr. MORRILL. I should like to ask the Senfrom Ohio whether it is his understanding, if this State should be admitted upon the condition stated in this amendment and the constitution sent back for ratification, as that amendment provides, the Senators elect in the mean time would have their seats on the floor of the Senate?
Mr. WADE. There are 2 propositions now pending an amendment to the constitution and an amendment to that amendment. One of them contemplates that it is to be sent back and the people there are to pass upon it. That is the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri. The amendment to that and the one I have been speaking of, if I understand it, only provides that they are accepted upon the condition that they shall make no discrimination, &c. That admits them at once. If it is a constitutional provision it makes it absolutely certain that they must assert it by penal law, and they are admitted at once. There is nothing else for them to do, only to come in and comply with the condition. The nature of the condition is one subsequent, if I may say so, instead of precedent. Then under that they would be admitted at once, but it would be the duty of the State to comply with the provision we haveingrafted upon the constitution as a condition. That is the way it stands. I have no objection myself to its being inserted, because if it should not be strictly constitutional, and I have my scruples about it, if it is ever, brought up before the courts to determine in the last resort, and they should determine it to be null and void, then we should have done all we can do in that direction, and have harmed nobody at any rate. On the other hand, if they determine that it is our right to do such a thing, then I would be glad to do it. That is the way I view it; but of course my assenting to it in that way amounts to no more than the assent of any other Senator. I cannot commit any part of the committee to it. I would not resist it. If we can be harmonized on this subject so that all can act together we shall accomplish a very great point, even beyond the bearings of this constitution itself.
Mr. JOHNSON. With or without the legislation of Congress?
Mr. HOWARD. I did not intend to speak again on this bill, but I do not feel like suffering the final vote to be taken upon it without ying some attention to [. the ground which has taken in the discussion by the Senfrom Wermont. if I understood the argument and observations of the Senator rightly, his principle is this: that under that clause of the Constitution which declares that the Congress may admit new States into this Union, it is competent for Congress to annex as fundamental conditions any requirements that congress may see fit, and on the consent of the people of the Territory to those conditions, if they are declared to be irrevocable, without the consent of Congress, they are to remain in force as law forever, or so long as Congress withholds its consent. I aim to state the proposition of the Senator fairly. if I fail to do so I wish he would correct me.
Mr. EDMUNDS. You have stated it exactly.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I am entirely willing that my honorable friendfrom Michigan should speak for his section of the great party to which we belong. I will speak for mine. My section of that great party has always believed in the power of Congress under the Constitution, making, under the Constitution, by its legislation, the supreme law of the land, which that same Constitution declares shall be higher and stronger than any State constitution or any State laws in all cases in which the general rights of the citizens of the U.S., as such citizens, are concerned; and I undertake to say in reply to my honorable friend, speaking for an humble but a somewhat older section of that party than he represents, because I believe Vermont got on the Republican plat. fo1rmo1s–ome considerable time before Michigan Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator will excuse me. Michigan has the precedence by several weeks. You were next in succession. [Laughter.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I beg to say that before that gallant and capital State of Michigan was born into this world the State of Vermont, by her legislative resolutions on these subjects, declared the very doctrines that I am contending for now.
Mr. HOWARD. The doctrines are old, but not the party.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Whig party of the State of Vermont traces a true and legitimate descent in the regular and hereditary way into the present Republican party. It is only a change of names with us, and not of principle. I do not know how it is in Michigan. not undertake to say. Now, to return to the question: my honorable friend says that this power on our part to impose conditions when we create that corpo ration which is called a State; that is, when we endow a society of men with certain political privileges of local government, does not exist, for the reason that if it did it might be abused; that is to say, he says if we have this power we have the power to say that females shall vote; we have the power to say how real estate shall descend; and we have the power, in short, to regulate the whole internal concerns of the State. I have been taught by an eminent jurist of this country, a Virginian, too, whose name was Marshall, once, I believe, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS I have no doubt my honorable friend has heard of him that the fact that a power might be abused was no argument whatever against the existence of such a power.
Mr. HOWARD. The Senator will excuse me for interrupting him. I deny the power. A thing which does not exist cannot be abused.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the motion to postpone the further consideration of this bill until the 7th day of January next and make it the special order at one o'clock on that day.
Mr. GRIMES. I think it is quite evident that we shall not be able to get to a vote on this question today, and it is very important, as this is our last sitting during the present year, that there shall be an executive session, in order that some confirmations may be made. I do not want to interfere with the course that the Senfrom Ohio has marked out for himself; but, if he will give his consent, I should like to move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. I understand there are 5 or 6 gentlemen who propose to speak on this question. Mr.o I hope the Senator will not make that motion until I am througH.R.WADE. Mr. President
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senfrom Pennsylvania give way to the Senfrom Ohio?
Mr. WADE. If the gentleman has got the floor I have nothing to say.
Mr. WADE. I hope the Senator will allow me one moment in explanation of that. He thinks that my predictions as to the population of these Territories were not well founded– that I stated it very large. I certainly announced what the Commissioner of Public Lands, who was very well acquainted with the subject, stated. It was the opinion of every body with whom I conversed, and it was the best light I could get at the time. But the amount of population that we expected then was interrupted and undoubtedly disappointed by the terrible Indian war that occurred about that time, driving a great many out of the territory, and drawing a great many into that war. I have no doubt that that had the effect to pre: vent those expectations being fulfilled. That is all I have to say on that subject. I repeat, what I have frequently said, that the population of Nebraska now is larger than Territories have usually had when they have been admitted, though not so large as I expected it would be at the time that enabling act was passed.
Mr. o Under what authority was that census taken?
Mr. WADE. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion on that point?
Mr. WADE. I believe it is not usual for us to commence to Joring Territories into the Union. As long as their people are content with their territorial condition and do not apply to be admitted, I do not think we take e initiative. But then the people of NewMexico are an unprogressive people; that territory has been a great while inhabited, long before Nebraska was ever heard of as a Territory and most of the people are Spanish. It does not fill up very rapidly. I do not suppose it has many more inhabitants now than it had 30 years ago. The simple answer to the suggestion, however, is that they have not apipl.ied to be admitted. BUCKALEW. The Senator has for gotten that I alluded to the fact that there was no formal application by these Territories for which he reported enabling acts in 1864.
Mr. There were petitions; and their Delegates urged it upon us over and over again in regard to both these Territories.
Mr. SAUISBURY. Mr. President, I wish to say something on the passage of this bill, but I know that at this present hour, 4 o'clock, it is utterly impossible to attract the attention of the Senate to any remarks I may make. We have reached the usual hour of adjournment, and I presume the debate will not be further continued today. In this discussion most grave fundamental principles which underlie our whole system of government have been invoked. It was not my intention to say one word on the passage of this bill, but I have sat here and heard propositions advanced and opinions advocated in such utter contravention of the principles of the founders of our Government that I think I ought to claim the privilege of saying something on the final passage of this bill. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. GRIMES. I suggest that we have an executive session.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I withdraw my motion for that purpose.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I desire to submit an amendment which I shall hereafter propose to the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri to the bill before the Senate. I ask leave to present it that it may be printed.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The proposed amendment will be received informally and ordered to be printed. EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mr. GRIMES. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the executive business. The motion was agreed t;o and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned the adjournment being under a resolution of the 2 Houses to Thursday, January 3, 1867.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, December 20, 1866. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNToN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. SPALDING. I ask leave to make a personal explanation.
Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, the acknowledged organ of the Republican party in Congress (the Daily Morning Chronicle) in its issue of December 19, has seen fit to distinguish me by placing my name at the head of one of its most significant editorials, which I send to the Clerk's table, and ask to have read.
Mr. DELANO. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution, which I hope will give rise to no debate: Resolved by the Senate and HoRep, &c., That until otherwise ordered; it shall be unlawful for any officer of the U.S. Government to pay any account, claim, or Government, demand against the said which accrued or existed prior to the 13thday of April, 1861, in favor of any person who promoted, encouraged, or in any manner sustained the late rebellion; or in favor of any person who during the said rebellion was not known to be opposed thereto, and distinctly in favor of its suppression, and no pardon heretofore granted or hereafter to be granted shall authorize the payment of such account, claim, or demand, until this resolution is modified or repealed. No objection was made to the introduction of the resolution.
Mr. DELANO. It is, and I ask its passage in OW.
Skip Skip The JtResolution received its 1st and 2nd readings, 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; upon the table. agreed to. FREE SCHOOLS IN DISTCOL.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, had I got the floor at the time when the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] sat down, I had intended, perhaps irregularly, to have said one word in regard to his position. I will only now say, however, that I think the argument of the editor is altogether the better o.f 2 and perfectly conclusive; and that while I do not charge the gentleman to be the author of it, the doctrine implied in his resolution is the most pernicious which can possibly be brought to obstruct the final reconstruction of this Government. But I am not going into the argument as it might look out of place after the gentleman has left the floor. I have only thought it proper to say this much in favor of the argument of one who cannot appear here himself, and which I deem conclusive and entirely more satisfactory than that of the Gentfrom Ohio. I now ask leave to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That a committee of 7 be appointed to report a bill to establish a systemof free common schools for the DistCol from which no child over the age of 6 years, residing in said district, shall be excluded except for improper conduct. The schools to be supported by taxes impartially levied on the assessable property of the District, together with such fixed annual appropriation as Congress shall grant. No objection being made, the resolution was received and agreed to. SURVEYS OF WESTERN RIVERS.
Mr. DONNELLY, 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 Major General Warren of the surveys made during the past season under his supervision of the Mississippi river and its tributaries, including the Minnesota, Cannon, and Zumbro rivers with a view to provement the imof the navigation of the same. WILLIAM P. WINGATE.
Mr. MORRILL. I ask leave to report back from the ComWays&Means a JtResolution which passed the Senate last session in relation to the settlement of the accounts of William P. Wingate, collector of the port of Bangor, Maine. The JtResolution was read. It provides that, whereas certain goods (molasses and salt) were imported by certain parties and held in bond in the customhouse at Bangor, Maine, on the 2d day of May, 1864, and were on that day released and withdrawn upon the payment of the duties imposed therein prior to the enactment of the JtResolution of April 29, 1864, the collector not then havin received official notice of such enactment, an whereas the said collector is now charged with 50%. additional to the amount already H. upon the said goods, the SecyTreasury shall in the settlement of the accounts of said William P. Wingate, not exact from him payment of the additional duty of 50%. imposed by the JtResolution of April. 29, 1864, on the merchandise thus withdrawn from consumption by the parties named on the 2d day of May, 1864, and shall order the can cellipg of the several bonds given by the importers.
Mr. STEVENS. I do not fully understand this JtResolution, and therefore I think we had better, according to the understanding, go into ComWhole on the state of the Union on the President's annual message; and I make that motion.
Mr. MORRILL. I hope the gentleman will let me explain this JtResolution. It ought to pass.
Mr. STEVENS. I think we had better go into committee.
Mr. MORRILL. I hope the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] will withdraw his motion until this JtResolution shall have been disposed of. I think there can be no objection to it.
Mr. STEVENS. I will withdraw the motion for that purpose. The JtResolution was then read the 3rd time and passed. MARINE HOSPITAL AT CHICAGO.
The SPEAKER laid before the House, a communication from the SecyTreasury in reply to a resolution of the House of the i7th instant, in regard to a site for a marine hospital at Chicago.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I move that the communication be printed and referred to the ComCommerce. The motion was agreed to. ESTIMATES OF postoffice DEPT.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the PostMGenl, submitting estimates of appropriations for the year ending June 30, 1868, in compliance with the act of July 2, 1836; which was referred to the Committee of Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. PRESIDENT's MESSAGE.
Mr. STEVENS moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union and proceed to the consideration of the President's annual message. 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. WELKER in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the Breidents annual mes. sage, on which Mr. His E was entitled to the floor.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, obtained the floor.
Mr. FINCK. I wish to ask my colleague whether he is desirous of going on today?
Mr. FINCK. The Gentfrom Kentucky has not yet concluded his speech, and I hope by unanimous consent his time may be extended for half an hour.
Mr. McKEE. I hope the House will extend that courtesy to my colleague.
The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection the gentleman's time will be extended for 30 minutes.
Mr. McKEE. I hope my colleague will be allowed to go on without limitation until he finishes his speech. I think it is only fair and just that he should have as much time as he needs.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I rise to a point of order. The Gentfrom Kentucky on my motion the other day had his time extended indefinitely, and I make the point that he has a right to go on until he concludes his speech.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been ruled again and again that such extensions are only for one hour. There is no objection, and the gentleman's time is extended for 30 minutes.
Mr. HISE. When this party became entitled to power.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I deny it. When Mr. Lincoln came into the presidential chair 7 States were in rebellion.
Mr. HISE. Not a single State attempted to withdraw from the Union until it was known to the whole country that the North had consigned the Government to the political enemies of the South, and which the South firmly be iieved when they, the Radiois, obtained the ag. tual possession of it would be wielded, as it has been, for the destruction of their constitutional rights. At all events, if the party now in power had never been put in its possession, the Union at this day would have been preserved, the States at this day would have been united, there never would have been any severance at all, because the Government would have continued to be conducted on those be nign principles and under those constitutional restraints that would have reconciled all the States South and caused them to abandon any purpose of secession.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Ofcourse if the South could have ruled this country there would have been no rebellion. The late Senator Douglas made the declaration, however, after the war began, that the South would go out anyhow the moment they failed to rule the country.
Mr. HISE. We know very well that this.disunion had been brewing for a great number of years.
Mr. HISE. One cause after another had been piled up until their aggregate became so great as to drive the Union asunder. Who is to blame most for the severance of the Union, for a portion of the States springing off from the balance? I think those who inserted the wedge and plied the hammer until they split it to pieces are the party most to blame.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. HISE. I would rather not, as my time is limited; but I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Wilf iAMS. "it is a very simple mos.tion. I desire to ask him whether he regards the causes of the rebellion, as stated by him, as to justify it.
Mr. HISE. No, sir. I am against dividing the Union under any circumstances. Where the forms of the Government are preserved; where the framework and system of the Government remains; where the functionaries of the government continue to be selected in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, I am not for violently breaking off and resorting to disunion or secession and rebellion. No, sir, I would endure error, I would endure corruption, I would endure usurpation in the hope that as long as this framework of Government remains and so long as freedom of the press and of discussion remain, with speech and reason still lef, free to combat error, a remedy for all these evils might be found by a change of rulers, effected peaceably and without revolution under the Constitution itself and according to the means of relief it may furnish.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman allow me another question in this connection?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to know whether freedom of speech had been respected in the rebel States during the last ten years before the rebellion broke out.
Mr. HISE. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to go into, and I hope I will now be excused from going into, the rights and wrongs of the late civilWar. I do not want to go into the merits of the question as to whether the wrong was upon the one side or the other. I am for peace and Union, and I do not want to harrow up or rasp the feelings of the coercionists and war men of the North. I am not disposed to charge a design of usurpation and a purpose to establish an unconstitutional government on the men, the people, the voters of the North. You cannot convince people unless you 1st concil iate them. If you 1st provoke and make war upon them, it is in vain to W. reason with them thus excited and provoked. I hope the northern people will yet learn the sad truth that the South cannot be oppressed and enslaved and they themselves escape.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I understood the gentleman to set down the rebellion to the account of the northern States.
Mr. HISE. I expressed the opinion that if a party had never got into power in this country on an unconstitutional platform, or if after they got into power on that unconstitutional platform had consented to yield to a Jtcompromise, there would have been no war.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. What did they refuse to yield?
Mr. HISE. They refused to yield anything of importance.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Did not the 30 6th Congress submit a constitutional amendment making slavery perpetual in this country, so that there should. no power in Congress to change it?
Mr. HISE. Do youpremember that the President in his inaugural address, or in his message to Congress, one or the other, said in substance, I cannot repeat the exact words, “That no Government could stand or would stand if the party in power should be required by the party out of power, as a condition of their obedience, to surrender the main plank of the platform of principles or policy upon which they obtained power?” Did not that sentiment come from the then POTUS? He said that a Government could not long stand where the party in power, which had come into power upon a given set of principles, upon a certain line of policy, was required to abandon it, or any portion of it, in order to secure the obedience of the party out of power or of a certain section of Union. the
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment?
Mr. ASHLEY., of Ohio. For a moment only.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I i." would ask the from Kentucky [Mr. His E] if the ominant party that came into power in 1861 did not propose an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. guarantying to the States in the Union the right to control the institution of slavery forever? And did not a majority of the 37th Congress in both the Senate and the HoRep belong to the party of which the gentleman is a member when the southern States went into rebellion?
Mr. HISE. My recollection is not very distinct concerning the precise facts which occurred about that time; but I remember the general impression upon my mind. That impression was that there was no hope of an adjustmentor compromise by the requisite majority in Congress and the requisite majority of the northern States. I had no hope of it. Besides that, the President said in substance that he intended to use force, what force was necessary for the purpose of recapturing the U.S. forts, arsenals, mints, and public property, and enforcing the Constitution and laws of the U.S. I refer to that now to show that war was determined upon and that any compromise was out of the question.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Determined on by whom? Does the gentleman say that it was right for the South to take possession of the U.S. forts there, and thus inaugurate war?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Does the gentleman hold that when that was done this Government ought quietly to have acquiesced?
Mr. I hold, sir, that this Union could have been maintained and preserved by wise and moderate measures without a resort to the war by which so much injury has been unnecessarily brought upon the whole country.
Mr. HISE. It could have been maintained and preserved without all the ruin and blood shed which ensued if the party coming into power would only have abandoned a plank in their platform and have given the requisite guarantees to the southern States, which they ought to have done, that they would agree to an adjustment, which would have inspired con. fidence that southern rights would not be in vaded or their institutions destroyed. That platform was hostility to the institution of slavery, an avowed design to use the powers of Government to abolish it. To that extent the platform was unconstitutional, because the history of this country proves that slavery was a lawful institution, sanctioned and authorized by British law, by colonial law, by the laws of the States when they had achieved their independence, and by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I would ask the Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. Hise] if the platform upon which Mr. Lincoln was elected did not distinctly and positively disclaim any intention to interfere with the institution of slavery in any of the States? And I ask again if we did not submit to the South an amendment to the Constitution which provided that the southern States should control slavery for ever.
Mr. HISE. This is leading me into a matter which I did not intend to investigate. But I will say that if they had consented in some legitimate manner, in some binding form upon which the southern States could have relied, that there would be no attack made upon their constitutional legal rights of property, no invasion upon the institution of slavery, the Union could have been preserved. That is my deliberate opinion.
Mr. Roy. With the permission of the gentleman, I would like to ask him a brief question right here. Will he yield for that purpose?
Mr. HISE. I will yield, though my time is running out.
Mr. KELLEY. I would ask the gentleman whether he remembers any single compromise made between the North and South with reference to which the South adhered to its bargain; anyone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Is not the Gentfrom Ohio aware of the fact that the decision of the House was confirmed unanimously on the motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table?
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. There was no recorded vote on that question.
Mr. WILLIAMS. There were no votes against it.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. There was no recorded vote, and it is fair to presume that the result would have been the same as on the passage of the bill.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman know of a single member who did not take the extra pay?
Mr. MAYNARD. I ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] to restate his question.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I asked the Gentfrom Ohio, whether he knew a single member of the House who had not taken his pay, and he said he did not know one.
Mr. MAYNARD. I deem it due to myself to say that I did not take it until after the matter had gone before the great body of the American people, in all but 6 States. When I found that l, gentleman who had taken it were returned here with such unprecedented unanimity, I accepted that as the deliberate opinion of the great body of the American people, and having that indorsement I received it.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I am happy to find that the action of the Gentfrom Tennessee and myself both accord with that of the American people in that regard.
Mr. GRINNELL. I would ask if the Gentfrom Tennessee served in the last congress as a member.
Mr. MAYNARD. Not in the last Congress. I did, however, during a portion of the last session, being admitted to the inside privileges just at the close of the session, whereby the increased pay became due to me and my colleagues, and could have been taken had we chosen to do it. I preferred, however, to wait till the American people had taken action.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. The Gentfrom Tennessee assumes
Mr. COBB. Will the Gentfrom Ohio yield 2
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I prefer to go on.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I would like to answer some of those that have been asked already, but I will yield.
Mr. COBB. The gentleman having yielded, Io to compromise with him by making a brief statement.
Mr. COBB. I have no disposition to interject a speech into that of my friendfrom Ohio, and it is with some degree of diffidence that I say anything personal as regards myself or any other gentleman; but the question having been asked by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania
Mr. Roj whether the Gentfrom hio [Mr. LAwrence] knew of any member who had not taken his extra compensation, lest silence should be construed into acquiescence on my part, especially while the question is being reiterated to another member, I beg leave to state that I, for one, having conscientiously voted against the increase of pay on the morning of the 28th of July, being of the opinion that it was wrong and that it would have been dishonest in me to have voted for it, have drawn no part of that extra compensation. And I will add that I will wait a little longer than the honorable Gentfrom Tennessee has done before I take it; I will wait till this Congress shall by its action or non-action reiterate, in a more deliberate manner and by a larger majority than it gave for the proposition to increase its pay, that it will not reverse its judgment.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Better say a majority.
Mr. MAYNARD. The gentlemen, I suppose, ofrom the decision of the people to this body.
Mr. COBB. I cannot refrain from stating that I very well remember a remark made to me by."the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. when I gave my vote on that prop, position. It was something to this effect: “I thought you had been a soldier, and yet you vote against giving them a bounty.” Sir, in what little effort I made in the can was last faii found much more difficulty and embarrassment from the false position that we were forced into by that action of Congress than any other. I believe it is not in order here‘to say anything about the Senate in fixing the responsibility of that act, but I felt more humility from the ease with which Copperheads and “bread and butter” men could call us to account before the people on this subject than from anything else. A. I feel some little astonishment at the deliberate attempt to repeal that clause by a gentleman who admits that he accepted the extra compensation. I am requested by several gentlemen around me, before I take my seat to ask the Gentfrom Ohio whether he has or has not accepted the extra compensation, and if so, when 7 [Laughter] The gentleman need not answer Well, perhaps, I may comprothe question if it will occasion any embarrassment. [Laughter] I only wanted to know for my own satisfaction and that of the gentlemen around me. [Laughter]
Mr. LAWIRENCE, of Ohio. Mr. Chair man, this colloquy has interrupted, a little, the course of my remarks and the argument which I was endeavoring to make, but it affords me an opportunity to say somethings in a little different form from what I should have said them if I had been permitted to proceed without interruption. I will reply somewhat to the remarks which have been made. And 1st, the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD) assumes that the people in the late elections have sanctioned the increasing the compensation of members of Congress. If that had been the great leading question submitted to the people in the recent elections the result which. attempts to deduce from those elections might be legitimate and proper. But I undertake to say to the Gentfrom Tennessee and to the members of this committee that if we had gone to the people upon this naked question and asked their verdict of approval upon this bill increasing compensa,tion we would have been buried 10,000 fathoms deep, and no man who voted for it ever would have returned to this Hall. No, sir; the people in the recent elections gave no ver dict upon this bill; but they avoided a verdict upon it because there was involved in those elections the great and overshadowing question whether the people should speak in tones of thunder their condemnation of that man who at the head of the Government, had borrod the party which placed him in power and be trayed the interests of the people. That was the question they determined in the recent elections, and not the question whether this increase of salaries was proper.
Mr. MAYNARD. wo the gentleman allow me to ask him whether the distinguished leader to whom he alludes did not especially make this issue upon Congress and submit it to the people. } ask them to decide upon it. He certainly was so reported. Surely the gentleman was so engrossed in his own canvass as not to observe what was going on in other parts of the country or that could hardly have escaped his attention.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. The people paid but very little attention to the questions which that distinguished individual chose to submit for their decision. They had before them the questions which were submitted by this Congress, and they passed their verdict upon those questions. I can say further to the Gentfrom Tennessee that there never has been a bill passed through any Congress increasing the compensation of its members which has not been disapproved by the people of this country, and this act of July last is not an exception to this general rule. And now, Mr. Chairman, one word in reply to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. RANDALL, land the Gentfrom Wisconsin, Mr. CoBB,) both of whom by their questions seem to be anxious to know if I have received this additional compeneation.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. That was not the way I put my question.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. No, I know it was not, but I will say that I have received it; I received a portion of it after I came here at this session, and a portion of it a few days prior to that time. I will say further, that no one member of this House can remedy the evil of the act of July last, by refusing to receive his compensation; that is no remedy for the evil. The evil, if it be one, can only be remedied by a repeal of the law.
Mr. DRIGGS. Did the gentleman feel bad when he received it? [Great laughter]
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I hope gentlemen will not interrupt me without having at least the courtesy to inquire through the Chair if I yield the floor, but I will pay my respects to the Gentfrom Michigan in a moment.
Mr. DRIGGS. The gentleman will excuse me. I will not interrupt him again.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of G. ".; as 4., be interrupted; but I will..,, ….voo, the gentleman directly. however, with another brai, oI remarked that a refusal or the pai of one member to receive the compensation could not and would not remedy the evil of increased salary. I say further, that every member o this House has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. That constitution declares that “Sens&Reps shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law.” When members have taken an oath to obey that constitution which so declares, I take it that it is the duty of a member to accept the provision which is made by law. And now for the Gentfrom Michigan.
Mr. HILL. I would like to ask the gentleman a “'qWuest?ine n.CE, of ohio. I prefer to answer one at a time. I will answer all the members of the committee, if they will only give me an opportunity to answer them seri atim; or, if they prefer, I will take them in gross. The Gentfrom Michigan desired to know if I felt bad when I received the pay. I do not entirely perceive the pertinency of the question. It has nothing to do with this other greater question which I am considering, whether the increase by the oct of July last was proper:, I have no 'o a sequence the gentleman felt very good wi on J. nis.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of O.J. And I can say further to the Gentfrom Michigan, and to every other member of this committee, that if in the recent elections they had gone to the people, upon this naked question, they never would have had an opportunity of feeling good by receiving any more of this compensation at any future session. it. DRIGGS. Will the gentleman allow me one word?
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. Not now; I want to dispose of these other questions 1st.
Mr. MAYNARD. If the gentleman will allow me, we have been discussing this matter in a spirit of pleasantry, and I would like to say another word in regard to it. We were called upon to vote upon this proposition to increase the pay of members of Congress, and the associated proposition to equalize the bounties of soldiers. I will venture to say to the gentleman that if the result of that vote had been the o, r on way, and the proposition giving bounty to, soldiers had been defeated, even the deCat of the other measure would not have saved from dire condemnation every man found upon the record voting against it. And I will say furthermore, that unless this Congress before it adjourns shall perfect that measure equalizing the bounties to the soldiers, and make it more just and righteous than it even now is, it will A. very badly with some of us who may have of on hereafter to go before our military con, ….
Mr. LAWRENCE, of O' no. tirely with the Gentfrom : MAYNARD] And I am gl...:; will cooperate with me in an. ';. i se the bounties for soldiers. 1,, position which he assumes is correr, it only proves that the people demanded booties for the soldiers of the Republic; it do ve that they demanded increased c. Jusation for members of Congress.
Mr. MAYNARD. I hope the gentleman will change one word, and say not “incleased” bounties, but “equalized” bounties.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. Equalized and increased both; that is what I am for.
Mr. HILL. Will the gentleman now permit me to ask him a question?
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I will; and I will take up this matter in detail. I am glad to see that my remarks are meeting with such general interest and having such an effect. We seem to be having a sort of class meeting here, which I hope will be of benefit to some gentlemen to go, understood the gentleman to 1 learn if I understood him clause of the Constitution. all, of compensation of members conta. to the wo, a “shall;” that it says “Sens&Reps shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained 'hy law, ” &c.; and that he regards the receiving compensation as a part of the duty of a member, I so understood him; I want to know whether I understood him correctly.
Mr. LAWRE'sCE, of Ohio. I read that part of the Consitution, and stated the fact that each member was sworn to support the Constitution. The gentleman can draw his own inference.
Mr. HILL. Now, I desire to ask the gentleman a question in reference to a casein point; the case of the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. Cobb] who declares that he has not drawn his pay, has not “received his compensation.” I wish to inquire whether his failure to per iform. that duty is such a failure in duty as to the expulsion of the member? [Great aughter]
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I am in favor of the impeachment of some officers of this Government, but I will reserve my opinion upon the question whether a member ought to be expelled for the reason assigned by the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] until that question shall arise in a case presented to the Cosfifed ac.t.,, ' ok, tiowever, for the benefit of the gentle…, a Wisconsin, [Mr. Cobb, that he does no fomedy the evil, even so far as he himself is concerned, by refusing to receive this pay, for it stands to his credit on the books of the Government and can be drawn by his administrator after his death. The only mode in which he can make his act effectual is to draw the money and then pay it back to the “conscience fund.” [Laughter]
Mr. HILL. May I ask the gentleman if he has paid his increase of compensation back to the Government?
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I have not, and I do not intend to, [laughter, unless this Congress shall require by law that it shall be done. If any gentleman will introduce a sep aprraatcetibeailbllfeor that purpose and it shall be found and constitutional I will vote for it, and if it shall become a law I will comply with it. And I will say further, that I regard every proposition to encumber the bill or either of them which I have introduced by suggestions of this sort as havinholione object; I will not say it is an imfire, o, orct yes, I will say it is an improper object we defeat the bills which I have introduced.
Mr. DRIGGS. Will, the gentleman allow me a word here?
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I will yield, certainly. Mr.:)RIGGS. The gentleman said a few moments ago that if the compensation matter had been made direct issue before the people I proh. adnot have “felt good” by,,; }re. I say to the gentleman; tra direct issue in my district, opple that I voted for it because . right. I told them that if $3,00., to as right before the war, then $3,000 a year could not be right now, when it costs twice as touch to live as it did before the war., co o or? or, And wide toogentleman says that the at tention of this people was not drawn to this subject because other and more important issues were presented to them, and that the miemb.ers who voted for this increased comwere returned upon the other issues, cannot see the force of his statement. Had the people believed that we were wrong in this respect and therefore desired to rebuke us, they could and doubtless would have selected other persons who were equally sound upon the important issues and sent them here as their representatives. My people believed this increase of pay to be right, and gave mean increased vote where I met the question fairly and squarely. "
Mr. COBB. I wish to avail j;of the to. courtesy of the Gentfrom Ohio, to put a question to the Gentfrom Michigan, Mr. DRIGGs.
Mr. DRIGGS. I will answer the gentleman.
Mr. COBB. I desire to ask the Gentfrom Michigan whether at the time the vote was being taken on this bill he did not state to some member perhaps his colleague from the western district of his State, [Mr. FERRY,) whom I do not now see in his seat that this money could with propriety be drawn and donated to the use of the soldiers; that members could vote for the extra pay, or ought to vote for it, and give the money to the soldiers?
Mr. DRIGGS. if I understand the gentleman's inquiry, he wishes to know whether at the time this bill was passed I did not intimate that if our pay was increased the additional amount could be given or ought to be given to the soldiers. I will state, in answer to the gentleman, that I never made any such declaration here or anywhere else. I voted steadily every time for the proposition to increase the pay. I hope this statement is definite enough.
Mr. COBB. It is definite enough. It differs, however, from my recollection. I have not referred to the record of the proceedings for some time.
Mr. DRIGGS. The gentleman's recollection is very faulty indeed if he recollects anything different from what I have stated.
Mr. COBB. I do not mean to impeach the gentleman's recollection, but my own.
Mr. DRIGGS. Well, I think the gentle. man's recollection is very faulty. No.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment just here in order to make a statement?
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I desire to say that when I voted against the report of the committee of conference at the time of its adoption in this House I did not believe in the view advocated then by other gentlemen, that it was the last opportunity we should have to obtain a bounty bill for the soldiers. I thought there was good reason to expect and believe that another report could be agreed upon which should give to the soldiers their bounty without increasing the pay of members. It was with this conviction that I voted against the bounty and against the increase of pay. I stated this position to my constituents, and I received from them an indorsement, as the Gentfrom Michigan did from his constituents. My majority was quadrupled. So that the medicine works differently in different places. [Laughter]
Mr. GRINNELL obtained the floor and said: I yield a portion of my time to the Gentfrom bi. that he may conclude his remarks.
Mr. BIDWELL. The gentleman will allow me to state the amount of my mileage a little over $4, 600.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. The Gentfrom California [Mr. Browell] will observe that that is more than I have stated. These are only examples of a class by no means small. The act of July 13, 1866, allows to Army “officers traveling under orders where transportation is not furnished in kind, ” “ten cents per mile.” (Laws of 1865–66, page 93.) This is an increase on prior rates, o is sufficient alike for Army officers and for members of Congress. It is no part of my purpose to disparage the merits or undervalue the services of my asso ciates here who so faithfully represent the interests of the people, of humanity, and justice in these Halls. I would make no appeal to prejudice or passion, but only invoke the dejudgment of this House on measures which it is a solemn duty to consider with the utmost candor. The palpable fact that for almost every office under the national and State governments there are generally many applicants with proper qualifications, and with fortunes by no means ample, is conclusive evidence that the common pursuits of life are rarely ever more remunerative than the rewards of office. Let us then restore the salary as it was, and retrench the public burdens in all practicable ways, and those we represent the tax payers of the land the millions who by honest and patient toil are earning a support, and seeking a moderate competency, will greet us with the welcome salutation, “Well done, good and faithful servants.”
Mr. GRINNELL resumed the floor, and made some remarks which he has withheld for revision. Before concluding his speech he yielded to, Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, who moved that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and
The SPEAKer having resumed the chair, Mr. WELKER reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the state of the Union generally and particularly the President's annual message, had come to no resolution thereon.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. A message in writing from the POTUS was communicated to the House by Colonel WILLIAM G. MooRE; also a message informing the House that the President had approved and signed a bill (H.R.No. 876) making appropriations and to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes. arresT OF HON. C. W. CULVER.
The SPEAKER stated that N. G. Ordway, the Sergeant at Arms of the HoRep, made a return to its warrant that he had taken the Hon. C. W. CULVER from the custody of Philander R. Gray, Esq., sheriff of Venango county, in the State of Pennsylvania, delivering to him a certified copy of the war rant, and that now
Mr. CULver was unre strained in his seat as a member of the 39th Congress. SANTA ANNA.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a message from the POTUS, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the House requesting information in reference to the attempt of Santa Anna and Ortega to organize an armed expedition within the U.S. for the purpose of overthrowing the national Government of the republic of Mexico, a report from the SecyState and the papers accompanying it; which were referred to the ComForAffrs, and ordered to be printed. FREE SCHOOLS IN DISTCOL.
The SPEAKER also announced the following as the select committee on free schools in the DistCol:
Mr. STEvens of Pennsylvania, Mr. PATTER son of NewHampshire, Mr. WELKER of Ohio, Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts, Mr. MoUL ToN of Illinois, Mr. As HLEY of Nevada, and Mr. HUBBELL of NewYork. COMRINDAFF.
Mr. WINDOM, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Whereas by a resolution of the House, adopted on the 19th instant, the Committee of Indian Affairs, were instructed to examine into certain acts of the ComrIndAff, and to report the result of their investigation to the House; Therefore, Resolved. Thatfor the purposes of said investigation the said committee are empowered to send for persons and papers. PRINTING ORDERED.
Mr. TAFLIN, from the ComPrintg, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the Treasury Dept 300 copies of the estimates of the appropriations for 1867–8, and 2,000 copies of the report of the SecyTreasury on the state of the finances, and 150 copies of the statement of receipts and expenditures for the years 1864 5. CONFISCATED AND ABANDONED LANDS.
Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, submitted the oresolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved. That the selectcommittee on direct taxes and confiscated and abandoned lands in the lately rebellious States be instructed to inquire whether the registers or receivers of the land offices of any of said States, have in any manner, hindered or the execution of the act for the disposal of the best pruucbtleied lands for homestead actual settlement in such States, approved June 21, 1866, and, whether, any persons, or colored, entitled to the benefits of said act, have been wrongfully prevented from availing themselves thereof by any officeroroGovernment or any person or persons whomsoever; and that said committee report the facts to this House. ExEMPTION OF TIMBER FOR SHIP BUILDING.
Mr. SPALDING, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComWays&Means be instructed to o into the expediency of exempting from tariff duties timber and lumber for ship building, and fire wood for steamersfoil. the northern lakes and rivers, when imported by party using the them for such purposes. BARTHOLOMEW AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Mr. HILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of the Bartholomew County Agricultural Society; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. NAVY DEPTV.ADWERTISING.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution: Resolved, That the SecyNavy be, and directed to report to this House at as early a day as practicable the names of the newspapers the proprietors of which are authorized or employed to publish advertisements or to do other printing for the Navy Dept, or any agent or officer thereof. Also, whether any and what directions he has given, qr orders he drawing advertising during the presentyear, with or other printing from news papers, and if any, from what newspapers, and the reason therefor in the caseof each newspaper. Also, if any such advertising or printing has beengiven or "directed to be given to newspapers, not having such advertising or printing P. to this year, and if so, the reasons in the case of each newspaper for so giving, or directing to be given, such advertising or printing to such newspapers respectively. Objection was made. EQUALIZATION OF BOUNTIES. On motion of Mr. JULIAN, the bill introduced by him for the equalization of bounties was ordered to be printed.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed te; and thereupon (at 20 minutes before 4 o'clock p.m.)
The SPEAKer, in pursuance of the concurrent resolution of both Houses, declared the House adjourned until Thursday the 3d of January next.
Skip Skip PETITIONs, Etc. The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rules, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. DRIGGS: The petition of D. L. Green, Lewis Green, and 60 others, citizens of Wiota, Isa bella county, Michigan, praying Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution abolishing all distinction among citizens on account of race or color, Also, the petition of Rev. Stephen A. Asbury, and 60 others, Union men of Dallas county, Texas, pray:ing Congress to set aside the illegal government of that State, and to pass an enabling act to authorize Union, men to organize givil governments therein apon the basis of franchising enfranchising loyal men and disrebels. By Mr. ECKLEY: The petition of J. Maxwell, and 31 others, citizens of Columbiana county, Qhio, Fo:ing for an amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. so as to secure the rights of without all citizens o to race, caste, or condition, y Mr. KELLEY: A memorial of 1,260 manufacturers and operators, citizens of Manayunk, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying for the repeal of the Hool revenue tax levied on all goods manufac reci. Also, resolutions and memorial adopted by the Southern Republican Association on the 8th of December, 1866. By Mr. Q'NEILL: The petition of seamen, fire men, coal passers, and marines, who entered the service on and after February 15, 1861, asking for a bounty of $10oper annum or $833per month for each month's service, all bounties received after July 1, 1864, to be deducted. By Mr. STOKES: The petition of John Rogers, of Smith county, Tennessee, for a pension.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. THURSDAY, January 3, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of Thursday, December 20, 1866, was read and approved. The ReVENUE LAWS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a letter from the SecyTreasury, communicating a report from Mr. David A. Wells, special comrRev, together with a bill prepared by him as a substitute for the customs laws now in force; which were ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComFinance. On motion of Mr. FESSENDEN, and by unanimous consent, it was Ordered, That 2,000 additional copies of the report and 500 additional copies of the bill be printed for the use of the Senate.
Mr. CRAGIN 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: r A bill (S.No.485) in relation to the ap oin.tment of register of wills and register of for the county of Washington, in the DistCol; and A bill (S.No.486) in relation to the appointment of marshal for the DistCol. SALE OF PERSONS INTO SLAVERY.
Mr. SUMNER. I send to the Chair the following resolution, and ask for its present consideration: Resolved, That the ComJudiciary be directed, to consider if any action of Congress be either in the way of legislation or of a supplementary amendment to the Constitution, to prevent the sale of persons into slavery for a specified term by virtue of a decree of court. By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, the eastern States, especially Massachusetts I wish to make no reflection upon the other States have often furnished examples to the other States of the Union, and many of the other States of the Union have very willingly followed the examples thus set. The advertisements just read are very good copies of advertisements which in former years appeared in most of the eastern States, and especially in the State of Massachusetts, as anyone will see who will take the trouble of reading the old files of news papers or looking into Moore's “History of Slavery in Massachusetts.” Now, sir, the Legislature of Maryland, I believe, has not been in session since the adoption of the civil rights bill, and the law authorizing these proceedings was on their statute book. The constitution of the U.S. provides that persons may be sold into slavery or involuntary servitude for crime, and I apprehend that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the proceedings in the State of Maryland, whether those proceedings be wise or unwise. We have a similar statute in our State; but since the passage of the civil rights bill, although there have been a number of negroes convicted for crime, they have not been sentenced, simply on account of the existence of that civil i. bill, and a number of them are now in jail. I have just received a copy of the message of the Governor of my State, in which he recommends an amendment of the State laws so as to ob viate any difficulty in the administration of the criminal code growing out of the fact that the cul pr.its may be negroes.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Allow me to ask the Senator if the punishment of which he speaks extends to white persons.
Mr. JOHNSON. I think it does; I am not sure.
Mr. JOHNSQN. The whipping did, I know, at one time. They do not. now. If there is a difference, if that is the state of the law now, the Legislature of Maryland is in session, and I have no doubt they will change it. I am not for whipping. I have seen it administered upon white men as well as black men, and it is a horrible exhibition, in my opinion. So far as the party charged is concerned, perhaps he would prefer it to the amount of punishment which exists in other States. If there be a distinction between black and white with ref. erence to this kind of punishment, I have no doubt the Legislature will promptly correct it I am sure they ought to do so or if they do not, then the question will arise whether it does not fall within the inhibition of the civil rights bill, and whether the courts will enforce that in easure.
Mr. CRESWELL. With regard to the evil complained of by the honorable Gentfrom Massachusetts, I have a very decided opinion and that is, that it has already been provided against by the constitutional amendment. I cannot imagine that any reasonable interpretation given to the phraseology used in the constitutional amendment confoany such as has been attempted and acted out in Maryland. Those words have received an interpretation for the last 80 years by reason of their application to the northwest territory, and, so far as I am informed, a case has never been presented where a human being was placed upon the block and sold publicly to an individual to oblige him to perform involuntary service to that individual by way of punishment for crime. I ask my honorable friendfrom Ohio if that has ever been the case in his State.
Mr. CRESWELL. I apprehend and have always understood that a fair interpretation of those words
Mr. SHERMAN. I have not seen the case, but I understand a case arose either in Indiana or Illinois, and the court there decided that the “involuntary servitude” referred to must be performed under the direction of the State authorities, in the way of punishment, and must be rendered to the State.
Mr. SUMNER. The remarks of the Senfrom Maryland {Mr. JOHNson] seem to me to justify entirely the proposition which I have made. I have simply called the at tention of the committee to what was already notorious, but with a view to action on their part. I am not sure myself that under the constitutional amendment this abuse may not be justified. I do not pronounce any positive opinion, but I desire to have the opinion of the committee after ample consideration. This, sir, is not the 1st time, however, in which incidents like this have occurred. remember that many years ago, when I 1st came into this Chamber, the people that I represent were shocked very much by reading that 4 colored sailors of Massachusetts had been sold into slavery in the State of Texas. I did what I could to obtain their liberation, but I did not succeed. I applied directly to the Senfrom Texas at that time, who will be remembered by many as a very able gentleman, General Rusk, by whose side I sat on the other side of the Chamber, and he openly vindicated the power of the court to make such a sale, and I have never heard anything of those poor victims from that time to this hour. Under the operation of the constitutional amendment I trust they are now emancipated, but I am not sure of that, since they are in Texas. The resolution was agreed to. PRINTING OF BANKRUPT BILL.
Mr. POLAND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the ComPrintg: Resolved, That 500 additional copies of House bill No. 598, and the amendments thereto, proposed by the ComJudiciary, be printed for the use of the Senate. LAND GRANTS FOR RAILROADS.
Mr. HOWARD submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unan imous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComPubLands inquire into the sufficiency of existing laws to protect the interests of the U.S. in lands granted for the benefit of railroad companies before patents have issued, and also in lands occupied for hoine steads before the title has passed to the claimant, and that they report by bill or otherwise. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a report off"the SecyWar, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of December 17, 1866, reports of the asst commissioners of freedmen and a synopsis of laws respecting persons of color in the late slave States; which, on motion of Mr. WILsoN, was referred to the ComMilAffrs .
The PRESIDENT protempore also laid before the Senate a report of the SecyWar, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of July 24, 1866, information touching the probable cost of constructing a railroad on the route mentioned in the charter of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company; which, on motion of Mr. TRUMBULL was referred to the ComPacificRR.
Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on directed the Judiciary be to consider if o further legislation is needed to prevent the enslavement of Indians in NewMexico or any system of peonage there, and especially to prohibit the employment of the Army of the U.S. in the surrender of persons claimed as peons. I ask for the present consideration of the resolution. The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to its consideration.
Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I desire to call the attention of the Senate to important facts under that resolution. I think you will be astonished when you know that the evidence is complete that at this moment in a Territory of the U.S. there is a system of slavery which a proclamation of the president has down to this day been unable to root out. During the life of Mr. Lincoln I more than once appealed to him to exercise his power as the head of the executive, to root this evil out of the Territory of NewMexico. The result was a proclamation and also definite orders from the Dept of War; but in the face of that proclamation and of those definite orders this abuse has continued, and according to the official evidence it seems to have increased. I have in my hand the report of the ComrIndAff, from which I will read a short passage. I read from page 33:. On the subject of peonage, the qualified slavery i. prevalent in NewMexico, authorized by its laws and encouraged and practiced by its people, officials of Government, and natives of the U.S. as well as those who have been ‘to the manor born, ”Mr. Graves's statements, with the evidence presented therewith, are such as to leave no doubt of the duty of Congress to take the matter in hand and deal with it effectually. This office has done all that lay in its power by promulgating the order of President forbidding the practice, and all the other Depts of the Government issued, like directions to the officers responsible to them; but in spite of all this it is clear that the practice still continues to a greater or less extent.”
Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator state the date of the report he reads from?
Mr. CONNESS. Those statutes have been repealed, have they not?
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom California reminds me that they have been repealed.
Mr. SUMNER. But this learned officer who lays down the law treats them as existing. still
Mr. CONNESS. I will state to the Senator that, if repealed and it is my impression they have been it has been only very recently.
Mr. SUMNER. This learned officer then proceeds: You now hold, a civil prisoner arrested by military authority. The question is not whether peonage is a good or bad kind of servitude; it is whether it is recognized by law, and whether when a peon had swindled his master out of a large sum of money and deserted him, taking shelter at a military post, the commander thereof would, by extending the courtesy of aiding or acting for the civil authorities insurrendering the culprit, violate any obligation of law or duty. It seems that in the case in question he would not. You ask for explicit instructions, and make use of disrespectful and threatening language. The 1st will be granted, and the latter this time overlooked. You are hereby directed so for to aid in the rendition of peons when claimed by their masters, or there is a reasonable cause to them, believe they have deserted as not to allow them to remain on the military reservation. These instructions will be executed, faithfully in spirit as well as letter, without evasion. By command of Dept of NewMexico. Carleton, command ing I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Asst Tnspector General U.S. Army.' Captain J. H. Commanding, Fort Selden, NewMexico. The special Indian agent who reports this correspondence very aptly adds: o The aid of Congress is invoked to ce. stop the prac I hope the Dept of War will commu nicate directly with General Carleton, under whose sanction this order has been made, and I hope that our ComJudiciary will consider carefully if any further legislation is needed in order to meet this case. A presidential proclamation has failed; orders of the War Dept thus far have failed; the abuse still continues, and we have a very learned officer in the Army of the U.S. under taking to vindicate it.
Mr. CONNESS. I wish to say a single word (as the morning hour is nearly closed and we cannot go to other business) in connection with the pending resolution offered by the Senfrom Massachusetts. The officer spoken of and mentioned, Captain Whitlock, is personally known to me, and his communication, which has been read, is but additional evidence to me of his great personal and official rectitude as a public servant. It is also known to me, as it has been for perhaps 4 years past, that the administration of military affairs in the Territory of NewMexico has been a standing disgrace to this Government.. I have made efforts in the direction of a change all the efforts that I was capable of making; but in all the applications and in all the presentations I have made, both to the President and to the War Dept, I have found that at every point the case was, to use a common term, blocked. There was no such thing as even inquiring into the administration of General Carleton in NewMexico. While the war went on I had supposed there was some excuse for this, but now when it is over there is no longer excuse, and this record presented here this morning is but one single additional fact in the whole line of maladministration in that Territory. I think it is a fact. I think I have evidence in my possion that this officer, high in command in the U.S. Army and in the administration of its military affairs, is personally interested at this time, and has been, in leasing and letting to the Government of the U.S. the houses they use and the posts they occupy upon their own land. But, sir, I did not intend to more than eall attention to the matter. I have failed utterly in all the attempts I have been able to make in getting such attention to the subject as would lead to a correction. I hope that this inquiry will go in that direction and finally be effective.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I have no disposition to resist the investigation the Senfrom Massachusetts desires, but it seems to me that, as this is a complaint against the Army and the manner in which its officers are discharging their duties, it more appropriately belongs to the Military Committee, and I suggest to him that he had better send it there. I do not see what the ComJudiciary can do with it. Military commanders certainly have some authority to meet the case. GenlGrant or the President can supersede the officer there at any time; the SecyWar has the means of having his orders enforced. I understand the Senator to state that the SecyWar has issued orders and that they are not obeyed. I presume that the military laws provide the means of enforcing the orders of the War Dept, and I am quite sure that if they do not, his colleague, who is at the head of the Military Committee of the Senate, can very soon provide a law that will give the Secretary the power to enforce his orders. Really, it is not a matter of which the committee to which the Senator proposes to refer it has any peculiar knowledge. It would be groping in the dark. It is not a subject familiar to the members of the committee; and if it has connection with Indian or military affairs it seems to me it had better go to one of those committees, who are familiar with the manner in which Indian affairs are conducted and are familiar with the conduct of our officers be longing to the Army who are in the Indian country. I suggest that it had better take one of those directions.
Mr. SUMNER. I was not entirely clear as to the committee to which this reference should be made. I at 1st indeed thought of the ComIndAffrs, and I then thought of the ComMilAffrs; but I finally selected the ComJudiciary on this ground: the constitutional amendment proceeded from that committee, and such legislation as we have since had by virtue of that amendment has proceeded from that committee; and it seemed to me, therefore, that perhaps that was the proper committee to consider whether the constitutional amendment had full application to this case, and whether any further legislation was necessaryin order to carry it practically into this Territory. That was the consideration that governed me when I selected the ComJudiciary. I still think that logically and according to the course of business in the Senate it properly. to that committee; but if the Senfrom Illinois is not disposed to consider it, if he objects to having it referred to the ComJudiciary, I am perfectly willing that it should go to either of the other committees. My special object is to bring it before the senate, and I have occupied the time that I have today very reluctantly; but still from a sense of duty, feeling that it was important that these documents and facts which I have laid before you should be presented. Having presented them, I thought that the committee would have before it the materials on which to begin its inquiry, and that the inquiry would be to a certain extent of a judicial character. It would be whether under the Constitution and existing laws of the U.S. this abuse was prohibited and whether any further legislation was needed in aid of that which we already had. If the committee on inquiry should consider that the abuse under the Constitution and existing laws is prohibited, such a report would then throw a responsibility upon the executive branch of the Government. owever, if the Senator perseveres in his desire that the reference be changed I shall consent.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator does not understand me as objecting to the inquiry at all; but I desire to ask him oil.". has any doubt that the law sufficiently provides against this abuse. On his own statement of the case, a subordinate officer disobeys a proclamation of the President and orders of the War Dept. Does the Senfrom Massachusetts mean to imply a doubt as to whether that subordinate officer has a right to do that by sending it to the ComJudiciary to inquire into it? Is there any doubt about it?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Then it seems to me that we ought not to let that officer suppose there is anydoubt about it by referring . matter to a committee to inquire whether any legislation is necessary. If there is no doubt about it let the ComMilAffrs inquire why this officer does not obey the orders of his superior and the laws of the land as they exist. It seems to me that is the proper direction for it. I make no objection to the inquiry; the Senator must not understand me as objecting; but it doesseem to me that it implies a question whether he is not justified in the course he has pursued. I do not understand that a subordinate officer in NewMexico is justified under any circumstances in disobeying a proclamation of the President and orders of the War Dept. I understand the case to be, according to the Senator's statement, that an officer in NewMexico has done so. I merely make the suggestion to the Senfrom Massachusetts that the proper committee to make any inquiry in the case would be the Military Committee, for it seems that it is a case of disobedience of orders. The Senator himself has no doubt that the law already sufficiemt; if it be enforced, for the case.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of the last day's session which is Senate bill No. 456.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope we shall have a vote upon this resolution. }”. let it go to the ComMilAffrs. [“Agreed.”]
The PRESIDENT protempore. The resolution will be referred to the ComMilAffrs by common consent, no objection being interposed.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The unfinished business of the last day's session is Senate bill No. 456, for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, which is now before the Senate as in ComWhole, the pending question being on the motion of the Senfrom Indiana [Mr. HENDR1cks] to postpone its further consideration until Mon ay, the 7th of January, and make it the special order for that day at one o'clock.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not care about insisting on that motion. If it is the pleasure of the Senfrom Ohio to go on with the consideration of the bill I have no objection to its consideration. I merely suggested that do as being a day after the adjournment.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I suppose the Senate is so thin that the Senator.Ohio would scarcely desire to go on today.
Mr. WADE. The Senate is very thin today, and I do not know that it would be right to press the bill in a thin Senate; but I shall insist whenever it is taken up again that both it and the Colorado bill be disposed of, if I am able to do it. I shall have no objection to its goin over to Monday with that understanding. will not resist the motion to postpone until Monday, the 7th, and make it the special order for that day.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That is the motion as it now stands. ' The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WADE. I now move to take up Senate bill No. 404, for the purpose of having an amendment offered by the Senfrom Michigan, [Mr. HowARD] The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.404) to regulate the selection of grand and petit jurors in the territory of Utah, and for other purposes.
Mr. HOWARD. I offer an amendment to the bill which has just been taken up, and I desire that it may be printed. The amendment consists of several additional sections. This is an amendment to be offered when the bill is taken up for consideration. I desire to have it printed. The motion to print was agreed to.
Mr. WADE. I did not have the bill taken up with a desire to go on with it now, but simply that the amendment might be printed so that we may all see it. I shall ask, however, that it be taken up at an early day and pressed to a final decision whenever the Senate will agree to do so. I move now that the bill lie on the table. The motion was agreed to. TheNuite of Orr ICE.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to give notice that I shall tomorrow morning ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 453, to regulate the tenure of office. I think it quite important that the bill should be considered, and I hope Senators will be ready to begin tomorrow its consideration.
Mr. RAMSEY. There is a resolution on the table offered on the last day of the sitting of the Senate providing for printing an extra number of the report of the ComrGLO. I hope it will be taken up now. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, reported by Mr. STEwART on the 20th of i. de1866, from the ComPublic nois: Resolved.That there be printed of the report of the ComrGLO accompanying large, with the conn map, 5,000 copies in the German language, 5,000 copies in the French language, 5,000 copies in the Swedish language, and 5,000 copies in English language, the for distribution in trio foreign counand 5,000 copies for the use of Senate; the and the SecyState is requested to cause the distribution of the aforesaid 20,000 copiesothe commissioner of Exposition, the Paris or such other personsas in his discretion he may deem proper.
Mr. STEWART. I have taken some pains to ascertain the cost of the publication proposed by this resolution, and have before me the letter of the Superintendent of Public Printing on that point. The estimate which he makes of the cost is $27, 297 25 for the publication of 25,000 copies, as provided in the resolution. I have read this report of the Land Office, I will say, with great interest, and it is a matter of pride to the American people that there should be there collected to:so much valuable information with regard to our agricultural and min. eral resources, and the facilities for settlement which our country presents to those who wish to come among us." I have no doubt this publication will bring back many times its expense in inducing that kind of immigration which we need for the development of our country, and I doubt very much whether any condensation of it can be made which will present it in a more readable form. I think the whole report is exceedingly interesting; it is clear in statement and easily understood, and the information which it is desirable to circulate can be found not only in detail, but in condensed form in the report, and I believe it is in as good form for publication as we can possibly get it. I regard it as a matter of great importance that this publication should be made. The ComPubLands were unanimously of the opinion that the whole report ought to be published, and I hope the resolution will pass.
Mr. GRIMES. I desire to inquire of the Senfrom Minnesota, who has this resolution in gharge, in what lanamawatha 5,000 copies that are to be published for the use of the Senate are to be printed.
Mr. RAMSEY. The language usually recognized by the Senate the English language, the language of the Government. The provision is for printing 5,000 copies in German, 5,000 copies in French, and 5,000 in one of the Scandinavian languages, and then 5,000 copies for the use of the Senate. But the honorable Senfrom Iowa is mistaken; I have not charge of the resolution. It was offered by the Senfrom Nevada. I have a great desire to see this publication made. I think it will be of great use in inducing immigration to our Territories in the West. The whole book is of immense importance, and I think it should not be mutilated and scraps published. I say this in reply to the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts. Every part of this report Iis, think, of direct interest to the people in Europe who propose emigrating to this country.
Mr. GRIMES. I suppose that the people whom I have the honor in part to represent are as much interested in foreign immigration as the people of any other State, and I imagine that I have been about as familiar for the last 25 or 30 years with that subject as almost anybody here; and I agree fully with the friend of the Senfrom Massachusetts, whoever he may be, that the scheme suggested by him, in order to reach the people who are likely to be emigrants, is the only feasible one that has been proposed. Why, sir, if this book be published in the Scandinavian, Ger man, and French languages, how opeople do you suppose it is going to reach who have any idea of ever emigrating to this country? If you want to secure emigration by it, if that is the purpose to be accomplished, you must have a compilation that can be put into the hands of the man who desires to emigrate not a great book; a statistical volume. Then I doubt exceedingly whether you have devised here the proper method of distribution. It is proposed that these books, when they shall be printed, with the accompanying maps, shall be sent to this great glorification institution at Paris, and thence be distributed, with: out any specific method devised as to the manner in which the distribution shall be made. If you had a little compilation of the volume which you could send to your consuls at Bre men, and other, shipping points and interior points whence the emigration comes, for those consuls to put into the hands of those persons who are likely to be emigrants, and if you placed with them money for the purpose of providing for the publication of information in the local newspaper, you would accomplish some good; but you will never accomplish anything by sending out 5,000 copies in these different languages to somebody at the Paris Exposition, to be i.among the sight seers who may go to the Paris Exposition next Summer.
Mr. STEWART. The resolution contemplates other modes of distribution besides that this left with the SecyState to distribute it otherwise..The reading of the resolution, I think, will relieve the Senator of that difficulty.
Mr. GRIMES. Why not leave the o subject to the SecyState? Why not allow him, through the gentlemen in his dept, who it is supposed are to make the translation of this book, to publish just such parts of it as he believes will be of advantage to the Government? Why do we choose to burden the Government with the expense of ublishing this large volume for distribution in : It seems to me we ought to be satisfied that it is not going to be of any benefit in the hands of the emigrant. It may be of some advantage to be placed in some local libraries in Europe, but not for the purpose of securing that which we profess that we desire to secure by the passage of the resolution.
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, in circu luting intelligenee among any people, the modes and channels through which it is to pass are essentially local in their character and can never be fully understood or known by other peoples. Our duty in this case, as it appears to me, if we propose to send out information of the character proposed in this resolution, is to send out the information through the best instrumentalities that are at our disposal for giving it circulation in the countries to which we desire to send it, and then depend upon those local modes for its distribution. It is in vain that we can expect to put the facts most interesting, no matter what shape we give it, into the hands of each person who desires to emigrate to the U.S. from any foreign country. We cannot expect that. It is proposed now in this case that we limit the publication to certain parts of this report; and it was stated by the Senfrom Massachusetts, who informs me that he has not read the report, that he was told there was but a certain small portion of it which was useful for the purposes in view. I differ very much with the source of the Senator's information. I have read and examined this report, and it is, as I think, one of those complete presentations of the whole subject from which you can take no part without doing it injury. The expense will be as nothing compared to the benefits that must necessarily result. I do not believe that we can make any investment of public money so profitable as the one proposed. I hope the publication will be authorized. The resolution was adopted. MILWAUREE AND ROCK RIVER CANAL.
Mr. HOWE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate JtResolution No. 102, construing and giving effect to the JtResolution entitled “A resolution for the relief of the State of Wisconsin, ” approved July 1, 1864. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the JtResolution, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. Titt MBULL to reconsider the vote by which the Senate passed the JtResolution.
Mr. TRUMBULL. When this matter was up the other day I commenced to make a statement about it. I have called at the Clerk's desk this morning for the papers. In order to arrive at an understanding of the matter it is necessary to state the facts, but the papers do not seem to be with the resolution. It is a matter about which there was a difference of opinion in the ComJudiciary; and in my judgment the claim is not one which the U.S. ought to pay at all. It is a question whether $25,000 shall be paid out of the Treas. ury of the U.S. to a company formed in Wisconsin to construct a canal. The Senfrom Maryland {Mr. JOHNson] will probably recollect it. We had it before our committee. I think he was in favor of paying it; I am not so sure as to that. There was a difference of opinion in the committee, and a majority were in favor of paying it; but in order to make a statement of the case, as it occurred some time ago, it is necessary that we should have the papers, and I suggest to my friendfrom Wisconsin to lay it aside until the papers can be found.
Mr. JOHNSON. Permit me to ask if the resolution did not pass.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes; it passed without any discussion in the Senate. F. not present when it passed. There being a difference of opinion in the committee, I thought it due to the Senate that the facts should be stated on the question of reconsideration. When that is done, I shall be satisfied if the Senate vote for the payment of the money. In the mean time, however, as the papers are not here and I cannot state as clearly as I would like to do the facts in regard to it without the papers, I suggest that it be laid aside until the Clerk finds them. He will probably get them in a few minutes. In the meantime, if my friendfrom Wisconsin will consent, I will move that we proceed with the consideration of House bill o. 828, to repeal the 13th section of the confiscation act.
Mr. HOWE. This motion rather crowds me. I do not wish to urge the Senfrom Illinois forward in the consideration of this particular resolution unless he can o his hands upon the papers which he needs to comment upon the resolution; but this resolution passed at the last session of this Congress, and my friendfrom Illinois interposed a mtRtv it passed. It was one of the last days of the session, and I was not enabled to get a vote upon that motion to reconsider during the session. It has gone over until this time, and it is now the 2nd of the 3 months of the session. I think the Senator, instead of moving to postpone the further consideration of this resolution, if he wants these papers, ought to consent to let it lay aside informally until he ascertains whether he can find the papers and not take up another matter that will lead to debate.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not wish to delay action on this JtResolution. It had entirely escaped o recollection, until it was called up the other day, that it stood on my motion to reconsider it. I have no earthly interest in it and will not delay it one moment. These papers that I speak of are not papers in my possession. The Senfrom Wisconsin will want them quite as much as I do, or the Sen. ate will. The Senate certainly will not vote $25,000 out of the Treasury of the U.S. without knowing what it is about, and the resolution itself does not show anything at all about it.. We want the papers. Senators certainly will not just simply vote because somebody brings in a resolution to pay $25,000. The Senfrom Wisconsin will not ask it.
Mr. HOWE. Let it be laid aside informally.
Mr. TRUMBULL. These are papers that are on the files of the Senate and that ought to be here when we consider the resolution. I will say to the Senfrom Wisconsin that I will not delay the matter. I have no such intention. I regret that it should have gone over the former session. It was probably in advertently that it went over; I do not know; the Senfrom Wisconsin may have had it upon his mind, but I had not. The only reason why I made the motion to reconsider was that the resolution had passed without consideration in the Senate and had passed when I was not present, and the views of the minority of the committee who disagreed to reporting in its favor were not presented to the Senate. I am willing that it o be laid aside in any way; I do not wish to delay it at all.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is sug. gested that the JtResolution before the Senate be laid aside informally. It requires common consent. The Chair hears no objection to that course, and the resolution is ii aside informally. The question now is on the motion of the Senfrom Illinois, to proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 828. The motion was agreed to, and the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 828) to repeal section 13 of “An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, ” approved July 17, 1862, was resumed by the Senate as in ComWhole, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. SAU1.sbury, to strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause and to insert in lieu thereof the following: That the actentitled “An act totion, suppress insurree to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscatethe property of rebels, and for other pur.approved July 17, 1862, be, and the same is ereby, repealed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. if I recollect correctly, that amendment was proposed by the Senfrom Delaware, [Mr. SaUlsbury] He is not in his seat now. He was a few minutes since. I think he intended to discuss the amendment briefly. The Senfrom Illinois may know the fact. I submit to him whether he desires to press the bill now. The Senfrom Delaware was complaining of not having been well during the recess, and perhaps he has goue out on that aucount: I do not know.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senfrom Maryland [Mr. JOHNson] I think had the floor on this bill. The Senfrom Delaware was in his seat this morning. Mr. Hos. I know he was, and he was complaining of having been unwell, though I did not understand that he was unwell today; he may be; I do not know. He offered is amendment, I believe.
Mr. TRUsi?tiii., we must proceed with some business. There are a great many Senators absent. I do not wish to take advantage of the absence of Senators.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair is advised that the Senfrom Maryland [Mr. JOHNson] was discussing the bill at the expiration of the morning hour, when the bill was last under discussion,
Mr. HOWE. I propose that the Senate resume the consideration of Senate JtResolution No. 102. I find on inquiry at the desk that there are no papers in the custody of the Senate. If there were any papers before the committee they were those used upon the hearing there. I am informed at the desk that this resolution was offered by myself and referred by the Senate to the ComJudiciary and by the committee reported back; and the resolution itself is the the only paper in the possession of the Senate.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That JtResolution having been laid aside informally by common consent, the Chair thinks it is in the power of any Senator to demand its consideration again and to bring the subject before the Senate. The JtResolution (S.R.No. 102) construing and giving effect to the JtResolution entitled “A JtResolution for the relief of the State of Wisconsin, ” approved July 1, 1864, will be therefore considered as before the Senate, the question being on the mtRtv this JtResolution was passed.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Under the law his decision was that they were not entitled to interest. I think his decision was right. I think if any member of this body were to agree to purchase a house in this city and to pay for it what it cost he would not suppose that he had not only to.the actual amount of money which was paid out for the construction of the building, but also any rate of interest which the constructor had paid for the use of the money which he used in the putting up of the building. I. do not think the resolution of Congressintended to refund any interest of this j This statement presents about, as I now recollect it, what the question in controversy is. I think, in the 1st place, the Government of the U.S. should have had nothing to do with this settlement between this canal company and the State of Wisconsin; but I am not going back now to complain of the legislation of Congress. Congress thought proper to undertake to settle these accounts and appointed an officer of the Government to do it. That officer has made the settlement. It is not satisfactory to this company because they have not got, as they say, the interest which they paid on the money which they borrowed to make the improvement, and that amountclaimed is about 25,000 dollars. I think that the officer of the Government the ComrGLO I believe it was, but I am not sure who decided it, decided it correctly, and that nothing more is justly due this company. The CHIEF CLERK. Here are the papers.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The papers have come to light, I understand.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. Edmunds. Thif is just the question here, whether, the canal company under this act was entitled, to the in: terest which it paid upon mAney, which wo bor. rowed under an express authority given by territorial Legislature of Wisconsin to bor. money, and which it borrowed because the State and the Territory refused to i. over the trust fund. It j.me too plain to admit of discussion. The question that the honorable Senato from Illinois suggests cannot come before the Senate now, because this whole subject is uno" control of Congress. It comes under its ". trol by the resolution passed 2 years oan by the act admitting the State into the Union. it is a matter that we must control, ano." alone. Here is a sum of $24,000, as "" " stand, money that was realized by the Sta" from the sale of these trust lands. That mono. the Treasury. It has not been paid o' State, nor has it been paid over to th:. pany. The company claims thati shouldo" over to it under the resolution of 2 yeo. for interest which it paid upon money which borrowed to carry on the work. The o was to be indemnified for all moneys expo" o: by it in the construction of the work; and it i. simple question for a lawyer to decide whet o a cestui one trust who borrows money ho is the trustee will not pay over money in his o: shall lose the interest, or whether th". shaft be charged with interest upon.to rowed money. What lawyer could, quo." that? The State of Wisconsin had the o in her hands. By an act of her Legislao. refused to pay it over for the purpose of bui W.ing this canaf and the company had to o: money. Under an authority in the “” v. 80rporation the company borrowed the jo The ComrGLO ' says that in a settlement between the trus and the beneficiary interest thus paid.” o be accounted for." That is the simple queston;
Mr. HOWE. No, Mr. President. I am en yet more familiar with the history of the casethan my friend is.
Mr. HOWE. And I have given it more areful examination. I will say to him here that noue of it was vested under that act in the the of Wisconsin. What had not been sold by the Territory and vested in private hands the time the State of Wisconsin was created "as set off to the State, as a part of the university lands a part of the 500,000 acres which go to every new State for uniVersity purposes.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The State, then, got it. State was the successor of the Territory.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir; the State was the successor of the Territory in all its rights.
Mr. HQWE. No." The 7. which I want friend to comprehend is, not that the State. to the rights of the Territory under grant, but that the State got this {A: o and as an express grant and the U.S. got the benefit of it because we took it Part of the 500,000 acres., had not taken these lands we should " Kenjust as many acres of otherlands.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not wish to complicate this matter with the 5%, fund, with which it has nothing to do. The land was granted by the act of 1838 to the then territory of Wisconsin to make this improve.ment, and it was provided in the act that that land should go to the State when the State should be admitted into the Union, and it was provided further: "That the State of Wisconsin shall be held responsibleto the U.S., and for the payment into the Treasury thereof, of the amonut of all moneys received upon the sale of the whole or any part of said land, at the price at which the same shall besold. not less than $250 per acre, if the said main canal shall not be commencedwithin 3 years and completed within ten years, pursuant to the provisions of the act creating said canal corporation.” What was that? That the State of Wisconsin should be held responsible for these lands provided the canal was not commenced and completed within a certain period. The canal was not commenced and completed within that period, it is admitted. The State of Wisconsin is held responsible for the lands. What then? She does not want to pay for them.
Mr. HOWE. I will just ask my friend to read, the following section of the act of 1838 and he will see why we maintain that the State was not liable. Read the 6th section.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The 6th section is the one I have just read. Do you want me to read the 7th section?
Mr. TRUMBULL. You do not ask for it? You did ask for it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The account presented to the tribunal created at your instance and sent finally here.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to know who presented the account if you did not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Well, it is the canal company that wants this money; it is the canal company that is after it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry that the State of Wisconsin is being dragged into it. Now, if the State of Wisconsin wants to pay the canal company $11,000 or any other sum for the services of this Mr. Richards, about whom I know nothing he may be entitled to it for aught I know let the State of Wisconsin do it. Then comes this interest item; let me read it. “The 5th item in this account is the amount charged on account of sums paid out from time to time by the company for interest: Disallowed, because interest forms no part of the cost of vey” the sur Do you think it does? “Disallowed becauseinterest forms no part bf the cost of the survey, location, construction, or management of any such public work, and is never charged in these accounts, the same being a liability of company the and not an expenditure on the work. Its payment is not provided for in the resolution, and is against the policy of the Government and Congress, unless expressly provided for in the statute.” That item amounts to $21,000, and it was very properly disallowed in my judgment. There is this case. I do not think we ought to open it, but if it is to be opened anywhere let it be opened in the Court of Claims. If this is a just claim let it be referred there; I should have no objection to that course. Let it go to the Court of Claims and if, under the resolution we have already passed, whereby Congress undertook to settle this matter, this company or the State of Wisconsin is entitled to this money, let them have it. The amount of the claim here, as I have stated, is some $77,000. The resolution does not state the amount, that is to be allowed, but it provides that it shall not exceed the value of the lands, and by a computation I understand that will reduce it to about 24 or 25,000 dollars. I have not made the computation, but the Senfrom Wisconsin says that the extent of the claim will not exceed $25,000. think that it ought to be stated in the resoution.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think it should be stated in the resolution, if it is to pass, that the amount shall not exceed that; but I trust we shall either refer it to the Court of Claims or refuse to pass it. I shall take up no more time with it.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am always unwilling to differ with my friend, the chairman of the ComJudiciary, and it was with deep regret that I was compelled to differ with him when this subject was before the committee and the resolution which he proposes to have reconsidered was recommended. The amount which hementions as calculated to awaken the attention of the Senate, $77,000, is not now the question before us. The balance of the proceeds of the lands (which alone is to be used for the purpose of meeting this claim of the canal company) in the Treasury is only some 24 or 25,000 dollars. The limitation in the original resolution was that the allowance should not exceed that amount. The same limitation is to be found in the resolution which we passed at the last session. If, therefore, the resolution should not be reconsidered, all that could be paid to the canal company would be the balance in the Treasury, which as I have said does not exceed 24 or 25,000 dollars.
Mr. TRUMBULL. They will come for the rest afterward, I suppose.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to take up the bill (H.R.No. 828) to repeal section 13 3f “An act to suppress insurrection, to punish m and rebellion, to seize and confiscate e property of rebels, and for other purposes, ” approved July 17, 1862. It was called up be. fore and laid aside.
Mr. JOHNSON. When this subject was before the Senate, prior to the recess, I submitted some remarks to the Senate, but had not concluded what I purposed to say when another subject was brought before the body. If the honorable member from Illinois will permit the bill to go over until tomorrow it will be an accommodation to me, for I am not ready to go on today; I did not expect that the discussion would be resumed today. If he will let it go over until tomorrow I can very readily in a comparatively short period say what I intended to have said when the subject was before us prior to the recess.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The bill was called up, I would state to the Senfrom jo, when he was out some 2 or 3 hours ago, and in consequence of his not being present it was then laid aside. I certainly have no disposition to inconvenience the Senfrom Maryland. I have been struggling to get action upon this bill on several occasions.
Mr. JOHNSON. It has not been delayed at my instance. I had the floor and was discussing it when the Nebraska bill was called up. If it goes over until tomorrow or when ever the Senate meets again, I will then state what I desire to say.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator desires to address the Senate upon Iit, understand.
Mr. TRUMBULL. With that understanding I will call it up tomorrow.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the senate adjourn.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope the Senator will withdraw that motion to let me put a bill on its passage., Mr. HENDERSON. I withdraw the motion.
Mr. SUMNER. I move that the Senate take up Senate bill No. 475.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, [Mr.ed MUNDs in the chair] Does the Chair understand the Senfrom Illinois as withdrawing his motion?
FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO EMIGRANTS. On motion of Mr. SUMNER, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.475) to prevent and punish false and fraudulent representations to induce emigration to a foreign country. It provides that if any person shall, within the jurisdiction of the U.S., make false and fraudulent representations to any negro, mulatto, or other person, for the purpose of inducing such negro, mulatto, or other person to emigrate to a foreign country where such negro, mulatto, or other person would be liable to be sold as a peon, socalled, or otherwise reduced to virtual servitude, the person so offending shall be punished on conviction by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or by both punishments. If the master or owner or person having charge of any vessel shall, within the jurisdiction of the U.S., receive on board or shall allow to be received on board any negro, mulatto, or other person, with the knowledge that such negro, mulatto, or other e.rson has been induced by false and fraudu representations to embark in such vessel to proceed to a foreign country, State, or place where such negro, mulatto, or other person would be liable to be sold as a peon or reduced to virtual servitude, such master, owner, or other person offending shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 nor less than $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or by both punishments, and the vessel, on board of which such negro, mulatto, or other person was received to be carried away shall i. forfeited to the U.S.
Mr. SUMNER. I move to amend the bill by striking out in the 8th line of the 1st section the word “virtual, ” and inserting “involuntary;” so as to read, “reduced to involuntary servitude.”
Mr. HENDRICKS. I think it is very evi.dent that, there is not a quorum of Senators here; and I rise therefore to move an adjournment.
Mr. SUMNER. I think there can be no question about this bill. If the Senator were opposed to the bill I should expect him to object. I think I shall have his concurrence.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not make the motion with any view to the merits of the bill. I was not thinking about it.
The PRESID1NG OFFICER. Does the Chair understand the Senfrom Indiana to moye an adjournment?
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator is very anxious without a quorum to proceed with the consideration of his bill I shall not insist on the motion.
Mr. SUMNER. I thought the bill would take very little time, and by passing it there would be one bill struck off the Calendar.
Mr. SUMNER. I move also that the same word “virtual, ” in the 10th line of the 2nd section, be struck out and “involuntary” substituted therefor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment will be made to conform to the preceding one, if no objection be interposed.
Mr. SUMNER. Now, Mr. President, that the bill may be understood before the vote is taken upon it, I will call attention 1st to its title “A bill to prevent and punish false and fraudulent representations to induce emigration to a foreign country.” I will then ask the attention of the Senate to a very short dispatch which has been communicated to me by the Dept of State from our minister in Peru. It is as follows: LEGATION of THE U.S. LIMA, PERU, November28, 1866. SIR: I have been informed that Mr. Antonio Millan left Peru on the last steamer for NewYork for theoof bringing out a cargo negroes from the U.S. to this country. fully concur in the views expressed in your order to prevent the immigration of that race to Peru; their condition would certainly not be improved, and they would share the fate of meeting the coolies, who are now with very harsh treatment in ties. some locali I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant, ALVIN P. HOWEY. Hon. W. H. SEWARD, Secystate of the U.S. There is other evidence that has been communicated to me by the State Dept showing that this person has actually arrive in NewYork, and that in conversation with some of his associates he has boasted that he would successfully carry out his plans. In short, he has commenced the work of obtaining these negroes in order to use them practically as coolies in foreign countries. It was thought by the committee to whom the subject was referred that we owed it to ourselves to provide by legislation as far as we could against any such conduct. I think the bill has been carefully drawn, and that it meets the case.
Mr. HIENDRICKS. I move to strike out the words “negro, mulatto, or other” wherever they occur in the bill, so as to read “any person, ” so as not to be legislating with a view to any particular class. fothey are persons. We might just as well say “negro, mu latto, or white persons.”. If the words foro. pose are stricken out, it will read, “make false representations to any person, ” so as not to seem to be legislating for any class.
Mr. SUMNER. very point was care fully considered by the committee, and after consideration it was thought advisable that these words should be introduced precisely as they now stand in the bill. In introducin them we have but followed the practice o legislation which is, to repeat, not to stop merely with one word, but to repeat, so as on the very face of the legislation if possible to oint out the evil which you intend to remove. you simply adopt the language “any person, ” though that of course would be applicable to any negro or mulatto, it would not so completely as the text of the present bill put the reader on his guard as to the evil that Congress had in view when it passed the bill. It was that view which influenced the ComForRel after a careful consideration of the bill, to the conclusion that it was better to keep it as it now is. Nothing was lost by introducing these words; something of clear:ness and positiveness, it was thought, was gained by having them there; and beside that we fol iowed in so doing the precedents of Congress, the habits of legislation. I hope they will not be struck out.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not know what precedents the Senator could have followed other than those that are to be found in the legislation when slavery was an institution of the country. It was then, I suppose, understood to be necessary to distinguish between negroes, mu lattoes, and other persons; but under the con: stitutional amendment and the civil rights bill and other legislation of that class, I will ask the Senator if in the eye of the law he understands there is any difference among persons now as a question of law. I understand the argument of the Senator to be that it is neces. sary in this bill to admonish the country that negroes and mulattoes are persons.
Mr. HENDRICKS. To give emphasis to it, something of force, as he expresses it. The only purpose can be to say that they are persons. " If he thinks that in the eye of the law they are persons, unquestionably persons, then in framing a law he ought to use the most exact phraseology possible, and not confuse it by going into detail which is covered by general language. As a matter of taste in the framing of the bill, I think the words which I move to strike out are objectionable. If he intends to legislate for all the people of this country; if he intends to protect the white person, and unwary, who may be induced to leave his country by false representations, legislate for him by the use of such language as includes him. If he attempts also to legislate for negroes and mulattoes who are likely to be imposed upon and carried away from their country by false representations, let him use just such language as applies to them, but not go into detail which adds nothing to clearness, as I think. I think it confuses. I have understood the Senator to be laboring to wipe out all distinctions because of race and color, and to say that under the laws of the U.S. all persons are alike and equal. If so, how can he defend himself in using language such as this in a bill of his own framing, a bill that comes from his own committee, keeping up a distinction in the bill which he i.draws? If he intends to protect all alike, and to legislate for all, then there is. in his using language that applies alike to all.
Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, the argument of the Senator isingenious, but I doubt whether he himself has much confidence in its soundness. He is too good a lawyer not to know that constantly in legislation and also in professional documents, several words are used in order to cover a given case, words that are general and words that are specific. Sometimes we content ourselves with the general term, sometimes we content ourselves with the spe cific term, and sometimes we are not contented without both the general and the specific terms. Now, sir, that is just the object of the committee in the present bill. The general term is used and the specific, and it was not supposed that there was any inconsistency in using them: and the 2 were used, borrowing a professional expression, for greater caution, exmajori cau tela, so that we might be sure that in the statute we had met the case. Then again it was felt desirable in the stat ute to exhibit on its face what its object was. Had the language been general, had it been simply “any person, ” one reading the statute whose attention had not been called to this grievance would be at a loss perhaps to imagine what the grievance was; but the introduction of these specific words would indicate to any intelligent reader the character of the grievance. However, this discussion is verbal rather than substantial, and I hope the Senator will not press his objection. In relation to the section of the bill which constitutes this new offense, I suggest to my honorable friendfrom Massachusetts that there are some amendments which I think ought to be made.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I know that one amendment has been made, but there are other amendments which I think are necessary in order to define properly the offense which is aimed at. The language as it now stands, it seems to me, does not cover it. I think it cer: tainly ought to be required that these false and fraudulent representations, which are the basis of the offense, should have been made knowingly and willfully. The section now provides that the offense shall be the falsely making of these representations “to any negro, mulatto, or other person, for the purpose of inducing such negro, mulatto, or other person to emi grate to a foreign country where such negro, mulatto, or other person would be liable to be sold as a peon, socalled, or otherwise reduced to involuntary servitude.”. There certainly is some amendment needed there, it seems to me, in order to charge the person guilty of the crime with a scienter that knows i. the person would be liable to be reduced either to involuntary servitude or to peonage. A person might hold out representations to another to emigrate with him to a foreign country, not knowing what the laws of that country were, and not knowing whether he would be liable to be sold to peonage or reduced to involuntary servitude or not.
Mr. JOHNSON. The vessel is forfeited too.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I suggest to my honorable friendfrom Massachusetts in relation to that section, before I should be quite willing to vote for it as defining this new statutory offense I should like to see its language changed in several particulars. I suggest to my honorable friend that perhaps he had better let this bill pass over and let us adjourn.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator is a member of the committee from which this bill came. He was invited to its meeting. I believe that he was not with us on that occasion. I regretted it very much: but the Senator knows very well how the business of that committee is conducted. He knows that a bill like this is not reported from that committee except after very careful consideration. I will say to the Senator that it was read carefully in committee and considered section by section. Now, as to the criticism of the Senator, he wishes that there should be something introduced here requiring what is called jo. the scienter. I ask him if that is not here ade quately. The offense is the making false and fraudulent representations., Surely there is in that alone a scienter “false and fraudulent representations to any negro, mulatto, or other person.” For what? “For the purpose of inducing such negro, mulatto, or other person to emigrate to a foreign country where such negro, mulatto, or other person would be liable to be sold as a peon, socalled, or otherwise reduced to involuntary servitude.”
Mr. JOHNSON. Must he know that the involuntary servitude exists there?
Mr. SUMNER. That is not required by the statute, and I think if the Senator will reflect one moment he will find that if that were required it would make, the statute, I was going to say, good for nothing. You would be requiring too much. You require by the bill now before you that the representation should be “false and fraudulent.” You then require that it should be “for the purpose of inducing” a “negro, mulatto, or other person to emi grate to a foreign country where such negro, mulatto, or other person would be liable to” slavery. Surely there is an offense. There is a moral offense which the conscience of every man must recognize; and the object of this bill is simply to reach that moral offense, a false and fraudulent representation for the purpose of inducing certain persons hereinmentioned to emigrate to a country where they will be exposed to slavery. Now that you should in: troduce a 2nd scienter I use the technical language of the Senator and require that this person should actually know the character of slavery in the country to which the emigrant is to go is to require too much. If you require that, you will require more, probably, than could be proved against the man. You require enough to make an offense by the existing bill. It surely is an offense by the existing bill, even if he did not know the character of the institu.tions to which this emigrant would be exposed in the foreign country. such a bill as this would put any person seeking emigrants on his guard; and such a bill surely is needed when we are warned that there are persons here now with a view of getting W such emigration. I hope the Senfrom Wisconsin will not per severe in his objection. Indeed I think, if he gives a better attention to the bill, he will see that it does meet a grievance, and though there may be something more, yet this bill is good as far as it goes. It does something to punish an offense which certainly is well worthy of the judgment of Congress.
Mr. TRUMBULL. think it is quite apparent from the discussion we have had that we had better take a little more time to word this bill precisely right. There is no quorum present, as would be disclosed if a division should be called, as doubtless there would be on a bill like this. I therefore suggest to my friendfrom. Massachusetts and I hope we shall have his consent that we now adjourn.
Mr. SUMNER. I will make oOne remark before the adjournment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senator, from Illinois move an adjournment?
Mr. TRUMBULL. I will withdraw it to enable the Senfrom Massachusetts to make a remark.
Mr. SUMNER. I will merely make one remark, and the remark I make I will address at once to the Senfrom Wisconsin and also to the Senfrom Michigan. Each has the same object in view; but I fear that if I should follow the suggestion of either the bill would be impaired in its efficacy. Already, as it is reported by the committee, I fear that it may become ine perative because it requires too much; it requires more than could be roved in court, and I fear, therefore, that the would be but another instance of brutum fulmen. Even in that respect it might have a certain efficacy. It would have this effect: to. but people on their guard, and possibly to hten offenders away; but still I should like.the bill in such form as would make it something more than brutum fulmen to give it complete efficacy. It is on that account that I deprecate the amendments of the Senators from Wisconsin and Michigan. I fear that they are going to require so much that the bill will actually be destroyed in its efficacy. I now yield to the Senfrom Illinois.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Before the Senfrom Massachusetts takes his seat I wish to inquire of him whether, it is his purpose to punish the party who makes the representation alone, or those who make representations and thereby induce emigration. Is it his purpose to make the offense a complete one simply by the representation? I suggest to him that I think that would be introducing a new feature in legislation..
Mr. SUMNER. The purpose of the bill, as I think the Senator will see by reading it, was to make an offense which had several elements in it; the 1st would be the false and fraudulent representation; the other would be the purpose of the false and fraudulent representa.tion.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then the purpose of the Senator is to punish the man who shall make the representation, although the fraudulent representation shall result in no harm to anybody.
Mr. SUMNER. If he does it for a criminal purpose, then I would punish him even though the person on whom he operated escaped. Even though he did not suffer from the false and fraudulent representation, the offense is complete.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I called the Senator's attention to it because I wanted to know what was the purpose of the bill.
Mr. ToUMBULL. I move that the Senate adiourn. he motion was agreed t;o and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, January 3, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNToN. The Journal of Thursday, December 20, 1866, was read and approved. Hon. W. A. BURLEfgh, Delegate for Dakota Territory, appeared in his seat. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER stated as the 1st business in order the bill pending at the adjournment on the 20th of December last, in regard to reconstruction, on which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] was entitled to the floor; but prior to that he would ask leave to lay before the House several communications. TArier AND IREVENUE.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Treasury Dept, dated Jan uary 3, 1867, communicating a report from Hon. David A. Wells, appointed special commissioner on the revenue, accompanied by a tariff bill prepared by the same commissioner. On motion of Mr. WENTWORTH, the communication was ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComWays&Means.
Mr. WASHIBURNE, of Illinois. I move that 10,000 additional copies be printed. The motion was referred to the ComPrintg. DAkoTA TERRITORY.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a memorial from the Legislature of Dakota territory, asking that the SecyTerritory be authorized to use what has been saved out of the appropriation made for legislative expenses of the Territory for the purpose of codifying the laws; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComTerritories. MONTANA TERRITORY.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a JtResolution of the Legislature of Montana erritory asking Congress to amend the organic act of the Territory so as to increase the pay of the Federal officers, as also the per diem of the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComAppropriat. Also, a memorial to Congress asking for appropriations for surveys and the establishment of a surveyor generafs office, and also for a land office in Montana Territory; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComTerritories. ASSASSINS OF THE PRESIDENT.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComJudiciary be instructed to report what mêasures, if any, can be taken to prevent the Supreme Court from releasing and discharging the assassins of conspirators Mr. Lincolu and the to release the rebel prisoners at Camp Douglas, in Chicago, under color and o'.of the law of 1863;and also to inquire into the expediency of repealing said law.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I object. LOSS OF THE Evening STAR AND COMMODORE.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, offered the following resolution; which, being a call for executive information, was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Secretary of the o be directed to communicate to the House the result of the investigation made by his Dept into the causesof the loss of the steamer Evening Star, and also that he be requested to institute an investigation into the causesof the loss of the steamer Commodore, lately wrecked on LongIsland sound, and that he transmit the result thereof to this House, together with his opinion as to what additional legislation, if any, be necessaryfor the further protection of the lives of engers on vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam. MILITARY ACADEMY APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. STEVENS, from the ComAppropriat, reported a bill making "F. priations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComWays&Means, and made the special order for Monday next, after the morning hour, and from day to day until disposed of. REPORTS OF GENERALs RUSHING AND HAZEN.
Mr. BIDWELL offered the following resolution; which, being a call for executive information, was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to I?esolved, That the SecyWar be directed to communicate to inspection the House the reports of the tour of made the past season by Generals Rushing and Hazen, the former to General, the Quartermaster the latter to Brigadier General P. StGeorge Cook, commanding the dept of the Platte, or i. much thereof as relates to affairs in Utah Terri ory. PAYMENT FOR WAR LOSSES.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. I ask leave to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That this House will not consent to the appropriation of the 1st dollar for the payment of property destroyed by the Union armies while engaged in putting down the rebellion.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope the resolution will be referred to a committee.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. I will move its reference to the ComAppropriat. Mr. NIBLACK. I have no objection to that. The resolution was received and referred to the ComAppropriat. EDWIn e. WOODMAn.
Mr. COBB, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Edwin E. Wood man; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to prescribe the qualifications of officers and attorneys at law, and to regulate appointments to office; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. the MILITIA.
Mr. PAINE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the Committee on the Militia, and ordered to be printed. PURCHASERS ON THE SOSCOL RANChe.
Mr. JULIAN. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution: Whereas, the act, of 3d March, 1863, entitled “An act to grant the rightfoto certain purchasers on the Soscol Ranche, in California, ” was not intended to interfere with the rights of any actual settlers not purchasers under Vallejo, who were then resident on said lands and entitled to precmption under the act of 3d March, 1863: Therefore, Resolved. That the SecyInterior be requested to inform, the House how many such claimants have applications for preemption pending in his Dept contested by claimants under the act of March 3, 1863; and what, if any, decisions have been made by him on such applications.
The SPEAKER. This is a call for executive information, and it requires unanimous consent for its consideration on this day.
Mr. UPSON. I object. REDEMPTION OF TREASURY NOTES.
Mr. MAYNARD. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComWays&Means be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the expediency of redeeming the compound interest Treasury notes, socalled, and the bonds known as 5 twenties, with Treasury notes to be issued for that purpose, of denominations from 5 to 1,000 dollars, aing legal tender for their face value, bear interest at a rate not lessthan 3%. nor morethan 5%., per annum, redeemable in 5 years; and convertible at the pleasure of the holder into 4%. bonds, payable, principal and interest, in gold, redeemable at the pleasure of the Government after 5 years and due in 20 years, and subject to State taxation.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I object. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS FOR TEXAS.
Mr. BUNDY, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution for the establishment of 4 territorial governments within the socalled State of Texas; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComTerritories, and ordered to be printed. PAYMENT FOR HoRSES.
Mr. INGERSOLL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComMilAffrs are hereby directed to inquire into the propriety of so amending the law providing for compensation to owners of horseskilled in battle, &c., that it shall be made to, extend to and include all horses lost, killed, 3. abled while in actual service and in the line of duty. JAMES M. BISHOP.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of James M. Bishop; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. RECONSTRUCTION, Mr. SCOFIELD. I now call for the regu. lar order of business,
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in order is the consideration of House bill No. 543, to provide for restoring to the States o in insurrection their full political rights, which was under consideration on the 19th of Decem. ber last. The pending question is upon the substitute then offered by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEvens, ] upon which that gentleman is entitled to the floor.
Mr. BINGHAM. I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order..
Mr. BINGHAM. I submit that the 8th section of this substitute is one which provides for the representation in Congress of the insurrectionary States; therefore, under the order adopted by the House at the last session, and renewed this session, this should be referred to the JtComReconstruction without debate. The provision of this substitute to which I refer is as follows: SEc. 8. Abife:, That whenever the foregoing conditions shall be complied with the citizens of said State may present said constitution to Congress, and if the same, shall be approved by Congress said State shall be declared entitled to the privileges and immunities, and be subject to all the obligations and liabilities of a State within the Union. No Senator or Representative shall be admitted into either House of Congress until congress shall have declared the State entitled thereto. That section has relation to representation in Congress, and provides the terms and conditions upon which the States lately in insurrection shall be entitled to representation in Congress. I therefore make the point of order that under the existing rule this subject should be referred to the JtComReconstruction without debate.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio [. BINGHAM] is correct in his statement of acts. But he overlooks this fact, that on the 30th of April, 1866, the HoRep waived the rule to which he has referred, so far as the original bill under consideration is concerned, and allowed it to be introduced; when of course it became subject to amendment and action as any other bill. The section the gentleman has read is from the substitute offered by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEvens]
Mr. BINGHAM. I would inquire if the original bill contains any provision in relation to the representation from the lately insurrectionary States?
The SPEAKER. The title of the original bill is “A bill to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights.”
Mr. BINGHAM. The title may be properly recited by The SPEAKer, but the question I make is, does the original bill, introduced on the 30th of April last, provide the conditions I have just recited from the 8th section of the substitute?
The SPEAKER. It may not have provided for those specific conditions, but it provides “for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights.” And having been introduced it is subject to amendment. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to modify the 3rd section of the substitute by striking out the words “Congress shall elect” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “the supreme court of the DistCol shall appoint” before the words “a commission for each of said States.” The question was upon the substitute, as modified.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter a motion to refer to the JtComReconstruction the bill introduced by the fol. from Pennsylvania, together with is substitute and the amendment of my colleague [Mr. AshLEY, of Ohio] to the substitute.
Mr. MILLER. I desire to move an amendment by adding to the 9th section of the substitute of my colleague, [Mr. Stevens]
The SPEAKER. That would not be in order. The original bill can be amended. The substitute cannot be, because there is already pending an amendment to the substitute, which is as far as any amendment can go. In addition to that, the motion to refer while pending precludes any motion to amend.
Mr. BINGHAM.,I do not wish to proceed with my remarks this evening, and therefore will yield to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, to move that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union. PRESIDENT's MEssage.
Mr. STEVENS moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union and proceed to the consideration of the President's annual message. 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. Upsex in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the President's annual message, on which Mr. GRINNELL was entitled to e floor.
Mr. GRINNELL. I understand the Gentfrom Pennsylvania is ready to proceed this evening, and I therefore yield the floor to him.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. If I understand the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, he asserts that when national banks fail their notes cease to circulate. Has the gentleman ever heard of any such instance? The Government is still responsible when the bank fails and these notes are redeemed when presented at the Treasury. I understand they circulate, therefore, as well after as before the suspen.sion of the bank. It may be remembered that the Treasurer of the U.S. was recently somewhat criticised by the press for his statement that the national bank notes were better after the bank failed than before.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled Senate JtResolution No. 123, in relation to the settlement of the accounts of William P. Wingate, cal lector at the port of Bangor, Maine; when The SPEAKer signed the same. PROTECTION OF OVERLAND ROUTES. The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House, information respecting the protection of the routes across the continent to the Pacific from molestation by hostile Indians; which was referred to the ComMilAffrs, and ordered to be printed. CHICAGO HARBOR. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House, the report of the chief of Engi neers respecting the improvement of Chicago harbor; which, on motion of Mr. WENTwoRTH, was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. WESTERN MILITARY POSTS. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House, portions of General Babeock's report of the inspection of military posts on the western frontier; which was referred to the ComMilAffrs, and ordered to be printed. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, from the ComWays&Means, re. ported a JtResolution giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service of the Government; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, ordered to be printed, and made the special order for Tuesday next, after the morning hour.
The SPEAKER. The question now pending is the proposition in reference to reconstruction, on which the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] is entitled to the floor. ORDER FOR FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.
Mr. NIBLACK. Imove that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I suggest to the Gentfrom Indiana that we had better meet here tomorrow, and go into the ComWhole on the state of the Union, with the understanding that no business shall be done. There are many members who wish to make speeches.
Mr. NIBLACK. I would like to have some general understanding on the subject.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I think there will be a general understanding that there will be no vote taken tomorrow.
Mr. NIBLACK. If that is so, I will with draw my motion.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I now move that by unanimous consent tomorrow and the next day (Friday and Saturday) be devoted to debate, and that no vote be taken on those days. No objection being made, it was so ordered. J. B. M'FARLAND AND OTHERs.
Mr. STOKES, by unanimous consent, presented the petition of J. B. McFarland, E. B. Turner, A. G. Buddington, S. B. Reid, and others; which was referred to the ComClaims. DISLOYALTY.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the following resolution, introduced into the HoRep December 4, 1862, by Hon. THADDEUSSTEve Ns, expresses the convictions and senseof this House, to wit; Resolved, That if any person in the employment of the U.S., in either thelegislative or exccutive branch, should propose to make peaceor should accept or advise the acceptance of any such proposition on any other basis than the integrity and entire unity of the U.S and their. Territories as they existed at the time of guilty the rebellion he will be of a high crime.” And that the bill (H.R.No. 543) is clearly in violation of the spirit of said resolution, and that the same does in fact assert or at and rebels were succeslesafuslt admit that secessionists in the dividing of the Union and destroying certain of the States of the U.S. as such in the Union and degrading them into Territories; and that Hon. Tha DDEU'sSte y ENs, in and by the introduction and advocacy, of the said bill, has manifested a mind and heart disloyal to the Constitution and the Union of the States as they existed at the time of the rebellion, and is guilty of the crime, specified in therefore deservesthe reprobationthoef trheissolHuotiuosne, and Mr. ASHLEY., of Ohio. I object.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I insist that this is a question of privilege.
The SPEAKER. When the committee rose the House resumed the consideration of another bill which was already before it. The pending question is on House bill No. 543, which takes precedence.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I do not, however, wish to press the resolution at this time, as I see the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] is not in his seat. Jon N cotton.
Mr. FARQUBAR, by unanimous consent introduced a JtResolution for the relief o John Cotter, of Franklin county, Indiana; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. LINE OFFICERS IN THE NAVY.
Mr. FARQUHAR, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to establish and equalize the grades of line officers of the U.S. Navy, ” approved July 16, 1862; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComNavAffrs. AMOS HOPPER.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, submitted a resolution in relation to the claim of Amos Hopper and others for pensions; which was referred to the ComInvalidPens. MILITIA.
Mr. PAINE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was o to the ComPrintg under the law: Resolved, That 3,000 extra copies of the billofor organizing, arming, and discip lining the militia, and for other purposes, referred to the Committee on the Militia, January 3, 1867, be printed in pamphlet form for the use of mittee. the said comNEW ExECUTIVE MANSION.
Mr. NIBLACK. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComPubBldg and Grounds be instructed to inquire into the prac ticability and expediency of providing for the erection of a new Executive Mansion for the use of POTUS And in case suthceh committee shall deem it practicable and expedient. to provide for the erection of such new Executive Mansion then that said committee be further instructed to inquire into the propriety of setting apart the present Executive Mansion for the use of the Dept of State, and to report by bill or Wise. other
Mr. BAKER. I object. RIVER SURVEYS IN Illinois.
Mr. WENTWORTH offered the following resolution; which, being a call for executive information, was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved.That the SecyWar be requested to communicate to this House what progresshas been made in the surveys of the Rock ond Illinois rivers ordered at the last session of this Congress, and the namesof the officers to whom said surveys have been intrusted. CLERR TO A COMMITTEE.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on, the Militia be authorized to appoint a clerk, who shall receive the compensation allowed to the clerk of on Commercefor the time of actual setrhveicCeo.mmittee
Mr. SPALDING. I object. And then, on motion of Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, (at half past 3 o'clock p. m.,) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. FRIDAY, January 4, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. ROSS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.487) donatingaportion of the Fort Leavenworth military reservation for the exclusive use of a pub: lic road; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs . He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S: No. 488) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs . He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.489) to provide for giving the right of precmption to settlers in the Cherokee neutral.in Kansas, and for other purposes;, which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed. FRENCH interVENTION IN MEXICO.
Mr. HOWARD. I beg to present the following resolution, and I ask the consent of the Senate to consider it at the present time: Resolved, That the Committee, on Foreign Relations be instructed to inquire and report to the senraetpeutbhleic present relations between France and the of Mexico; the extent, both with respect to population and territory, of the successes of Max imilian in his endeavors to overthrow that republic; the amount and character of his military force, including his French auxiliaries; the action of executive branch of the Government of the U.S. in reference to the intervention of France in the affairs of Mexico, including any treaty or project of treaty proposed, assentedto, or recommendedby our minister to France, with a view to a, of the difficulties betwecn France and Mesxeitctole;mtehnet present prospect of the withdrawal of troops the French from Mexican soil, and the probability in the case of such withdrawal of Maximilian being able to pmoasientain his standing there; and that for the pur; of such inquiries said committee be authorized to send for personsand papers.
Mr. SUMNER. I think that resolution had better lie over today.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It lies over under the rule, objection being made.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM The house. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPERsoN, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a JtResolution (H.R.No. 227) authorizing the SecyWar to transfer certain property to the National Asylum for jo.unteers, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. The message also announced that The SPEAKer of the House had signed the enrolled JtResolution (S.R.No. 123) in relation to the settlement of the accounts of William P. Wingate, collector of the port of Bangor, Maine; and it was thereupon signed by the President protempore. POWER OF AMNESTY AND PARDON.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 453, to regulate the tenure of offices.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire the bill which the Senfrom Vermont has in charge to come up, but I do not suppose he expects to get through with it before the hour of one o'clock, and I am anxious to dispose of the bill which I called up yesterday and upon which thes{Mr. JOHNson] had the floor. He was unwilling to go on yesterday and asked to have it go over. Perhaps we can dispose of that today. As this bill of the Senfrom Vermont will take some time, and the other bill has been up several times, and the Senfrom Maryland is now in his seat, if the Senfrom Vermont has no objection I should like to call up that bill to repeal section 13 of the confiscation act and dispose of it. We have had it up several times, and it has been put off to accommodate different parties. It was put off yesterday at the instance of the Senfrom Maryland.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I am quite willing to as sent to that, for I am in favor of the measure my friendfrom Illinois has in charge; but the bill which I have moved to proceed to the consideration of has been reported for a considerable length of time, and is of very considerable importance, and I should dislike to have it go over unless with the understanding that when this measure is disposed of it may then be proceeded with. With that understanding shall have no objection.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly I am as much for the bill the Senator has in charge as the others; but as we have progressed with the other I thought we had better finish it today if we could.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will waive my motion, then, for the time being.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion of the Senfrom Vermont is withdrawn.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I will then move that we now proceed to the consideration of the bill which I have indicated, to repeal section 13 of the confiscation act, upon which the Senfrom Maryland {Mr. JOHNson] has the floor. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 828) to repeal section 13 of “An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, ” approved July 17, 1862; the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. SAULsbury, to strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause and to insert in lieu thereof the following: That the act entitled “An act to suppressinsurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscatethe property of rebels, and for other purposes, ” approved July 17, 1862, be, and the same is ereby, repealed.
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 Senate bill No. 475.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the Senator desire's to go on, I move that that bill be postponed for the present.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would rather go on. I shall not speak more than half an hour.
Mr. SUMNER. There is no objection to the postponement of the bill, which is the unfinished business.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is moved that the special order of the day, being the unfinished business of yesterday, be postponed for the present. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON. But, Mr. President, from some cause, of which I know nothing, whatever I may suspect, that advice of mine was not taken. A general amnesty has not been proclaimed and nobody has been tried. The fail ure to proclaim the amnesty, if it be censur able at all, is to be visited upon the President. The failure to obtain a trial of any of these offenders is not to be attributed to him. He has no power to enforce a trial. The party must be indicted. That depends upon the grand jury. After indictment, he must be tried; that depends upon the court before whom the indictment is pending. If from any cause the court cannot be held, the fault is not with the President; it is either with the legislative dept of the Government, or with the judicial dept. But I cannot help saying here, for it has wounded my sensibility as an American citizen, that I think it is a reproach to American justice that there should have been incarcerated now for nearly 2 years, whatever may have been his offense, a man of a delicate frame, selected by 6 or 7 millions of people to take charge of thisrebellion, upon a charge of treason. That he should be indicted for it, invoke a trial, not only chal lenge but pray for a trial, and still be immured, is a reproach to American justice that if existing in any nation of Europe would call down condign punishment upon the parties concerned in it.
Mr. HOWARD. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. HOWARD. I wish to ask the honorable Senfrom Maryland whether it be not a fact that JeffersonDavis, to whom he alludes, was captured as a prisoner of war, and has, since the time of his capture, been held under the orders of the POTUS as a prisoner of war; and if he be a mere prisoner of war, detained as such, what power has the district court of the district in which he may have committed the crime to bring him to trial without the consent and order of the POTUS handing him over to the court which is to try him; and how could that court try him unless twhiellipnrgoper prosecuting officer of the court was to undertake the task and did under take the task?
Mr. JOHNSON. I can answer the inquiries of my honorable friendfrom Michigan without any great difficulty. If Mr. Davis was a pris oner of war merely, he was entitled when the war ended, by all the usages of war, to be discharged. Who ever heard of prisoners of war in any civilized country being held in prison after the war's termination? That is one of the grounds on which his immunity from trial is placed. As to the parties who should bear the blame, if any blame is to be attached; I say to the honorable member what, before he it to me his questions, I had supposed he new, that the POTUS from time to time has expressed his willingness to surrender the party into the custody of the civil magistrates at once, and that they have declined to receive him, not upon the ground that they were not willing to try him, but upon the ground that between getting possession of him and his trial his custody would not be insured.
Mr. HOWARD. Surrender him to whom, to what officer?
Mr. JOHNSON. Surrender him to the mar shal of the district who has had placed in his hands, or should have had placed in his hands, a warrant issued upon the authority of the indictment. From time to time we have been told that he was to be tried, but from time to time the trial has been postponed, and at the latter occasion it was postponed upon the ground that Congress by j.the circuits had rendered it impossible for the Chief Justice of the U.S or any circuit judge of the U.S. to preside at the trial.
Mr. HOWARD. Can the honorable senator inform us whether a capias for the arrest of Davis has been actually issued and placed in the hands of the marshal at any time?
Mr. JOHNSON. Whose business was it to issue the warrant? Was it the business of the POTUS to issue the warrant?
Mr. HOWARD. It was the business of the court.
Mr. JOHNSON. The court before whom the indictment was pending was bound to issue the warrant, and I assume that the warrant was issued.
Mr. HOWARD. Undoubtedly it was the business of the court to issue the warrant, but upon the request of
Mr. JOHNson's prosecuting officer, whose business it was to press the prose cution and accomplish it.
Mr. WILSON. Some of his property was taken by the Government for temporary use, but it has been restored.
Mr. HOWE. It is said that his estate has by the act of the Government been restored to him. And yet this Government is the one which is arraigned before the civilized world as a model of inhumanity! Sir, the charge rteiosntss;lightly upon me, lightly upon my convic not so lightly upon my feelings. When ever I have heard it, I have rarely heard it with my ears; I have read it often in the prints; it has always struck me as so monstrously unjust that I certainly never expected to hear it om the lips of the Senfrom Maryland; and I have rarely heard it, as I said before, anywhere. It is often urged in newspapers, but I have rarely heard it pronounced in .
Mr. JOHNSON. If the honorable member desires an answer now I can give it.
Mr. HOWARD. I will hear the honorable Senator.
Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly think that he can be; but the honorable member I suppose has not forgotten that the late AttyGen of the U.S. gave an opinion to the President that he could only be tried in Virginia. I think in that he was mistaken.
Mr. HOWARD. I am quite aware that the late AttyGen did give such an opinion; but what is the opinion upon that subject of the present AttyGen of the U.S. f do not know, and I am not sure that the honorable Senfrom Maryland knows.
Mr. HOWARD. If there has been a neg lect to bring Davis to trial it has, in my judgment, arisen chiefly from the mistake which has been made in regard to the doctrine of F. his legal at the commission of the acts of war. hold, as I held at the last session, that in the case of the commander in chief of the rebel army, the person who held in his hands the entire control of the rebel army was as much guilty of treason, as much present at an act of war committed in the State of Ohio by John Morgan, or even in the State of Vermont by the raiders who came over the border, who were subject to his orders, as if the act of war had been committed in the district of Virginia where Davis himself, the commander in chief, resided at the time. A remark fell from the learned Senfrom IMaryland which not a little surprised me. When asked him whether Davis was not arrested and held as a prisoner of war I understood hin to answer in the affirmative, and at the same time to add that if he were a prisoner of war he was not guilty of treason. If I misunder stood the honorable Senator I shall be glad to be corrected. He does not correct me.
Mr. JOHNSON. I said that if he was a prisoner of war in the ordinary sense of that term, he could not be held to be guilty of trea son. He ought to have been handed over to the civil authorities and condemned as a traitor or hung on the spot. But, as I said before, if merely held as a prisoner of war he should not have been held after the termination of the war.
Mr. TRUMBULL. As it is not my intention to speak upon this subject, and an in ference might be drawn from the remarks of the Senfrom Indiana, that I conceded the authority of the President to pardon by general proclamation, I desire simply to say that I do not concede it. I did not intendentering upon the discussion today of that question; I had previously said all I desired to sAy upon it; but the Senfrom Indiana is not warranted in afsuming that I do not question the authority of the President in that regard to the same extent which I questioned it the other day. I have heard nothing to change the views which I expressed when this bill was called up some days since.
Mr. JOHNSON. Until there is an assignment.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, until there is an assignment of the judges by legislative authority. I am not able to see how that will apply to the circuit in Virginia for the reason, as I understand, that the limits and number of that circuit have not been changed by the legislation, but that the number of the circuit and its extent is now what it was before the legislation spoken of.
Mr. JOHNSON. The circuit is extended in its jurisdiction.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senfrom Maryland informs me that the circuit is extended in its jurisdiction; but I will ask the Senator whether the number of the circuit has been changed; whether the number is not the same?
Mr. JOHNSON. The number is the same, I suppose. If the Senator will permit me, I will say in justification, if it requires justification, of the opinion of the Chief Justice, that the change of the circuits takes from the judges the authority to hold courts in the circuits that they before presided over. That view was concurred in by nearly all the judges of the court. They supposed that that must be the state of things until the judges themselves, as they are authorized to do under the old law, shall assign the circuits over again. There are one or 2 judges who think differently; but they all think that so far as the districts are concerned in the circuits the district judge should hold the court, and that the district judge is also competent to hold the circuit court. The case, therefore, of Mr. Davis in the circuit court of Virginia might be tried by the district judge; but I suppose that the Chief Justice and the counsel for the prisoner, too, would be unwilling to have the case tried before a district judge, because there is some doubt whether in a capital case a district judge is competent to try the cause without the presence of the circuit judge. That was the opinion of the late Chief Justice of the U.S. My impression at the time was, and still is, that it was an erroneous opinion; but still the opinion of such a man as Mr. Taney was entitled to all weight, and certainly entitled to more weight than any opinion I could give; and our district judge does decline and has always declined to try any cases the punishment of which is death.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not suppose any considerable sentiment in the country would desire the trial of Mr. Davis by any judge other than the judge of the Supreme Court assigned to that circuit, so that the questions of law, when they come to be decided on that trial, shall have weight and influence in the country. I was not myself able to see why the circuits should require a new assignment when the number of the circuit itself had not been changed. But I care nothing about that. It is a question
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senfrom Indiana will permit me, while he is on that question, I should like to inquire if there is any difficulty under the law as it stands in the Supreme Court assigning themselves to the respective circuits.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I believe not; until recently they have not been in session since the passage of the law. I believe the law that changed the circuits was approved since the adjournment of the court last spring. Therefore since its passage they have not been in session till recently. Whether they have made a reassignment I do not know.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senfrom Indiana will pardon me for interrupting him; but I oflike to inquire I have not looked at the law if it is not in the power of the judges to assign themselves? Is it done by an order of the court?. My impression was that the judges possessed authority under the law to assign themselves to the respective circuits. I have not looked at the law? but it seems to me there can be no doubt about that.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not intend to enter upon a question like that in this debate. I know that the judge of the circuit in which I practice, who is a very able man indeed, Judge avis, hesitated to hold the circuit court until there was a reassignment by the Supreme Court in banc. He did not understand that he could hold the court in his circuit at the last term because of this difficulty. If that is a sufficient excuse for the Chief Justice, let it be so. I shall be very much gratified if it is; but it is not right, it is not fair to charge upon the Executive that which is exclusively under the control of the judiciary. Is there any Senator who would desire to see the Executive under take to control the action of the judiciary, to say what causes shall be tried and when they shall be tried? But, Mr. President, I rose simply to say that my objection to this bill is not that it would take from the President any power which I think he possesses under the Constitution, but that it will be made to be understood in the country as the expression of Congress against the policy which I think for the good of the country.
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Presideot, the Senfrom Indiana has erected a windmill, and then leveled his lance and charged Don Quixote like upon it. I made no charge against the POTUS; none whatever. I neither charged him with selling individual pardons nor with selling proclamations of pardon. I made no charge at all. I will read what I did say: “Mr. President, it is a notorious fact, as notorious as the records of a court, that pardons have been for sale around this town, for sale by women, and more than one woman. The records of your court in the DistCol show this.” Again, I said: “This is a matter of public record, a matter that every man knows who has read the newspapers or examined the records of your courts, and I have it from one of the judges of the court of this District that such is the fact.” I made no charge that the President had sold pardons or even knew that pardons were sold; but I stated the fact that they were sold and gave the authority on which I made the statement. Again, I said: “If the President has thesepowers under the constitution let him exercise them; but in God's name give him no greater power than he possessesunder the Constitution.” I did not say that the section which this bill proposes to repeal either diminished or increased his powers; but if it did increase his powers I desired to restrict him to his constitutional powers. But I will now say, sir, that when these disgraceful facts were brought to the knowledge of the President he denounced the man who brought them to his knowledge, and the nefarious business went on for months afterward; and the intimacy of those individ uals who had been selling pardons continued at the White House for months after it had been brought to his knowledge that pardons were being sold. I did not make this statement before, but I make it now.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am glad to hear the Senator disclaim an intention to make the charge against the President. I had not been able to understand his language otherwise, but I am glad now of his statement upon the subject. He said: “The recordsof your court in the DistCol show this. Any Senator who desires that disgraceful business to go on, of course desiresthat this clause shall remain; any Senator who desires to stop that disgraceful business, desires that the clauseshall be instantly repealed.” That was the Senator's language. The only authority given in this section was to issue a proclamation of pardon, and I was not able therefore to understand the Senator's language, and I am very glad of his explanation on this occasion.
Mr. CHANDLER. If the Senator will look at the remarks made by me a few moments before he will find this language which I just now read: “If the President has these powers under the constitution, let him exercise them; but in give God's name him no greater power than he possessesunder the Constitution, ” which is of itself a sufficient explanation of my position.
Mr. TRUMBULL. As something has been said about the question of the allotment of judges, and an impression seems to have prevailed in some quarters that there was an inad vertence on the part of Congress in not proo viding at the last session for an allotment of the judges of the Supreme Court so that the circuit courts could be held, I desire to say that it seems to me that the law is very specific on that point, and I beg leave to read it. “That on every appointment which shall be here after made of a chief justice or associatejustice, the said chief justice and associate justices shall allot themselves among the aforesaid circuits as they shall think fit, and shall enter such allotment on record. And in case no such allotment shall be madeby them at their session next succeeding such appointment, and also after the appointment of any judge, as said, afore and beforeany allotment shall have been made, it shall and may be lawful for the POTUS to make such allotment as he shall deem proper, which allotment mole in either case shall be binding until another allotment shall be made.” Then a subsequent section provides that the attendance of 2 justices of the Supreme Court may be required to hold a circuit court by an order of the court. It seems that the court would have to be together and enter upon the record their allotment, but in case no allotment is made then the POTUS has authority to allot the judges, which holds good until a new allotment is made by the court. It seems to me that there is no obstacle whatever in the way of the judges assigning themselves to the respective circuits under the law as it stands, and in case of a failure of the judges to do it, the authority in the President to do it is ample.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Delaware as a substitute for the bill. The amendment was rejected. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, and was read the 3rd time.
Mr. JOHNSON. Upon the passage of the bill I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 27, nays 7; 18. So the bill was passed. AD, JOURNMENT TO MONDAY. On the motion of Mr. RAMSEY, it was Ordered. That when the Senate adjourns today it be to meet on Monday next. HOUSE BILI, Refrer RED. The JtResolution (H.R.No. 227) author.izing the SecyWar to transfer certain W. to the National Asylum for Disabled folunteers, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs . PRINTING OF BANKRUPT BILL.
Mr. ROSS, from the ComPrintg, to whom was referred a resolution yesterday submitted by Mr. Poland, reported it without amendment, and it was agreed to as follows: Resolved.That 500 additional copies of House bill No. 508, and the amendmentsthereto pro: osedby the ComJudiciary, be printed or the use of the Senate. THE TENURE OF OFFICE.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to postpone the present, if there is a present order, as I believe there is, and all prior orders, to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 453, to regulate the tenure of offices. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is not designed, I understand, to go on with the bill tonight; I therefore move that the Senate do now adJourn.
Mr. WADE. Will you withdraw that motion for a moment?
Mr. WADE. I believe that the ComJudiciary have charge of the House bill fixing the time for the holding of the sessions of the next Congress.
Mr. WADE. It seems to me that it is important that that bill should be taken up and disposed of at a very early day, so that some of the States that do not ordinarily elect in time to participate in the proposed 1st session of the next Congress may have an opportunity to change, if necessary, their ordinary time of electing so as to conform to our new law. I barely now wish to call attention to it so that it may not be overlooked. It seems to me it is important to act upon it at an early day.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I can say in reply to the Senfrom Ohio that the bill was reported back by the committee before the recess, and it is in the Senate, subject to be taken up at any time. It was in the particular charge of the Senfrom New W. [Mr. HARRIs] who is not in his seat today.
Mr. WADE. Very well; I only wished to call attention to it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I renew the motion to adjourn. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, January 4, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNTox. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. postoffice APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. KASSON. I desire to make a report from the ComAppropriat.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I thought that no business was to be done today.
The SPEAKER. No vote is to be taken today.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No vote on any subject?
The SPEAKER. The unanimous order of the House was that no vote should be taken today.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. On any subject?
The SPEAKER. the Chair thinks the report is in order.
Mr. KASSON, from the ComAppropriat, then reported a bill making appropriations for the service of the postoffice dept during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComWhole on the state of the Union, made the special order for Monday next, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to reserve the right to raise points of order on that bill in ComWhole as in the House.
The SPEAKER. That right is reserved. FORTIFICATION BILL.
Mr. STEVENS, from the ComAppropriat, reported a bill making appropriations for the construction, preservation, and repair of certain fortifications and other works of defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComWhole on the state of the Union, and made the special order for Wednesday next.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I reserve the right to raise points of order on that bill as in the House.
The SPEAKER. The right will be reserved. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would like to have a definite understanding about this matter of business, as some gentlemen seem to have been misled. The report in the Globe, which certainly misled me, says that by unanimous consent a proposition was submitted by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] that tomorrow and the next day be devoted to debate, and that no vote be taken on those days.
The SPEAKER. The Chair supposes that the report in the Globe is taken from 2 propositions made: one proposition was that nothing but debate should be in order; afterward the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] suggested that the agreement be that no vote should be taken.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. As I understand the agreement, no vote is to be taken on the reconstruction bill before the House or upon any important measure. We have probably no quorum here. But I understood that resolutions and bills could be introduced.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think we had better have the understanding made more clear, that no business shall be done except of a formal character.
Mr. SCHENCK. I must object to any such understanding, for I am about to ask the unan imous consent of the House to pass a bill to day, the necessity of which the Gentfrom Illinois will at once see.
The SPEAKER. If any gentleman objects the Chair will decide that the gentleman's proposition cannot be entertained. ELECTION OF SENATORS IN CONGRESS.
Mr. SCHENCK. I ask unanimous consent to offer a bill, which I send to the desk. senators have advised me that they will be prepared to act upon it if they get it today. I to offer the bill now and that it be read. The bill was read. It provides that the act to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress, approved July 25, 1866, shall be so construed that when the meeting and organization of the legislature of any State takes place on a Tuesday, then the 2nd Tuesday after such meeting and organization shall be held to be the 14th day thereafter.
Mr. NIBLACK. I object. PAYMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, by unanimous consent, submitted the following preamble and resolution; which were referred to the ComWays&Means: Whereas the people of paid the U.S., have more than $200,000,000 of the public debt during the last 15 months and are now toiling under an unprecedentedburden of taxation; and whereas the population of the country duplicates in, 21 years, after the lapse of which term there will be 2 men to contribute to the public debt as often as there is one now; and whereas the credit of the govcrnment is so firmly established that its securities are eagerly sought for in every part of the world: Therefore, Be it presentresolved.That the people ought not for the to be further or any longer taxed to raise ofor the reduction of the principal of the public ebt. 1ST COLLECTION DISTRICT OF Illinois.
Mr. WENTWORTH, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyTreasury be requested to communicate to of internalrevenuecollected this House the amount in the 1st collection district of Illinois for eachmonth in theyear 1866 and the amount of penalties assessedagainst anyone person or firm or company in such district, with the annount remitted by the Dept at Washington in case, specifying each the instances where the remittance has been made upon the recommendation of any particular officer or officers in said district. TREATMENT OF FREEDMEN.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, presented a paper containing statements of officers of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, concerning the treatment of freedmen in Arkansas and the Indian Territory; which was referred to the JtComReconstruction, and ordered to be printed. DUTIES ON SUGAR, MOLASSES, ETC.
Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComWays and be instructed to inquire into the expedi so arranging the tariff duties on sugar, molasses, coffee, farnede ogtrhoewrnarticles as to discriminate in favor of the and against the slave grown products. SWAMIPS AND OVERFLOWED LANDS.
Mr. McCLURG, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill in addition to and amendatory of the several acts of Congress relative to swamp and overflowed lands; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. RESERVATION No. 17, WASHINGTON.
Mr. INGERSOLL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill in relation to reservation No. 17, in the City of Washington; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComDistCol. COURT OF CLAIMS.
Mr. HILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution extending the provisions of section 2 of an act entitled “An act to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims;” which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. ARMY AND NAVY PENSIONS.
Mr. SCHENCK, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to continue to Army and Navy pensioners their pensions notwithstanding their appointments to civil office; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComInvalidPens, and ordered to be printed. WILLIAM G.ILL.
Mr. ARNELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of William Gill, of Maury county, Tennessee, a veteran of the war of 1812; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. NATIONAL MILITARY AND NAVAL ASYLUM.
Mr. SCHENCK. I ask unanimous consent to introduce for the consideration of the House at this time a JtResolution, which I will send to the co, desk to be read; and then I will explain why it is important that it should be onow. he JtResolution was read. It that the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteers, not having obtained title to land at Point Lookout, in Maryland, as contemplated by the 12th section of the act approved March 21, 1866, establishing that institution, the SecyWar is authorized at his discretion to transfer to the said National Asylum any property of the U.S. still remaining at Point, Lookout which may be considered appropriate and useful for the objects of that corporation.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, transmitting, in reply to a resolution of the House of December 10, 1866, a report of the disbursement of the fund of $160,000 among the clerks in the Treasury Dept; which was referred to the ComAppropriat, and ordered to be printed. MAJOR OTIS. A. WHITEHEAD.
Mr. DODGE, by unanimous consent, introduced an act to release the sureties of Major Otis A. Whitehead; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. for the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in order is the consideration of House bill No. 543, to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights, on which the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, when I took the floor yesterday it was with the intention of arguing this question before the House. When I yielded the floor the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. moved to go into the ComWhole for general debate. I did not desire to debate this important question in the ComWhole. My purpose was to discuss it in the presence of the House, aided by such suggestions as in a full House members interested in this great question might be likely to give me. I therefore beg leave to defer what i’. to say until this bill shall come up in its regular order on next Monday.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the Gentfrom Ohio that next Monday, after the morning hour, has been assigned for the consideration of one of the regular approriation bills in the ComWhole. Therefore this bill may possibly not be reached on that o;
Mr. BINGHAM. All I desire is to submit my remarks whenever the bill shall again come up in the House.
The SPEAKER. The bill is still before the House for discussion.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, (after a pause.) If no gentleman desires to take the floor, I move that the House adjourn.
Mr. SCHENCK. I ask the gentleman to withdraw his motion, that some petitions, which have been improperly referred to the ComMilAffrs, may be sent to appropriate committees. I with I now call Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. draw the motion for that purpose alone. FIREDERICK SCHADE AND OTHERS. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, by unanimous consent, the ComMilAf. fairs was discharged from the further, consid: eration of the petition of Frederick Schade, of Tennessee, and various others, claiming comofor a church destroyed by General urnside's army; and the same was referred to the ComClaims. to Aniel, COLe On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, by unanimous consent the ComMilAffrs was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Daniel Cole, of Hampshire county, Virginia, for a pension; and same was referred to the ComInvalidPens. BAR BELIY MER.
Mr. SCHENCK, from the ComMilAffrs, by unanimous consent, submitted an adverse report on the petition of Bar Behymer, asking pay for military services rendered the Government in 1864; which was laid on the table.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM the SENATE. A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. FortNEy, its Secretary, notifying the House that that body had passed Senate JtResolution No. 102, construing and giving effect to JtResolution entitled “Joint resolution for the survey of the State of Wisconsin, ” approved j, 1, 1864, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. MAIL ROUTE TO CALIFORNIA.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComPostOffice be, and hereby are, instthruected and to inquire into the reasons why service has not beenput on the mail route from Springfield, Missouri, to SanFran cisco, California; and if any further legislation is necessary to establish aoline of stages between those points, then to report by bill or otherwise. SeSSION TOMORROW.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I thought the understanding was there was to be no vote taken today. [Laughter]
The SPEAKER. A vote on the motion to adjourn over can be taken.
Skip Skip The House divided; and there were ayes 26, noes 28; no quorum voting.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope it will be the understanding that the House shall meet tomorrow for debate only.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I have no objection to that.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I with draw my motion on that understanding.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is not aware of any gentleman who is desirous to go on tomorrow in the ComWhole.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is no quorum present in the city; notice having gone out that no business would be done unti Monday next.
Mr. WENTWORTH. If it requires unanimous consent to do anything, I do not see why we should not act upon business to which there is no objection.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I learn there are 3 or 4 gentlemen who wish to speak tomorrow, and I hope the House will not adjourn over.
The SPEAKER. If there be no objection it will be the understanding that the session tomorrow will be devoted exclusively to debate in the ComWhole on the state of the Union on the President's message. There was no objection; and it was ordered accordingly. REPORT OF REVENUE COMMISSIONER.
Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the House 20,000 copies of the report of the special comrRev, an sand copies of the form of bill accompanying the same; and for the use of the Treasury Dept 1,000 copies of the report, and 500 copies of the form of bill. COTTON CLAIMS.
Mr. WENTWORTH, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyTreasury be requested to communicate the amount of each cot ton claim presented to his Dept for payment, with the names of the claimants, with the amount allowed upon each claim, stating what ones have been rejected,tion, what ones are still under examina and the total amount already paid upon all the cotton claims allowed.
Mr. WENTWORTH mtRtv the resolution was adopted; upon the table. agreed to. TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Mr. BIDWELL. I ask unanimous consent to take up and put on its passage House JtResolution No. 213, to extend the provisions of the act in regard to agricultural colleges to the State of Tennessee.
Mr. ALLISON. I object. PRESIDENT's MEssage.
Mr. GARFIELD moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union on the President's annual message. 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 proceeded to the consideration of the Presidents annual Ines sage, on which Mr. MERCUR was entitled to the floor.
Mr. MERCUR. I am not prepared to go on today, and will yield the floor to any gentleman who is.
Mr. JOHNson lent himself to all the schemes of the most violent }art.isan Democratic and rebel politicians. loudly boasted that he was with them, and that what he did today was but a foretaste of what he would do tomorrow when the public mind had been properly prepared for some new outrage or usurpation. Instead of allying himself with Union men in Congress, he consorted and counseled with rebels, traitors, and bitter partisan Democrats. Every act of his administration has been inspired by the counsels of such perons. Every attack upon the Government was applauded by their claquers. In fine, if the late president of the socalled confederacy had been in the Executive chair, he could not more zealously have espoused the cause of his late associates than has
Mr. WENTWORTH. Mr. Chairman, a few days ago I offered a resolution calling upon the President for information in respect to the pardon of the Chicago conspirators, as they are generally called. I understand they have all been pardoned but one. I understand with reference to that one the usual course is being resorted to for the purpose of getting him pardoned, namely: 1st a number of quasi rebels, men too old to go to the war themselves, but who sent their sons and grandsons and therefore claim to be loyal, sign a petition. Then they get a leading clergyman, a bishop of some diocese perhaps, to sign the petition. Then they go to a few weak backed Republicans and get their signatures, and finally take the usual course through the well known claim agents or brokers, male or female, in this city. . but to give strength to their efforts in this case hear i.they have finally got the Legislature of Florida to pass a JtResolution asking for the pardon of the only remaining one of these Chicago conspirators. No information from the President has come to this House touching this conspirator. Since I introduced the resolution on this subject I have received a letter from one of the most gallant colonels of all our Illinois regiments, which I will send to the Clerk to be read in order that the people of this country may know what class of persons they are who are seeking and getting pardons from the President.
Mr. GRINNEi L. Mr. Chairman, the POTUS did not in his late message commend the proposed constitutional amendments to the rebel States, nor did he othat on their adoption they should lave a representation in Congress. such a pledge would have been made without authority, and have been an untrue reflection of the spirit of the radical governing power of this country. Congress is committed to the amendments as proper a 1st installment but has made no romise that being complied with the millions ate in arms against the Government shall be permitted to take their place in the family again. rudence and statesmanship will ask what is the spirit and the sentiment, what the local laws, of the people we would endow with political rights and equal privileges. The newer States of the Northwest gave their 100,000 majority and returned an almost united Union delegation, notin pledge or concurring in the opinion that justice would restore States where a sordid motive only was presented in security for impartial justice. The returned soldiers and the people in great masses, in conventions, and at public discussions, declared that they who fought our battles and were our tried friends should never be left to the caprices and cruelties of their late rebel masters unprotected with a ballot. I see before me the Gentfrom Illinois, the Nestor of this House from the Northwest, who comes back here endorsed by a majority of near 10,000, to whom I might safely appeal in corroboration of the understanding of our peop! 2.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the Gentfrom Iowa refers to me, I will state frankly that I made no such pledge. On the other hand, I stood to the doctrine enunciated in the report which he holds in his hand. I hold to it yet, and if I had been in my seat and I was detained from it by indisposition when the vote was taken for the admission of Tennessee, I desire to state here that I should have voted with the minority; I should have voted as my friend would have voted if he had been here, against the admission.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As no other gentleman desires to address the committee today, 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. GARFIELD reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the President's annual message, had come to the resolution thereon. soldiers' Bounty.
Mr. HILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill supplemental to an act entitled “An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the .for the year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes.” The bill proposes to extend the bounty provided by the act of July 28, 1866, to soldiers discharged on account of disease contracted in the line of duty. The bill was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComMilAffrs, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am aware that the House has made an understanding that there shall be no business done here tomorrow and nothing but speaking, but I am told that there is no gentleman who desires to speak tomorrow, and therefore there is no necessity for our holding a session.
The SPEAKER. If any gentlemandesiresto speak tomorrow he will manifest it. [Laugh o
Mr. SPALDING. I desire to speak tomorrow if no one else does.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at 2 o'clock p. m.) the House adjourned.
Skip Skip PETITIONS. The following petitions were presented under the to the appropriate committees: The SPEAKER: The petition of Boyd, Dr. William of Washington City, in regard to the sale of persons of color in Maryland. Mr. BUNDY: The petition of Hiram Campbell, and 31 others, citizens of Ironton, Lawrence county Qhio, protesting against any further reduction of the national currency. Mr. COBB: The petition of citizens of Lancas ter, Grant county, Wisconsin, that the currency question be let alone. Mr. HOLMES: The resolutions of Board of Trade of Oswego, NewYork. Also, the petition of Charles T. Radcliff, for American register for schooner or brig NewYork. y Mr. MOULTON: The petition of 100citizens of county, Illinois, praying for the impeachment of the POTUS for his misde meanor and malfeasance in office, Also, the petition of sundry citizens of county, Georgia, praying Cherokee for an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. so as to secure equality of rights among all citizens. Also, the petition of sundry citizens of county, Illinois, against Christian the curtailment of the currency.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, January 5, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoyNToN. The Journal of yesterday was read. CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL.
Mr. HILL. I desire to correct the Journal. I introduced yesterday a JtResolution ex.the provisions of section 2 of an act entitled “An act to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and for other purposes.” The Journal records that it was referred to the ComJudiciary. My motion was to refer it to the ComMilAffrs. I move that the Journal be so corrected. The motion was agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. STEVENS. Irise to a privileged ques.tion. Mr. Blow, of Missouri, is detained from the House by sickness. I move that he be excused from attendance here indefinitely. The motion was agreed to. PRESIDENT's Message.
Mr. NEWELL. I ask leave to offer a resolution.
The SPEAKER. No business can betransacted today. The Chair even doubted if a gentleman could be granted leave of absence. The House has determined that no business shall be in order today, except debate as in the ComWhole on the state of the Union on the President's message, and upon that the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING) is entitled to the floor.
Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment for a confirmation of what he has expressed?
Mr. KELLEY. I have letters from North and SCarolina, from very able lawyers, from men who served as soldiers and officers in the confederate army, arguing the view the Gentfrom Ohio has so clearly expressed. They say as the result of the war: “We have lost; our States have lost: as individuals we have our rights. Our States were overthrown; as States alone could we act upon the constitutional amendment; but States we are not. We cannot adopt the constitutional amendment constitutionally; we could not sustain it personally in striking down our leaders for having participated in a common crime. You exercise your constitutional rights and adopt the amendment, and you will find no resistance to it in the South.” In almost the language I have given, from strangers to each other, some in SCarolina and others in NCarolina, I have received these letters.
Mr. KELLEY. Does the gentleman think that an assurance to the world that we can resume specie payment in less than 2 years is a proposition to do it gradually?
Mr. SPALDING. It occurs to me that that would be a proposition to do it within 2 years, and if that is not gradual enough for the gentleman why of course it is not gradual.
Mr. KELLEY. I simply othe gentleman the question.
Mr. SPALDING. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. SPALDING. Will the gentleman have the goodness to say whether, in his judgment, the adoption of the constitutional amendment has any bearing whatever on the reconstruction of those States?
Mr. STEVENS. Not the least, except so far as it provides that when we find those States fit for admission they shall not overwhelm us by a representation based upon the negroes who are not voters. That, in my judgment, is the vital feature of the constitutional amendment. It contains other wholesome provisions, but its great virtue is, that it cuts down the representation of those States; takes away their power to overrule us when they shall have formed proper constitutions and shall be deemed fit for admission to representation. The idea that the constitutional amendment contains anything contemplating its submission to the action of the southern States is altogether idle. It need not go there. If we once adopt it and they choose to come in, why ask them to ratify it? They come in as any other State would come in, under the Constitution as amended, at d they are bound by it, whether they ever choose to ratify it or not. To ask them to vote upon it would be stultifying ourselves, as the editor of the Chronicle has justly said, for it would be treating them as States, and asking them to take State action upon what Congress has sent forth for the action of the loyal States. After doing this, how could we say to the Executive, “Why, sir, you are wrong; these are no States?” “What?” that astute gentleman would reply, “not States? You have sent to them an invitation to ratify this amendment to the Constitution. Not States? What are they? Are they disorganized communities, lying about, as you pretend? Why, you have solemnly asked them to unite with every loyal State in an action which none but States can take.” Will the gentleman tell me whether by placing ourselves in that posture we should not stultify ourselves?
Mr. SPALDING. It may be so; but I will ask the gentleman whether his bill does not contemplate recognizing for certain purposes these very organizations in those States.
Mr. STEVENS. We do not propose to recog. nize the present organizations as valid. We propose to regulate them; we do not propose to ask them to regulate anything. We propose to say to those communities: “You have no governments; we repudiate all your pretended governments. Go on and form j.governments as Congress has ordered you to form.” That is what we propose to do. When we shall have recognized those governments for municipal purposes the gentleman will be right in saying that for such purposes they are States. But the gentleman proposes to do this in advance. He would have them act now as States under their bastard reconstruction, and do that which none but States can do. I must beg leave to say, sir, as I have said before, 1st, the proposition was the most pernicious that could possibly be made by this and 2nd ly, it stultified the House, and hence the editor was right.
Mr. SPALDING. I beg leave to ask the gentleman one question.
Mr. SPALDING. I ask whether he concurred in the majority report of the ComReconstruction submitting this amendment for the approval of the House? I would also like to know whether he voted for the admission of Tennessee.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir, I voted for the admission of Tennessee without regard to the amendment sent forth, which was no amendment then. Tennessee had formed a constitution and submitted it to her people, and they had ratified it; the only rebel State that had done so. On full examination of that constitution, my colleague here knows, and all the laws passed under it, the committee came to the conclusion it was a republican State, and we could safely admit it. Her adoption of the constitutional amendment before the act of admission was a matter of no importance; not the least in the world.
Mr. NIBLACK. I wish to inquire of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania whether the JtResolution admitting the State of Tennessee to representation in the 2 Houses of Congress did not place it upon the ground the State had adopted the constitutional amendment, and whether Congress did not sanction that view in that act, and that to adopt the constitutional amendment would entitle any of the rebel States to admission?
Mr. STEVENS. The preamble to the JtResolution admitting the State of Tennessee recited many of her good acts, and among the rest, as an inducement to admit her and as evidence of her loyalty, that she had just adopted the amendment to the Constitution; but nobody ever thought of giving a vote on that ground. No one thought of voting for it because she had done it; but it was one of the evidences of her loyalty.
Mr. NIBLACK. I beg to ask the gentleman whether Congress in that matter did not stultify itself according to the view he has promulgated?
Mr. STEVENS. Congress did not submit it to Tennessee at all. Tennessee did it before Congress passed the JtResolution. It was the voluntary act of the State of Tennessee, incited thereto by the impetuous young gentleman who is the Governor of that State. [Laughter] It was sent here and was incor porated as one of her good things to palliate the great many foolish things she had done. That is the whole of that.
Mr. NIBLACK. The gentleman will pardon me. My recollection is that it was transmitted to the Governor of the State of Tennessee, who called a special session of the Legislature, and that Congress waited with breathless anxiety to hear of the result; and when we received word by telegraph that Tennessee had adopted the constitutional amendment, congress made haste to admit Tennessee on that ground. It is part of the history of the country. such is my recollection, and I think gentlemen will agree with me.
Mr. STEVENS. I have not that recollection, but I do not undertake to contradict the Gentfrom Indiana when I do not recol lect. All I have to say is, that we recognized Tennessee as a State; the committee recognized Tennessee as a State; we agreed she had done all in forming her constitution which a State was required to do. The gentleman's fact, therefore, has no pertinency. I may as well say to the oman that he knows we took the ground that these disloyal States are not State organizations known to us, but are captive provinces, and have in their capitols certain municipal institutions for the purpose of going on from day to day, which we o not propose yet to disturb, but which are. ' to in my enabling acts. Now, sir, I have answered the gentleman's personal point. I have nothing personal to say in the matter; I say personal point; I mean the question referred to in his personal explanation. I do not wish, and I hope he does not so understand I wish, to interfere with his prospects; I do not know what they are; i who uld not do it if I could. 3 or 4 of his colleagues were as bad upon the stump as he was.
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman allow me, as the admission of Tennessee has been referred to at this stage of the discussion, to ask if States which were in rebellion were to do the things which Tennessee has done, and which are recited in the preample to the JtResolution by which Tennessee was restored to her privileges in the Union, namely: providing by law to secure her freedmen in the enjoyment of their civil rights; providing by law for the prevention of the return of the rebel element to power in the State; and, in the manner desig nated here, proving its loyalty to the Government and the loyalty of the people whom that Government represents, whether the gentleman or any other gentleman would not take such action in the case of that State as in the case of the State of Tennessee? Ispeak of no one particular act, but acts denoting all that I have intimated; that is, the repression of the rebellion in the persons of its votaries, the protection of the freedmen, and a government of loyal men representing a loyal constit uency. –
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, it is not expected that the rebel States will be kept out forever, although they seem to be getting worse and worse further and further off every day; and I do not know when they will get to the end of this long lane that has no turning. When these States form constitutions I believe that of Tennessee was submitted to the people
Mr. STEVENS. When they form constitutions and present them here, and the Congress of the U.S shall believe them to be republican in form and founded upon principles of justice, I presume Congress will be very glad to admit them to representation. I will say, however, here and now, that I shall never vote for the admission of another State containing one of the provisions of the Tennessee State government. The gentleman, I suppose, knows what that is,
Mr.MAYNARD. I confess I do not. [Laughter]
Mr. MAYNARD. Well, sir, I will say in regard to Tennessee that, so far as her treatment of the black portion of her population and of the late rebel population is concerned, she has been entirely impartial; that is to say, she gives to the freedmen and to the late rebels alike the enjoyment of all civil rights, and denies them only the right to vote, to hold office, and to serve on juries. The probability is, however, that she will very soon adopt the principle that this Congress has already oin reference to this District not of universal suffrage, not of negro suffrage, not of impartial suffrage, but of loyal suffrage, giving the right to vote to all who have shown their loyalty to this Government, irrespective of race or color.
Mr. STEVENS. That is the part of the constitution of Tennessee which I shut my eyes to at the time the vote was taken, (I do not know whether my friendfrom Tennessee shut his,) the idea that a loyal negro is to be put on the same footing with a rebel. [Laughter] It is an outrage in the constitution of Tennessee.
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman permit me to say that Tennessee has done a great deal more for the negro than is done in a large portion of the U.S., where he is not elevated to the same !. that the rebel is permitted to occupy. Even in the gentleman's own State a rebel from my portion of the country, should he go there, would find the door of political fellowship open to him. Whether they would welcome a loyal negro or not perhaps the gentleman can tell us. [Laughter]
Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman is right. Pennsylvania ought to blush, and many others of the free States ought to blush. for the infamous exclusion to which the gentleman refers. But will our blushes whiten the countenance of Tennessee? [Great laughter]
Mr. MAYNARD. No; but perhaps the suffusion may be a little less obvious. [Laughter]
Mr. STEVENS. I have nothing to say against Tennessee. I feel kind toward her. All I mean to sayis, that I do not expect to vote for the admission of any other State upon precisely the same conditions as those upon which Tennessee came in.
Mr. MAYNARD. Tennessee reciprocates the sentiment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania; she feels kindly toward him, and regrets that he did not find it convenient to become one of the party on a recent occasion to. the holidays in that part of the country. [Laughter]
Mr. STEVENS. Well, sir, I had made no reparation for a burial down there, [great aughter, Iso thought I would stay at home until I got ready, or at least until the winter was over and the ground broken. [Laughter] Mr. Speaker, aside from this episode, which is a very pleasant one, I was going on to say a few words by way of reparation, perhaps, for the feelings of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING, who thinks, unnecessarily as I suppose, that I have said something harsh about him. I admit that he has made the ablest and the handsomest defense of AndrewJohnson and his administration that I have heard for the last 2 years. I trust the members on the other side of the House will forgive me for placing them in the shade in comparison with the grand eulogy which has been delivered upon AndrewJohnson, his doings and his Cabinet, by the Gentfrom Ohio. [Laughter] Why, sir, I understand the gentleman to be perfectly satisfied with not only this exalted President, but particularly with every thing done by the SecyTreasury. Did he remove your collector? [Laughter] Well, I do not know whether he did or not.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. He removed mine.
Mr. STEVENS. I do not think he removed the gentleman's collector.
Mr. SPALDING. He did. Why, the exclusion of Mr. STEVENS. Then you got him back?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. He was put out at the request of the gentleman.
Mr. STEVENS. My friend says that he was put out at the request of the gentleman. I do not give it as my own statement.
Mr. SPALDING. So I see. I know where it comes from. ‘
Mr. STEVENS. When my friends were slaughtered I did not feel grateful. When the SecyTreasury, for no cause on earth but the building up of a new party and the promotion of a new political organization, turned out of office the best men in my district I did not feel toward him as the gentleman does. That only shows how much more of a Christian the gentleman is than I am, and I give him credit for it. But the gentleman is afraid of “radicals.” Well, who does he mean by radicals? He said he was a radical himself. Well, sir, “radical” means anything: root! Sometimes the root goes down about half an inch and sometimes a foot. How deep the gentleman's root goes I do not know.
Mr. SPALDING. The less he and I say about roots the better for both. [[.
Mr. STEVENS. We should say nothing about little roots. [Laughter] Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is afraid that there will be an assault rashly made upon the President in this House; that there are threats to impeach him without examination, without deliberation, and indiscreetly. Now the gentleman had no right, in answer to me, to make any remark of that kind. I have said and done nothing in the House which looked to im"eac.hment, and the only thing, perhaps, that to reproach myself with is, that the gentleman has held me back so long. Nothing has been done to enable us to administer this Government in its purity, and it never can be administered so as to protect the liberties of this nation until there is a different I dare not say it, sir; it might be supposed that I am in favor of impeaching the ." mean, sir, until the presidential term is up, (that is all,) and he thereby becomes removed, for he is an obstruction to all loyal action, and he is an eye sore to all loyal men except the Gentfrom Ohio. The gentleman will excuse me for noticing his remarks in respect to the Administration, which I do in no censorious spirit, but merely to express my dissent in a very faint way, and more particularly to fix the attention of the Administration upon the laudable efforts of the gentleman in their behalf. But, sir, I did not rise to make a speech, or to say anything unkind toward the Gentfrom Ohio, but simply to vindicate the editor and myself, in defending him from the propo:sition which the gentleman made, and in reference to which f think the editor was right. I have nothing further to say.
Mr. PRICE. Do I understand the gentleman to say that by the act of the last session of Congress the SecyTreasury was authorized to retire legal tenders and to pay for them in long bonds?
Mr. PRICE. I supposed we had guarded against that point particularly.
Mr. ToS. How can you guard against it? I am a modest gentleman here and will cheerfully answer any question put to me, but as I have never had the floor before I fear I may make some mistake and lose it. [Laugh: ter.] I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not an authority given to the SecyTreasury to retire legal tenders and to issue government interest bearing bonds in their stead?
Mr. PRICE. I wish to say in reply, if the gentleman is correct in the position he assumes then the country is in a dangerous position financially.
Mr. PRICE. For one I will go as far as member upon this floor to correct that evil. suppose that the act of the last Congress authorized the Secretary to retire so many millions per month and that they were to be destroyed, and to make myself sure that I was correct in that I introduced a resolution some 2 weeks since, which was kindly objected to by my friendfrom Illinois, [Mr. WENTwoRTH,) requesting the ComBanking and currency to ascertain whether these legal tenders had been burned. I wanted to know what had been done with them. I wanted to be assured that they were reduced to ashes. For if in stead of being destroyed they are being converted into long bonds, if we have left that door open to the SecyTreasury, then we had better here and now, before sunset, pass a law that no non-interest bearing legal tender should ever be converted into interest bearing bonds of any description. I cannot consent to believe that we have made such an egregious blunder as to allow such a thing to be done.
Mr. WENTWORTH. The gentleman says I objected to his resolution; I objected only to a part of it.
Mr. PRICE. There were 2 resolutions, and the gentleman very kindly objected to both.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Was it all in one proposition? –
Mr. PRICE. They were on the same paper, but they were susceptible of division if the gentleman had seen proper to call for a division, but he did not.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Does not the gentleman understand parliamentary law well enough to know that we cannot divide a proposition when the question is upon its reception. Only after it is received can it be.; therefore I objected to its reception.
Mr. PRICE. I am so well acquainted with parliamentary law as to know that the House could not act on it in any manner until it was received, and the gentleman availed himself of the??i.knowing that a single objection would stop it, to prevent its coming up for debate or or anything else. But to return to what I was saying when I was interrupted. When at the last session that bill was under consideration, I expressed my views upon it in a short speech, and I took the ground that we should retire these notes no faster than the receipts of the Government exceeded its expenditures, and that we must not retire the non-interest paying paper and keep afloat the other. I certainly combated to the extent of my ability then, and shall continue to do it so long as shall remain a member of this House, the doctrine that the Government should make any more interest paying, notes, and maintained that if it retired any it should be the interest paying notes. I supposed I was entirely with the Gentfrom . in that, and I am only sorry to find there is a possibility of my being mistaken in regard to it.
Mr. BUNDY. It is wholly immaterial, and the gentleman as readily understands it as any member on the floor perhaps, whether there is a provision in the law to the effect which he claims or not. What are the facts in the case? The gentleman knows as well as I do that if you do not increase the interest bearing bonds of the Government they remain as they are bearing interest. In other words if you retire anything, would it not be better to retire the bonds that bear interest?
Mr. PRICE. The notes that bear interest.
Mr. BUNDY. Why do you give the SecyTreasury permission to retire 4 millions a month of notes upon which the government pays no interest and retain as indebt edness those upon which it does pay interest? There is the of the thing. I care not what the special provisions of your law are; it amounts to nothing, because if we are getting more revenue than is necessary to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government, that surplus ought to be applied to the payment of the debt upon which we are paying interest and not of that.". which we are paying no interest. He would be a very foolish man indeed who, in the administration of his own affairs, should give his surplus above his necessary expenses or the requirements of his business to pay those notes upon which he had to pay no interest, while he let those remain upon which he was paying interest.
Mr. BUNDY. Oh yes, only I am afraid the gentleman will interject a better speech than my own. [Laughter]
Mr. KELLEY. I desire just at this point to say that the theory of the SecyTreasury is, that by absorbing the non-interest bearing notes, while the compound interest notes are afloat, he is contracting the currency; and I wish to ask theo to permit me to have read from the Public Ledger, of Phil adelphia, a paper of unquestioned standing, an article showing that the banks recognize the absorption of the compound interest, notes as contraction, and are afraid that retiring them even at their maturity will bring them to insol vency or to a suspension of the payment of fo in the redemption of their notes. ask for the reading of the article:
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman allow me a moment?
Mr. MAYNARD. I desire to ask the gentleman a question right at this point., Does he think this nation is under any moral obligation, I do not say any legal obligation, to meet these outstanding bonds in coin, or does the gentleman think they may justly and righteously be discharged by the payment of Treasury notes or greenbacks?
Mr. BUNDY. if I understand that to be the sentiment of the gentleman then I agree with him. Those bonds were bought by these men when gold was at least 100%. premium. And I say it is not the business of Congress, it is not the business of the SecyTreasury, in order to put money into the pockets of these men, to so shape the finances of this country as that they shall make a dollar out of their 50 cents within a very short time, say within a year or two.
Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment?
Mr. KELLEY. Allow me to say that those bonds are payable in “lawful money, ” and if the Enghish people send them over here before we resume specie payment, they must take their redemption in lawful money, let it be specie or greenbacks.
Mr. BUNDY. That is a very important suggestion, and I am obliged to the gentleman for making it.
Mr. MAYNARD. I wish to ask my friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY } whether he thinks that the SecyTreasury, by making an official announcement that these bonds will be paid at maturity in coin, creates thereby any moral obligation upon the part of the Government to pay them in coin.
Mr. KELLEY. I have never supposed that the word of the SecyTreasury could override the law of the land; and as those who bought these bonds bought them with the understanding that according to the terms of the law they should be redeemable in lawful money, the Secretary cannot change the terms of the contract. am therefore in no hurry to give the gold instead of greenbacks, as in doing so we will crush all branches of American industry. Foreign bondholders cannot complain if they have to take what is “nominated in the bond, ” and do not get gold when we promised but lawful money.
Mr. MAYNARD. If the gentleman will allow me, I find in my mail a petition of some of my constituents which seems germane to the subject he is discussing, and if he does not object I would like to have it read.
Mr. BUNDY. Not at all; every injection of that sort helps my speech. [Laughter]
Mr. MAYNARD. A letter explanatory of the petitioners' views accompanies it, which I Otter.
The Clerk read as follows: BENTox, TENNEssee, January 3, 1867. SIR: By last mail a portion of the citizens sent a petition addressed to you asking Congress to refrain from passing any act, curtailing the national curreney, or to require the national banks to redeem their notes in the city of NewYork, or to prohibit annatcieosn;al banks, from paying interest on bank bal all of which I hope will meet with your approbation, as any laws looking to a reduction of the currency and an early resumption of specie payments at a time when we havesuch heavy taxes (both State and national) to pay, would prove hi injurious to classesof business. Calling attention to the petition referred to, I am, respectfully, yours, &c. Hon. H. MAYNARd.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. WENTWORTH moved that the time of the gentleman be extended. No objection being made, the time was accordingly extended.
Mr. BUNDY. I understand very well the scope and effect of that letter, and am not surprised at the source whence it emanates and the medium for its introduction into this House. My friendfrom Illinois resides in a large city of the West, which is abundantly supplied with banking facilities.
Mr. WENTWORTH. With the gentleman's permission I would like to say a word in an swer to a remark of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] on the subject of national banks. I will assure that gentleman that for every bank that fails I can get men in my district alone to start another. We are not afraid of these national bank failures, as their bills are secured; and there are bonds enough in the country in the hands of willing capitalists to start a dozen for every one that fails.
Mr. BUNDY. Yes, sir. I understand something about banking at Chicago. Banking facilities are very easily obtained there, to say the least of it; but there is E. one condition I believe, to the discount of any usiness paper, and that is that the applicant must leave some additional sum of money, beside the proceeds of the discounted paper, on deposit until the paper matures. [Laughter] Of course they do not want any increase of banking facilities there. But, Mr. Speaker, that paper is but the forerunner of Ho! coming events if this state of things in reference to the cufrency continues; and it should be regarded as a note of warning to the whole country, and its effect should not be lost upon the members of this House.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I desire, with the gentleman's permission, to say, in reference to the representations made by my colleague, that I hold in my possession petitions from numerous and very respectable men of business in Chicago, who dissent from the views presented by my colleague, [Mr. WENTwo RTH] The petitions are headed by such names as Solomon Sturgeon & Son, Amos T. Hall, and many others; so that, although my colleague is from Chicago, it seems there are 2 sentiments prevailing there on this question.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Allow me to say that I have expressed no sentiment; I only sent up the paper to be read in order to get the origin of these petitions before the country.
Mr. PRICE. Will the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARDJ yield to me for a moment?
Mr. MAYNARD. I will if the gentleman will agree to continue the speech of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BUNDY] in the same strain and with the same ability.
The Clerk read as follows: “A very small, almostinsignificant, part of our debt is payable on demand, and the balance runs from 15 to 40 years, at the expiration of which time we shall, if republican ideas and principles prevail, be the richest and most powerful nation on the globe. T$h4e50, foeoa0tu,0reo0of this bill, which provides that the of legal tender notes, which bear nointer est, and which are redeemableat no definite time, may be funded in 6%. gold bearing bonds, is to me so strange and unaccountable that I am astonished to find it presented to the House for consideration. This feature of the bill, if adopted, would in volve an additional annual expenditure of $27,000,000 in gold, for which the people of necessarily pay the country must an additional tax. Would any prudent and sensible business man, who had given his note payable at his own option, and without interest, be likely to take up that note and give another for the same amount payable at a ot certain time, with at 6%., payable semi annually in go if “Why, sir, the baremention of such a transaction provokes a smile of incredulity, and yet this is precisely one of the features of this bill. The Government owes $450,000,00o0n which we pay no interest, and which is redeemablewhenever it suits the convenience of the Government; and yet if this bill be comes a law this $450,000,00moay be funded in bearing bonds 6%. in gold.”
Mr. PRICE. These were the views I held on the passage of that bill, and I hold the same views now. I think the majority of the House also held these views when it passed the law from which I have read, and believed that it was guarded against this evil. I say now and here, to the members of the House, as I said before, when the Gentfrom ohiose kindly yielded to me, if we have not guarded against that evil, if we have left the door open for the increase of the public debt, leaving the SecyTreasury to do as he pleases, the sooner, we drop all other business and attend to that the better it will be for the nation. And I hope, without unnecessary delay, the matter will be investigated and attended to. We ought to retire the interest bearing notes; and when we have retired any amount of them, in the language of the act I have read, they ought to be canceled, which, in my opinion, means, they ought to be destroyed, and destroyed by being burned.
Mr: MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, severaldays ago, during the consideration of another subject, I made a statement about amatter affecting a constituent and personal friend of mine, who had been arraigned in the State of NCarolina for an offense alleged to have been committed by him, as an officer, during the war. In the course of my observations I stated that I understood this officer had been demanded as a felon by the Governor of NCarolina from the Governor of Tennessee. The Gover nor of NCarolina, being in the city, corrected me in the matter of his having made any such demand, and I so stated on a subsequent occasion in making a personal explanation. This morning I have received from the Gover nor of Tennessee a communication, which I desire, in connection with my former remarks, to present to the House.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will my friend allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman speaks of “your” citizens, addressing himself, as I suppose, to citizens of other States, including, of course, the State which I have the honor in part to represent.
Mr. MAYNARD. Yes, sir; I mean the States outside.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. With the permission of F. the Gentfrom Tennessee, say that we need not go to Mississippi for circumstances such as were detailed by the Gentfrom Illinois. In my own district one of the 5 tried and convicted by a military court at Indianapolis, whose case has lately been reviewed by the Supreme Court, has, within the last 2 months, obtained judgments against the soldiers who arrested him for $25,000 for false imprisonment. Some powder and caps were captured at the same time, and ten soldiers are now under indictment in the state of Indiana, under heavy bonds, for having taken the powder and caps from the possession of this person. This is outside of the rebel States and in a loyal State. For my part, I certainly agree with the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. .] that we must take some prompt and decided'steps when the judges ini. State of Indiana decide that our laws are unconstitutional and refuse to allow these cases to be taken from their courts.
Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, if the people of Indiana are not competent to redress all such cases as that suggested by the gentleman [Mr. WASHBURNI then I am mistaken in the estimate that I formed of their character during a recent brief visit to that State. For the casementioned by the Gentfrom Illinois, he says that he knows of no existing remedy. It used to be told as an anecdote of General Jackson, illustrative of his character, that when his AttyGen on one occasion reported that he could find no law for doing something that the general had much at heart, he sent word back to him: “Tell my AttyGen that if he cannot find law, I will find an AttyGen who can find law;” and I think that Jacksonian view of the case will present itself very strongly to the Union constituencies of each one of us. Now, it certainly seems to me that when our fathers framed this Constitution of government they did not leave things at such loose ends that there should be no power in the government to protect a citizen of the U.S. in the enjoyment of his rights as such citizen upon the soil of the U.S. It would have been very remarkable if they had done so. NIBLACK. If the Gentfrom Tennessee will allow me, I wish to say that the difficulty in Indiana, to which my colleague referred, grew out of a disregard of the rights of American citizens on the soil of the U.S. That was the trouble. If they had obeyed the laws and resorted to the courts for the vindication of the law and the majesty and power of this Government, if they had not resorted to illegal military arrests and illegal military tribunals, there would have been no difficulty whatever. The difficulty they may now be involved in grows out of their disre. of the municipal laws of the State of Indiana.
Mr. MAYNARD. 9n one occasion Mr. Clay appeared at the bar, where, with all his greatness as a statesman and ability as a law yer, it was understood that he was not specially versed in what are called the technicalities of the law. The judge reminded him that the state of the law was according to a formula that he, the judge, laid down. “Very well, ” said Mr. Clay, may it please your honor, if that is the law, all I have to say is that it ought not to be the law.” And if it is the law in Indiana that arresting a traitor with arms in his hands and ammunition in his pocket, ready to turn loose 1000s of the enemies of the country held as prisoners of war and arm them and organize them into a hostile army; if this is an offense, then the laws of Indiana ought to be changed, and the laws of ought the U.S. to be changed.
Mr. NIBLACK. All I have to say is that if the law is a bad one there is a way of getting rid of it. But the theory of the conservative men, as we call ourselves in Indiana, always has been that while laws are upon the statute book they must be enforced. There is a law of Congress and a law of Indiana that provides for the arrest and trial in a certain way of any man guilty of treason or any other crime against the Government; but these military officers disregarded that law; they took the matter into their own hands, and by the exercise of brute military force they have involved themselves in this trouble. If there were any traitors in Indiana they could have been convicted by the courts at any time. The gentleman assumes that these men thus arrested were traitors. That is the issue, an issue that has never yet been properly tried. The Government has always declined to appeal to the courts to test that question; and it is the disregard of the plain provisions of the laws of Congress and of the State which has involved those men in all this trouble.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. With the permission of the Gentfrom Tennessee,MAYNARD, I will ask the Gentfrom Indiana if the parties thus arrested and tried have not now in their possession the pardons of the President 7
Mr. NIBLACK. To whom does the gentleman refer?
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. To Milli gan and others tried by a military commission at Indianapolis.
Mr. NIBLACK. I know not how that may be. But the point I make is this: before men can be called traitors they ought to be convicted of treason; and there is a way of doing that provided by the laws of Indiana, but which was not appealed to by these gentlemen.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. With the consent of my colleague [Mr. WENTwoRTH] I wish to say, that when I stated I knew no existing remedy in a case Imentioned I did not mean to be understood as saying that we could not adopt a remedy. On the other hand, I said we were bound as representatives of the people to provide some remedy. There is no existing remedy. As to that man confined in jail at Vicksburg for no offense whatever, I do not know how he is to be got out in the existing state of things.
Mr. MAYNARD. I suppose the gentleman meant to say that there was no remedy for that man; but we have in our hands the power to apply a remedy, and if we do not apply it the fault is with us.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is just what I said.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Mr. Speaker, allud.ing to some remarks which I made yesterday with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court, I find it claimed in some of the papers that the law of 1863, in the construction of which the Supreme Court was unanimous, originated with Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, and was taken up in this House and passed by a strict party vote. On looking at the record upon the subject, I find that if this House adopted a bill under the supervision or at the suggestion of Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, it o must have been avery bill which Ine w send up to be read by the clerk.
The Clerk read as follows: “Whereas sincethe 4th day of March, 1861, the U.S. have been in an insurrectionary and rebel; hous condition, and the public safety has required that the privilege of the writ of habeascorpusshould be suspended; and whereasduring that time the privo ilege of the said writ has beenseveral timessuspended by the POTUS, and several arrests and imprisonments have taken place under and in consequencethereof; and whereasthere is not entire unanimity of opinion as to which branch of the Government possessesthe constitutional power to declare such suspension: Therefore, “Be it enacted, &c., That all such suspensions, arrests and imprisonments, by whomsoever made Qr caus to be made, under the authority of the said President, shall beconfirmed and madevalid; and thesaid president, Secretaries, heads of Depts, and all personswho have beenconcerned in making said arrests, or in doing or advising any such agts aas foresaid, are herebyindemnified and discharged in respectthereof, and all indictments, and information, action, suits, prosecutions, and proceedings whatsoever, oom menced, or to be commenced, against the said president, or any of the persons aforesaid in relation to the acts and matters aforesaid, or any of hereby discharged them, are and made void. “SEc. 2. Abife:, That during the existence of this rebeSion the President shalfio, and is hereby, invested with authority to pension declare the susof the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus, at such times and in such places, and with regard to such persons, as in his judgment the public safetymay require.”
Mr. WENTWORTH. Now, Mr. Speaker, if our soldiers have a right to complaim of anything in the passage of the law of 1863, it cer. tainly cannot be of Mr. Lincoln or his Cabinet. That law originated in this House; it went from this House to the Senate; the Senate amended it and added to it very materially; it came back to this House and was rejected; a committee of conference was had, and I see that it was only passed at the very close of the session. Mr. Lincoln was compelled to get a law passed through for a suspension of the habeascorpus in that shape or to have none at all. So then the ofor the passage of that law cannot be charged upon Mr. Lincoln or his Cabinet, or upon this House. That is all I have to say.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at 25 minutes to 4 o'clock p. m.) the House adjourned.
Skip Skip PETITIONS. ruTlehse, following petitions were presentedunder the and referred to the appropriate committees: Mr. COBB: The petition of citizens.of Rich land Center, Richland county, State of Wisconsin, for an improvement of i. water communications be the Mississippi valley and the Atlantic sea 0 arol. Mr. FERRY: The petition of Allan McLean, Augustus Wilcox, C. 0. Thompson, L. J. Lemert, Dorus M. Fox, and 60 others, citizens of Michigan, praying for an amendment to the Constitution providing against any inequality among citizens on account of birth, race, color, &c., and for legislation removing such inequality from the DistCol, Territories, Co and the ten unrestored States. Mr. GARFIELD: Ravenna, Ohio, praying The petition of citizens of that no further curtailment of the national currency be made, and that national banks be not required to redeem their notes in NewYork. Mr. SCHENCK: Sundry petitions of officers of the U.S. Army, for the restoration of 50 cents as the commutation price of the ration.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. Monday, January 7, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of Friday last was read and approved.
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I ought not to allow the very generous remarks just made by the Senfrom Maryland to pass without saying that, although I did feel at the time that some portion of the remarks he made on Friday sounded something like a taunt, as I said at the time, yet I felt they were struck out of him in the of debate, that they were not the expression of a serious conviction, and they left no sting or bitterness on my part which I carried out of the Senate Chamber; indeed, they occasioned no bitterness at the time. I thought it due to myself, as well as to the course the debate had taken, that I should notice them as I did, but beyond that I certainly never meant to take any notice of them, and I meant by nothing that I said to challenge any such very ample explanation as the honorable Senator has just been pleased to make. It is true, as he says, that our relations have been as kindly heretofore as I believe it is usual for the relations between members of this body to be, and it is only proper for me to say, as we are on the subject of personal explanations, that there is no member on this floor, and has been none, for whom I have cherished any higher personal regard than I have for the Senfrom Maryland. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. HOWARD. The ComPacificRR, to whom was referred a report of the SecyWar communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of July 24, 1866, information touching the probable cost of constructing a railroad on the routementioned in the charter of the Northern Pacific railroad, have had the same under consideration, and instructed me to report the papers back and move that they be printed for the use of the Senate. The motion was agreed to. o NAVY REGISTER.
Mr. ANTHONY, from the ComPrintg, to whom was referred a resolution to print 1000 copies of the Navy Register, reported it without amendment, and it was con and agreed to, as follows: Resolved, That 1,000 extra copies of the Navy Register of the U.S. for the year 1867 be printed for the use of the Senate. soldiers' MEDALs.
Mr. RAMSEY. The ComPostOffices, to whom was referred a JtResolution (H.R.No. 221) authorizing certain medals to be distributed to honorably discharged soldiers free of postage, have instructed me to report it id: and recommend its passage. It is a very short resolution, to which I presume there will be no objection. It merely authorizes the authorities of WestVirginia to transmit medals through the postoffice to their honorably discharged soldiers. I ask for its present consideration. By unanimous consent, the JtResolution was considered as in ComWhole. It proposes to authorize the adjutant general of the State of WestVirginia to distribute through the mails, free of postage, to the honorably discharged soldiers of WestVirginia, and to the relatives and friends of those who were killed or died of wounds or disease while in service, certain medals furnished by the Legislature of that State; and provides that the envelopes inclosing them obe franked by the adjutant general of the State in the mode prescribed by the PostMGenl. The JtResolution was reported to the Senate, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. PAYMENT TO MASTERS OF ENLISTED SLAVES.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 459. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S.No.459) suspending the payment of moneys from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or labor of colored volunteers or drafted men, and for other purposes, was considered as in ComWhole. It provides that the final report of the commissioners provided for in the 2nd section of the act of Congress entitled “An act making appropriation for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes, ” approved July 28, 1866, shall be made through the SecyWar to Congress; and that no money shall be paid from the Treasury, or from any fund therein, upon that report or otherwise, to any claimant under the provisions of section 24 of the act approved February 24, 1864, entitled “An act to amend an act entitled “An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes, ’” approved March 3, 1863, until such report shall be approved and confirmed by Congress.
Mr. JOHNSON. My colleague feels on interest in this subject. I do not see him in his seat, and I suggest that the bill be post poned until he comes in. I think that course would personally gratify him.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think he is here or will be in the Chamber in a minute.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do not see him in his seat. The law itself which it is proposed to suspend was passed several years ago, and awards have been made to the amount of some 2 or 300,000 dollars, and a fund is now in the Treasury specifically approriated to meet such cases. The SecyWar or the President has renewed the commissions for the purpose of proceeding with the duty which the law imposes. We had supposed in Maryland that after Congress promised the loyal owners of slaves that iF they would consent to their going into the military service of the U.S. they should be paid, that promise would be kept. On the faith of that promise Maryland also agreed to give, I think, about 100 dollars in each case, and that she has paid pari passu with the Government, or rather has paid since the Government has stopped paying; and it would be exceedingly inconvenient to the loyal men of Maryland, for whom the original law was passed and who are great sufferers now by the emancipation of their slaves, that they should be deprived of this comparatively small sum; I mean comparatively small to each party. Unless there is a great public necessity for suspending the law, I should hope it would be permitted to take its course. see that my friend and colleague is now in his seat. He knows more about the matter than I do, and can state to the Senate the situation in which our people are placed.
Mr. o. When this subject was before the Senate at the last session I said all that I believed I could say in regard to the measure, and I have nothing further to add now. The Senate must take such action as it deems best under the circumstances.
Mr. FESSENDEN. This bill does not proposeto repeal the law or interfere with the obigation of the Government, but merely to keep the Treasury in the hands of Congress, and to provide that Congress shall see what the reports may be and judge how far they are satisfactory before money is paid out of the Treasury. r. HENDRICKS. I think that the provision of the bill of the last session was incor orated on the motion of the Senfrom Centucky, [Mr. DAvis] who is not now present.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There has been no legislation on the subject since the original act.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Was there not legislation at the last session?
Mr. FESSENDEN. It was brought up at the last session, but nothing was done. It was then proposed in the shape of an appropriation.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I thought that provision was made at the last session. I recollected that the Senfrom Kentucky took a good deal of interest in it, and I wanted to suggest to the Senfrom Maine the fact of his ab sence.
Mr. FESSENDEN. This does not interfere with any object the Senfrom Kentucky has in view. He wants the money paid, claims it aas matter of right and contract on the part of the Government. That is not the question here. Neither is this a question of an appropriation to pay it. There have been commissions appointed under the original act to make examination and report, and the object of this bill is to direct that those reports shall be made through the SecyWar to Congress, and that Congress shall have a chance to examine the reports and see the results arrived at before the money is paid out of the Treasury. That is the object of the bill, and a very proper one, as the ComFinance unanimously thought.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not intend to discuss the bill, but simply to suggest that the Senfrom Kentucky, whose State is proba. more interested in this question than any other State, had taken an interest in it at the last session, and I thought the amendment which he proposed at the last session was adopted.
Mr. FESSENDEN. This has reference to the original act, and does not interfere with any object he had. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. bills INTroduced.
Mr. WILLIAMS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a 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; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComTerritor.
Mr. WADE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a JtResolution (S.R.No. 155) to provide an increased depth of water in the harbor improvements of the lakes; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComCommerce.
Mr. CRESWELL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.491) amendatory of the several acts respecting copyright; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComLibrary, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.492) to protect the rights of married women; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComDistCol. CEREALS AT THE PARIS EXPOSITION.
Mr. CATTELL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a JtResolution (S.R.No. 154) to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next; which was read twice. It proposes to instruct the ComrAg to collect and prepare, as far as practicable and with as little delay as possible, suitable speci: mens of the cereal productions of the several States of the Union for exhibition at the Paris Exposition, and forward the specimens, in proper order and condition to J. C. Derby, agent of the U.S. Government for the Paris Exposition at NewYork.
Mr. CATTELL. I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. J. C. Derby, the agent of the U.S. for the Paris Exposition, in which he states, under date of January 4, that only some 6 or 7 States of. have so far forwarded specimens of the cereal productions of our country. It occurs to me that an interest so vast as that of the agriculture of the U.S. should be properly represented at the Exposition in Paris, and that no readier method could be adopted than that of instructing the ComrAg, who has opened correspondence with prominent gentlemen connected with this interest of our country in various parts of the country, to gather together these specimens and to forward them to the duly authorized agent, Mr. Derby, of NewYork, to be forwarded to the Exposition. The States which have already forwarded them are Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Louisiana, and California, leaving quite a number of. the States which largely of cereals unprovided for. I have only to say, Mr. President, that having been for the last 20 years connected with both the foreign and domestic trade in cereals of this country, I am anxious to have a comparison of them in regard to their extent and their variety and their quality with those of any other nation on the face of the globe. I hope, therefore, as no time can be lost if we are to do this thing properly, that the JtResolution will pass now. By unanimous consent the JtResolution was considered as in ComWhole.
Mr. CONNESS. I think some provision should be made in that connection to limit or fix the expenditure that the ComrAg may involve the Treasury in. I should like to know from the Senator who has introduced the resolution, if any estimate can be made with regard to the expense of this pro: ceeding. If it is to come out of the annual appropriation made for the support of the agricultural Dept, if that is to be under stood, of course it is all right. I should like to know something about it.
Mr. CATTELL. I apprehend that the expenses will be so trifling as to be scarcely worthy of consideration, and I suppose it would come without the slightest difficulty out of the usual appropriation for the Agricultural dept. Samples will be furnished gratui tously with great pleasure by everybody. It is simply the trouble of preparing the packages and forwarding them, which would involve only a trifling expense, so much so as I think not to be worthy of notice. The JtResolution was reported to the senate, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. PASSENGER STEAMSpiips.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I offer the following res. olution, and ask for its present consideration: Resolved, That the ComCommerce bein structed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting by law the sending of passenger steamships to sea after they have been in use a certain number of years. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I would suggest to my friendfrom Oregon that if the ComCommerce are to perfect anything useful in respect to that inquiry there had better be added to the resolution a power to compel the attendance of persons and papers; and I move to amend the resolution by adding “and that the committee have power to send for persons and papers.” It is an inquiry of very considerable importance, and a subject which needs, in my judgment, a good deal of searching in vestigation. The amendment was agreed t;o and the resolution, as amended, was adopted. colony of AMERICANs IN Turkey.
Mr. MORRILL 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 this can be done compatibly with the public interest, a copy of any official correspondence which may have taken place upon the subject of an alleged recent emigration of citizens. of the U.S. to the dominions of the Sublime, Porte for the purpose of settling and acquiring landed property there. PENSION AGENTS.
Mr. CRAGIN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions, which was passed by the Senate at the last session and has been returned from the HoRep with an amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The ComJudiciary have reported amend 303ments to the amendment of the HoRep. The 1st amendment of the committee is in line 11 of the House amendment, to strike out." January” and insert “October;” and in line 12 to strike out “six” and insert “five;” so as to read “1st day of October, A. D. 1865, ” instead of “1st day of January, A. D. 1866.”
Mr. HOWE. Is that amendment in the 11th and 12th lines only one amendment? If it is all one amendment, I object to a part of it. I. have no objection to the amendment in line 11.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment can be divided at the suggestion of the Senator, and the question can be taken in the 1st instance on the 1st portion of the amendment.
Mr. HOWE. I would rather the vote should be taken on the 1st amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Then the question will be on the 1st clause of the amendment, striking out “January” and inserting “October” in line 11.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That amendment was proposed on the consideration of facts presented to the committee while the bill was before them, and I trust the amendment will be concurred in. No reason is given why it should not be. It reaches back to 1865.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is to go back and declare that the terms of office of those men who have been put into office simply for polit. ical purposes since the controversy that now exists arose shall expire, and that either they or somebody else shall be nominated to the Senate and confirmed. The object of the bill is to bring before the Senate these important officers, pension agents. Since the war and the large increase of pensions in the country these offices have become important and they have multiplied; they are much more numerous than they were; I think there are as many as 4 in some of the states of the Union and it was thought advisable that instead of being designated as heretofore by the SecyInterior, and he being left to designate them adlibitum as many as he pleased, it was better to regulate this matter by law. The bill does not appropriately, as I think, belong to the ComJudiciary. We did not think so. It originally came from the ComPensions, and I trust the Senfrom Indiana, who is chairman of that committee, will take charge of this question. After being amended in the House and sent back to the Senate, the bill was referred at his instance to the ComJudiciary, on the assumption that there was some constitutional question involved in the matter. I think, however, the ComJudiciary were unanimously of the opinion that there was no constitutional question involved, but as the bill was before them they considered it and reported it back with these amendments.
Skip Skip ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that The SPEAKer of the House had signed the enrolled bill (H.R.No. 828) to repeal section 13 of “An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, ” approved July 17, 1862; which thereupon received the signature of the President protempore of the Senate.
Skip Skip Approw AL OF BILLS. A message from the POTUS, by Mr. Robert Johnson, his Secretary, announced that he had approved and signed a bill (S.No.62) to amend an act entitled “An act granting lands to the State of Oregon to aid in the construction of a military road from Eugene City to the eastern boundary of said State;” and a JtResolution (S.R.No. 123) in relation to the settlement of the accounts of William P. Wingate, collector at the port of Bangor, Maine. SUFFRAGE IN. THE DISTRICT –VETO. The President's Secretary also announced that he was directed by the President to return to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill (S.No.1) to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol, with his objections thereto in writing.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of Friday; but prior to that, with the permission of the Senate, the Chair will lay before the Senate a message from the POTUS The SecySenate, Hon. John W. For NEY, thereupon read the message as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHoNY in the chair.) The bill is now before the Senate for reconsideration, and the question is: Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding? By the terms of the Constitution this vote must be taken by yeas&nays.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I move that the message of the President be printed, and that the further consideration of the subject be post poned until tomorrow.
Mr. MORRILL. So far as the printing of the document is concerned, that seems to have been anticipated; it is already printed and on our tables.
Mr. SAULSBURY. We have not had time to read it, all of us.
Mr. MORRILL. I hope, Mr. President, that the Senate feel themselves sufficiently informed or possessed of the opinions of this document to enable them to vote upon the bill at the present time. Whether the question in its present form of postponement is debatable or not, I do not propose to state more than simply the points raised in the message, and to say that so far as I am concerned I feel no embar rassment on the question; for there are but 3 distinct points of objection raised at all by this message, and each of those was considered at large by the Senate when the bill was under discussion. I will not occupy the attention of the Senate at this moment. I hope the Senate will come to a vote at the present time.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I consider that it is nothing but respectful to the chief executive officer of this country that the message which he has sent to this body should be printed. It is true that since it has been brought to the Senate, it has been laid on our tables in a printed form, but a good many of us have had no opportunity of reading it, or hardly ofing hear: it read.. We have been necessarily called out of the Chamber by persons whom we are bound to see. Being a communication from the POTUS, it is due to him, whatever may be his political position, or however antagonistic to his may be the position of a majority of the Senate, that this message should be printed and calmly and deliberately considered; and on tomorrow, the 1st day after it has been delivered to the Senate, the honorable chairman of the ComDistCol may be able to show to us some reasons why perhaps the bill should be passed, the objections of the President to the contrary, notwithstanding. I should like to look into the reasons assigned by the Chief Magistrate of the nation why he has felt it his duty to interpose his objection and to forbid the passage of this law, as far as he is is concerned. There is no need for haste. I res.ume that the bill will pass over the presiveto; but give us time to look into the reasons is. if the President, and above all, he being the chief executive officer of the country, let us treat him and his messages with that respect which is always due to the Chief Magistrate of the country. The motion was not agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. My honorable friend will allow me to ask him how it is that in drawing this line he speaks of he finds it so easy to establish a definite line as to all the civil rights of the colored man, affecting his life, his person, and his property, and yet so impossible to draw the line when he touches political rights? I understand him to say distinctly that in regard to civil rights he has no difficulty in defining the line clearly; the colored man has just as much right to protection in all his civil rights, life, liberty, person, property as the white man, and that can be made clear; but he denies that the line between the colored and the white man can be drawn at all without danger of infinite confusion whenever you change the political rights.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish to ask the Senfrom Oregon how many negroes there are in the State he represents here, and whether they allow them the right of suffrage in the State from which he comes?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have to say, sir, that there are but few negroes in the State which I represent, and, like other States, they are not allowed the right of suffrage for the constitution of that State was formed
Mr. SAULSBURY. Then let me ask the Senator another question: why does he force this measure upon a people where 1/3rd or one 4th of the Polo consists of negroes, as in my State, when he will not allow the miserable remnant of the negro race in his own State the right of suffrage? Will he explain to the Senate how he can reconcile that with the spirit of justice, right, and propriety?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not advocating the extension of the elective franchise to the negroes in the State of Delaware.
Mr. SAULSBURY. But you are in favor of it, sir.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The question now before the Senate is as to whether negroes should enjoy the elective franchise in the DistCol, and I say that I believe a majority of the F.". represented here in Congress are in favor of this bill, and my reasons for believing so are these: during the last session a bill similar to this passed the HoRep, and a bill was also passed by that House extending the elective franchise to the negroes in all the Territories of the U.S. The members
Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to finish my sentence.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I ask the gentleman whether he was not a member of the convention of Oregon that, excluded the negroes in that State from the right of suffrage, and whether he did not vote for that exclusion?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, that is altogether foreign to this question; but I can explain that matter. There was a strong party in Oregon at the time its constitution was formed in favor of establishing slavery in that State; and it was exceedingly difficult to defeat that party, because there was an effort made to make it the doctrine of the Democratic party, and to exclude from that organization all men who did not favor the pro slavery policy there, and such was public opinion in the State of Oregon at that time that to defeat the establishment of slavery it was made necessary for the men who opposed it to introduce into that constitution a E.which denied to negroes the right of suffrage and other rights. It was for the purpose of defeating the institution of slavery in made in thtehafot rmState that the constitution was it now is.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Did you vote in favor of that, sir, and in giving that vote did you act conscientiously or under compulsion?
Mr. MORRILL. Between 3 and 4,000 slaves and 10,000 free negroes.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am told there were 10,000 free negroes and between 3 and 4,000 slaves. Efforts have been made on this floor, but always without success, to show that under the clause in the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, which gives to Congress the authority to pass any appropriate legislation, the right of suffrage could be given to the freedmen. There is nothing in that which at the time was intended, or which any member of the Senate or the House has ever been able successfully to prove since, justifies Congress in giving to those people the right of suffrage as a constitutional right. Congress is authorized to pass such legislation as it may be necessary to pass to effect the purpose of the abolition of slavery. If under that constitutional amendment no such power as that which we are about to exert now by legislation was included, why was it not included? If it is right now to fo to these people the right of suffrage, why was it not right then? And if it is right now to give it to them in the District, why was it not right then; and why was it not right then to give it to all of the class who are now free people in the several States? And yet nobody proposes that; nobody has suggested it even, except one or two. I believe my friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SuMNER] has been from the 1st of the opinion that the right of suffrage should be given to negro males. He has not brought himself as yet to believe that it should be given to negro females. Then if you not only did not give, but carefully avoided giving, to these people in the several States the right to vote
Mr. MORRILL. At this point of the senator's argument I should like to remind him that at the very period of the formation of the Constitution to which he refers the right of suffrage was given to all free men of color in all the States with the single exception of SCarolina; it was held in all the States every where to be the right of every freeman without regard to color, except in the single State of SCarolina.
Mr. JOHNSON. That makes what I was about saying still stronger toward the end for which I cited it. It was left to the people of the States to regulate the suffrage. If they gave it at one time to the negroes, at another time they took it away, and it was taken away when this last constitutional amendment was adopted for which my friend voted; and being taken away then, and it also being in the power of the States to keep it away from them, why, let me ask him, did he not propose by constitutional amendment to secureitas against the States?
Mr. MORRILL. Because we could not carry it. There were too many of you opposed to it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. This bill, having been passed by both Houses of congress and sent to the President, has been by him returned with his objections to the Senate where it originated. It is, by the provisions of the Constitution, reconsidered, and the question is: Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President notwithstanding? Is the Senate ready for that question? [“Question f’ “Question!’] By the provisions of the Constitution the vote must be taken by yeas&nays. Senators in favor of the passage of the bill, the objections of the President notwithstanding; will, as their names are called, answer “yea;' those opposed to its passage will answer nay.”
Skip Skip The question being taken by yeas&nays, o29, nays 10; 18. The PRESIDENT protempore. On this question Tuesday the yeas are 29, and the nays are 10. 3rds of the Senate having voted in favor of the bill, the bill is passed.
Skip Skip MEssage FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. Lloyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S.No.459) suspending the payment of moneys from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or labor of colored volunteers or drafted men, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House had passed a JtResolution (H.R.No. 217) to allow members of Congress to inspect papers in the postoffice Dept, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message further announced that the House had passed the JtResolution of the Senate (S.No.154) to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next, with an amendment, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. Enrolled BILL SIGNED. The message further announced that The SPEAKer of the House had signed the enrolled JtResolution (H.R.No. 221) authorizing certain medals to be distributed to honorably discharged soldiers free of postage; which was thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate. HOUSE, BILL REFERRED. The JtResolution (H.R.No. 217) to allow members of Congress to inspect papers in the postoffice Dept was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPostOffices. CEREALS AT THE PARIS ExPOSITION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate the amendment of the HoRep to the JtResolution of the Senate (S.R.No. 154) to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next, which was to add at the end of the resolution the following proviso: Provided, That it shall require no further appropriation from the public Treasury.
Mr. CATTELL. I move that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House. The motion was agreed to. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. WADE. I move to take up Senate bill No. 456, for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The unfinished business of Friday, the bill regulating the tenure of offices, was laid aside in order to consider the bill repealing the amnesty section of the confiscation bill, and I hope that that bill may be taken up and that this one may not be. When it is taken up to be proceeded with, I shall be willing to let it be laid aside informally, in order that the bill of the Senfrom Ohio may be acted upon if it is ready for a vote.
Mr. WADE. Then I will ask the Senfrom Vermont to permit his bill to be laid aside informally in order to allow my bill to come up.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Senators in favor of the motion, which is, that the senate proceed to the consideration of the bill named by the Senfrom Ohio, will say “o;” those opposed “no.” he question being put, it was declared that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I shall ask a division on that subject. I understand the Chair to be putting the question on laying aside, in the technical sense, so that the bilf which I have in charge goes on the Calendar again, which is a thing I do not wish to agree to. If the bill which I have named Senate bill No. 453 is now entitled to precedence, I am willing that it shall be laid aside informally by general consent that my friend's bill may be considered for a short time; but as the question is being it, the effect of it will be that the bill which have in charge will go over.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Ohio made 4. motion, and the Chair had no alternative but to put it.
Mr. WADE. I am willing to withdraw my motion if that will be any accommodation to the Senfrom Vermont. I am for both these bills, but I think the Nebraska bill ought to be taken up 1st on account of the gentlemen who are waiting here for seats; but any. that will accommodate the Senator I will yield to.
Mr. WADE. He agrees not to call up his bill, and this is next in order, for it was made the special order for today.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Then I understand the Senfrom Ohio to withdraw his motion for the moment.
Mr. WADE. I will withdraw my motion; but what next? I do not know that I understand it. His bill is to be laid aside tempora rily and this one taken up, I understand.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senfrom Ohio withdraw his motion?
Mr. WADE. I will withdraw it with that understanding.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The effect of the Senfrom Ohio withdrawing his motion will be to leave the unfinished business of Friday as the business before the Senate.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, I am willing that the unfinished business of Friday shall be laid aside informally that the Senate may consider the bill of the Senfrom Ohio, if there be no objection.
Mr. WADE. Very well; that is what I want. I do not care about the form.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Vermont suggests that Senate bill No. 453, being the unfinished business, be laid aside informally in order that the Senate may proceed with the consideration of the bill named by the Senfrom Ohio. It may be done by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Is there any objection? No objection being made the unfinished business will be laid aside inform ally, and the bill named by the Senfrom Ohio is now before the Senate. PAperts WIThdrawn.
Mr. HENDRICKS. With the permission of the Senfrom Ohio, I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate that the papers relating to the claim of James C. Pickett be taken from the files of the Senate and referred to the ComForRel. There was an adverse report at the last session on the ground that it was an old claim; but I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate that it may go again to the committee in order that they may consider it
The PRESIDENT protempore. That order will be entered, no objection being made. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. FESSENDEN. With the permission of the Senfrom Ohio, I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to introduce a bill without previous notice with a view to its reference to the ComFinance, which meets tomorrow, and I desire to have the bill considered then by the committee. There being no objection leave was granted to introduce a bill (S.No.493) supplemental to an act to establish the Treasury Dept, approved the 2d of September, 1789; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance. ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA. The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.456) for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The pending question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts to the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. Brown]
Mr. SHERMAN. Let us have a vote upon it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let us have it read so that we may understand it.
Mr. WADE. I should like to hear it read.
The Secretary read the amendment of Mr. WILson, which was to strike out all of the amendment offered by Mr. Brown after the word “color” in the 5th line, and to insert: Excepting Indians not taxed; and upon the further fundamental condition that the Legislature of said State, by a assent of said Sstoalteemtno pthueblsicaidacftu, nsdhaamll ednetacllacreonthdeition, and shall transmit to the POTUS an authentic copy of said act, upon receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, o;: with announce the fact, whereuponsaid fundamental condition shall be held as a part of the organic law of the State, and thereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of said State into the Union shall be considered as como: Said State Legislature shall be convened by the territorial Governor within 30 days, after the passage of this act to act upon the conditions submitted herein. So that the amendment of Mr. BRowN, if amended as proposed, will read: Provided, That this act shall not take effect except .the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other rights to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed; and upon the further fundamental condition that the Legislature of said State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the POTUS an authentic copy of said act, upon receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall forthwith announce the fact, where upon said fundamental condition shall be held as a part of the organic law of the State, and thereupo and without any further 99eding on the part $o. the admission of said State into the Union shall be considered as complete. Said State legislature shall be convened by the territorial Governor within 30 days, the passage of this act to act upon the conditions submitted herein.
Mr. WADE., I hope that will not be agreed to:
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I have tried hard, very hard to keep out of this debate during all the last session, and so far during this, and I think I should have succeeded if the senate had ever come to a vote before I got to be old and garruleus. [Laughter] But as the vote has been postponed so long I think I shall have to surrender to the appetite I have to say something; and all the guarantee I can give the Senate as to how much I shall say is the promise that there are several subjects in politics, ethics, and religion that I shall not discuss on this occasion. [Laughter] I have heard it remarked by o Mr. SUMNER and others. Let us adjourn.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Wisconsin has the floor and must not be interrupted without his consent.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator will consent, I will move an adjournment.
The PREsil of protempore. Does the Senfrom Wisconsin give way to the senfrom Indiana?
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I move that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. WADE. I hope not. I call for the yeas&nays on the motion. The yeas&nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted yeas 11, nays 22; 19. So the Senate refused to adjourn.
Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I hope the friends of the bill will not vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HEN DR1cks in the chair.) The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. WILson] to the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. BRowN]
Skip Skip The question being put, a division was called for. Mr. WADE. Let us have the yeas&nays; that is the way to tell whether we have a quo rum or not. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. It seems to me we can undoubtedly come to a vote on this bill tomor row. The Senate is not very full; there is hardly a quorum here.
Mr. WADE. Well, letus see whether there is a quorum. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas none, nays 24; 28. wood.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a quorum voting. Mr. SUMNER. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, January 7, 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. BILLS ANDJtResolutionS.
The SPEAKER stated the 1st business in order to be the call of States and Territories for bills and JtResolutions for reference, and not to be brought back by a motion to reconsider. NEW POST ROUTE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
Mr. MILLER introduced a bill establishing a post route from Mahantango to Sweet Home, in Juniata county, Pennsylvania; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the comPostOffice. INDIAN TERRITORY.
Mr. RICE, of Maine, introduced a bill to establish a territorial government in the Indian Territory; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComTerritories. ARKANSAs WESTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Mr. RICE, of Maine, also introduced a bill to divide the western district of Arkansas into 2 judicial districts; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed. RANK OF STOREkeepeft.
Mr. BLANE introduced a bill to establish the rank of storekeeper in the medical dept and the quartermaster dept of the Army; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. LOST DISCHARtors.
Mr. MERCUR introduced a bill to grant relief to honorably discharged soldiers who have lost their discharges; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. RETROCESSION OF ALEXANDRIA.
Mr. WELKER introduced a bill 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; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, an referred to the ComDistCol. RIGHT OF DOWER IN DISTCOL.
Mr. DEFREES introduced a bill changing the right of dower in the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, an referred to the ComJudiciary. FORT PILLOW MASSACRE.
Mr. HAWKINS introduced a bill for the relief of the widows and heirs of those massacred or captured at Fort Pillow; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. The NATIONAL CURRENCY.
Mr. KUYKENDALI, introduced a bill to provide a true national currency, and to provide for the collection and disbursement of the revenue and the liquidation of the national debt, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComBanking&Currency, and ordered to be printed. HABEASCORPUS.
Mr. WENTWORTH introduced a bill to repeal the act approved March 3, 1863, relating to habeascorpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. Change OF LIGHTHOUSES.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, introduced a bill to authorize changes in the location of lights and other aids to navigation on the southern coasts of the U.S.; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and with the accompanying papers referred to the ComCommerce. TRANSMISSION OF DOCUMENTS BY MAIL.
Mr. HIGBY introduced a bill.; the transmission by mail of certain books an documents; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the comPostOffice. HOMESTEAD LAW
Mr. WINDOM introduced a bill amendatory of an act passed May 20, 1862, to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain: which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. ACTUAL SETTLERS.
Mr. WINDOM also introduced a bill conferring certain rights on settlers upon the public lands of the U.S.; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. KANSAS DEAF AND DUMB ASYLUM.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, introduced a bill granting lands to the Kansas Asylum for the education of deaf and dumb persons; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComPubLands. FORT LEAVENWORTH MILITARY RESERVATION.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, introduced a bill donating a portion of the Fort Leavenworth military reservation for the exclusive use of public roads; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComMilAffrs. BOUNTY LAW.
Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, introduced a bill construing the bounty law passed July 28, 1866; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComMilAffrs. COAST SURVEY.
Mr. PAINE introduced a bill to provide for the publication of the reports of the coast survey; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComPrintg. DIRECT IMPORTATION.
Mr. MYERS introduced a bill to encourage commerce and internalrevenue by facilitatin direct importations; which was read a 1st an 2nd time and referred to the ComCommerce. INDIAN DePREDATIONS.
Mr. HITCHCOOK introduced a bill for the relief of persons for damages sustained by reason of ijo and injuries by certain bands of Arrapahoe, Cheyenne, Sioux, and other hostile.of Indians; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed. MILITARY ROAD IN NEBRASRA.
Mr. HITCHCOCK introduced a bill to extend the Platte river and Niobrara river military road from its present terminus to the Kansas line; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComTerritories. LAND DISTRICT IN COLORADO.
Mr. BRADFORD introduced a bill to establish an additional land district in the Territory of Colorado; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComPubLands. JOHN H. JAMES.
Mr. STOKES introduced a bill for the relief of John H. James, of Tennessee; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComClaims. ARIZONA AND NEWMEXICO.
Mr. GOODWIN introduced a bill to amend the organic acts of Arizona and NewMexico; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComTerritories. PAPERS IN THE postoffice DEPT. The call of the States and Territories for bills and JtResolutions on leave having been completed,
The SPEAKer stated as the next business in order the calling of the States and Territo ries for resolutions, commencing with the State of Illinois, where the call rested at the expiration of the morning hour on Monday, the 17th of December last, the preceding question being on a JtResolution, offered by Mr. FARNs worth, to allow members of Congress to in spect, papers in the postoffice Dept, on which the previous question had been demanded. The JtResolution was read, as follows: Be it resolvedby the Senate and HoRep, doc., That it is hereby made the duty of the PostMGenl to allow Sens&Reps in Congress to examine all papers and recommendations for office appertaining to all postmasters, postoffices, and other postal matters in their several States and congressional districts.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. Mr. MOULTON demanded the previous question on the passage of the JtResolution. The previous question was 2nd ed, and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was passed. Mr. MOULTON mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that during the last Monday when the House was in session the call rested with the State of Illinois during the entire morning hour. No gentleman who offered a resolution during that call can offer another now except by unanimous consent.
Mr. MOULTON. I desire to offer a resolution and to demand the previous question upon it.
Mr. LOAN. I raise the point of order that the gentleman has already offered one resolution under this call.
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the point of order. he gentleman has introduced one resolution under this call, and but one resolution can be introduced by a member on the call of States. SALE OF COIN AND BULLION.
Mr. INGERSOLL introduced a bill to regulate the sale of coin and bullion by the SecyTreasury; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I ask consent to offer a resolution.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Illinois introduced 2 resolutions on the last Monday when the House was in session.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I asked to offer them by unanimous consent, and not under the call.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom missouri objects.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the gentleman introduced 2 resolutions on the last Monday when the House was in ses.sion. a
Mr. WENTWORTH. Did I do it under the call?
The SPEAKER. One was introduced under the call and the other by unanimous consent. o The Gentfrom Missouri (Mr. LoAN) objects, and the Gentfrom Illinois can offer no further resolutions.
Mr. CULLOM. I ask unanimous consent to offer a resolution. I think I offered one the last Monday the House was in session, but I am not certain.
Mr. LOAN. I make the point of order on the gentleman.
Mr. CULLOM. I ask that my resolution may be read for information.
Mr. LOAN. I have no objection to that. The resolution was read, and is as follows: Resolved. That the ComWays&Means be instructed to report a bill providing for the repeal of all laws and parts of laws giving the SecyTreasury authority to withdraw any of the national legal tender currency from circulation, except the compound interest notes, which shall befundedin the bonds of the U.S. as they mature.
Mr. LOAN. I object. Enrolled BILL SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled an act (H.R.828) to repeal section 13 of an act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, approved July 17, 1862, when The SPEAKer signed the same. CoMPENSATION FOR SLAVES ENLISTED.
Mr. McCLURG. I offer the following preamble and resolution, upon which I demand the previous question: Whereas under the provisions of section, 20 feonutritleofd a"nAnacatcetnftoitrleednr“o Allningacatndtocaamllinegndoaunt tahcet national forces, and for other purposes, ’” approved February 24, 1864, the SecyWar was required troeparpepsoeinntted a commission in each of the slave States in Congressto award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may have owed service a just compensation, payable out of the fund dperoriwiesidonfrsom commutations; and whereas under the of section, 2 of an act approved July 28, 1866, entitled “An act making appropriations yfoerasruennddryingcivineexpeon, July 3 1867 sesof, the Government for the and for other purposes, ” so much of any money in the Treasury known as the commutation fund as may be necessary was approriated for payment to such claimants of the amounts report soorf thereafter to be awarded upon the final whereas alssoucithiscroemprmeissesniotendstohnataslol svuacghueclaanimdsd;ecaenpdtive are the interpretations of the word “loyal, ” and so perverted the consciences of those who sympathize puloudslwyith taken the late rebellion, that Oaths are unscru: and proofs made which will compel the most watchful commissioners now in session to award millions of dollars to the mostguileful enemies of the Government, contrary to the spirit of the acts beforementioned: Therefore, be it resolved, That the ComJudiciary be instructed to inquire into the constitutionality and expediency of a repeal of these laws, and to report to this House by bill or otherwise.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered, being upon agreeing to the resolution.Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 107, nays 30, not voting 54;. So the resolution was agreed to. The ion recurred upon agreeing to the preamble.Mr. McCLURG. Upon that I call the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the preamble was agreed to. Mr. McCLURG mtRtv the preamble and resolution were agreed t;o upon the table. agreed to. IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, ETC.
Mr. LOAN submitted the following resolution, upon which he called the previous question: Resolved, That for the purpose of securing the fruits of the victories gained on the part of the Republic during the late war, waged by rebels and traitors against the life of the nation, and of giving effect to the will of the people as expressedat the polls during the recent elections by a majority numbering in tvhoetes aggregate more than 400,000 it is the imperative duty of the 39th Congress to take without delay such action as will accomplish the following objects: 1. The impeachment of the officer now:.; the functions pertaining to the officeof POTUS, and his removal from said office upon his conviction, in due form of law, of the high crimes and misdemeanorsof which he is o. ando, guilty, and which render it unsafe longer to permit him to exercise the powers he has unlawfully assumed. 2. To provide for the faithful and efficient administration of the executive dept of the Government within the limits prescribed by law. 3. ganiTziongprovide effectivemeansfor immediately reor civil governments in those States lately in rebellion, excepting Tennessee, and for restoring them to their practical relations with the Govern otupon a basis of loyalty and justice; and to end, this 4. To secure by the direct intervention of authority Federal the right of franchise alike, without regard to color, to all classesof loyal citizens residing within those sections of the Republic which were lately in rebellion.
Mr. BINGHAM. I would inquire in what manner this resolution comes before the House?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom missouri [Mr. LoAN] offers it under the regular call of States for resolutions, and demands the previous question upon its adoption.
Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the previous question will not be 2nd ed.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Will the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. LoAN] withdraw his call for the previous question until I offer an amendment, when I will renew the call for the previous question?
Mr. LOAN. I will hear the amendment read.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman must either withdraw or insist upon his call for the previous question. If it is withdrawn, and any member rises to discuss the resolution, it must go over under the rule..
Mr. LOAN. Then I insist upon the call for the previous question.
Mr. ANCONA. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table.
Mr. LOAN and Mr. CHANLER called for the yeas&nays upon the motion to lay the resolution upon the table. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to ask the Chair whether, if the previous question should not be 2nd ed, it will then be in order to move to refer this resolution to the ComJudiciary?
The SPEAKER. If the motion to lay on the table be disagreed to, and the call for the previous question. be not 2nd ed, then a motion to refer will be in order, unless some member rises to debate the resolution, when it will go over under the rule.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would inquire if the caucus of Saturday night did not determine that this and similar resolutions should be sent to the ComJudiciary without debate? [Laughter]
The SPEAKER. That is not a parliament ary inquiry. The question was upon laying the resolution on the table.
Mr. HILL. I desire to inquire of the Chair whether, under the rule, this resolution does not go to the JtComReconstruction without debate, as it relates to representation from the lately rebellious States?
Mr. LOAN. I ask leave to modify my resolution.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman cannot do that; now the point of order is raised. The Chair will explain the reason for his decision sustaining the point of order. The 3rd clause of the resolution provides that it is the imperative duty of Congress To provide effective means for immediately reor ganizing civil governments in those States lately in rebellion excepting Tennessee, and for restoring them to upon the practical relations with the Government a basis of loyalty and justice. During the last session of Congress the Chair ruled, upon a resolution offered by the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. ELDRIDGE, Jalluding to the F. relations of a State with the General Government, that it included the question of representation, and therefore the resolution should go to the JtComReconstruction without debate under the rule. That decision was appealed from, and the decision of the Chair was sustained. According to that ruling, this resolution must go without debate to the JtComReconstruction.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Is it in order to move to lay this resolution on the table?
The SPEAKER. The resolution has already gone, under the rule, to the JtComReconstruction.
Mr. LOAN. I would inquire if any part of the resolution goes to the JtComReconstruction except the portion which the Chair rules has relation to representation from the lately rebellious States?
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I rise to a question of order, whether it is not too late to raise this question, the previous question having been 2nded and the main question ordered. I think that during the last session, when a similar question was raised by Mr. Voorhees, then a member from Indiana,
The SPEAKer allowed the resolution to be debated.
The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the question of order. The previous question has not yet been 2nd ed.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. The yeas&nays have been ordered.
The SPEAKER. The yeas&nays have been ordered upon the motion to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. LOAN. I ask leave to withdraw the 3rd and 4th propositions.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio., Has not the gentleman the right to modify the resolution?
The SPEAKER. The resolution is not now before the House; it has been referred, under the rule, to the JtComReconstruction. PRINTING speciFICATIONs of PATENTs.
Mr. BENJAMIN submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the SecyInterior, be instructed to inform this House if any contract has been entered into with any person, or personsfor the printing of the specifications of patents, and if so, by virtue of what law the same was made; and that he furnish a copy thereof, with the amount of expend itures incurred in carrying it into effect.
The SPEAKER. This being a call for executive information, unanimous consent is necessary for its consideration on this day. here being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to.
Mr. No. mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to: IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.
Mr. KELSO. I submit the following resolution, on which I demand the previous question: Resolved, That for the oof securing the fpruubitlsic of the victories gained on the part of the reolate war, waged by rebels and trai tors against the life of the nation, and of giving effect to the will of the people, as expressed at the polls during the late election by majorities numbering in tyhoetesa, gitgregate more than 400,,000 is the imperative duty of the 39th a Congress istho take, without delay, such action aswill the following objects: The impeachment of the officernow exercising tohfetfhuenc tio.ns"peSrttaatiensine gf tAomtheeriocfafi, ceaonfdthheisPrreesmidoevnatl from office, upon his conviction, in due form, of the crimes and high misdemeanorsof which he is mani festly and notoriously guilty, and which, render it unsafe longer to permit him to exercise the powers he has unlawfully assumed. 2. To provide for the faithful and efficient administration of the executive dept within the imits prescribed by law.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a question of order. Is not this precisely the same document that was just offered by the Gentfrom Missouri, [Mr. LoAN?]
The SPEAKER. It is not. It is quite different, as it omits several things which were in the other.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Was not the other resolution referred to the JtComReconstruction?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is not this the Book aper that was referred?
Mr. CHANDLER. I call for the yeas&nays on the question of adopting the resolution.
Mr. DAVIS. I move to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I call for the yeas&nays on the motion to lay on the table. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to inquire of the Chair whether, if this motion be not agreed to, it will not be in order to move to refer the resolution to the ComJudiciary.
The SPEAKER. It will be, unless the resolution should give rise to debate, in which case it will go over, under the rule.
Mr. WENTWORTH. No; let us pass it today.
Skip Skip The question was taken on the motion to lay the resolution on the table; and it was decided in the oil.” 40, nays 104, not voting 47; So the House refused to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and the resolution goes over till Mon day next.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM The President. A message in.was received from the POTUS, by his Private Secretary, Mr. Robert Johnson. OCCUPANCY OF SAN JUAN.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a message from the POTUS, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House, the report of the SecyState of certain correspondence relating to the joint occupancy of the Island of SanJuan, in Washington Territory; which was referred to the ComForAffrs, and ordered to be printed. ARREST OF JOHN h. SURRATT.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a message from the President, transmitting an additional report of the SecyState relating to the discovery and arrest of John H. Surratt; which was referred to the ComJudiciary and ordered to be printed. IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to perform a painful but, nevertheless, to me an imperative duty; a duty which I think ought not longer to be postponed, and which cannot, without criminality on our part, be neg lected. I had hoped, sir, that this duty oil have devolved upon an older and more expe rienced member of this House than myself. Prior to our adjournment I asked a number of gentlemen to offer the resolution which I introduced, but upon which I failed to obtain a suspension of the rules. onfident, sir, that the loyal people of this country demand at our hands the adoption of some such proposition, as I am about to submit, I am determined that no effort on my part shall be wanting to see that their expectations are not disop ointed.
Mr. FINCK. I rise to a point of order. I want to know what the question is.
The SPEAKER. If the gentleman insists, the question must be stated.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Then, sir, on my responsibility as a Representative, and in the presence of this House, and before the Amer. lcan oIcharge AndrewJohnson, VEEP and acting POTUS, with the commission of acts which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, for which, in my judgment, he ought to be impeached. I therefore submit the following
Mr. FINCK. I propose another question of order. Is that a question of privilege?
The SPEAKER. It is. In the 20 7th Congress, by the then Speaker, it was decided, on the point raised by Horace Ev erett, of Vermont, that it was a question of privilege.
The SPEAKER. The unfinished business, which, is the regular order, cannot interfere with this proposition.
The Clerk read the proposition of Mr. Ash LEY, of Ohio, which is as follows: I do impeach AndrewJohnson, VEEP and acting POTUS, of high crimes and misdemeanors. I charge him with a usurpation of power and violation of law: In that hehascorruptly used the appointing power; In that he has corruptly used the pardoning power; In that he has corruptly used the veto power: In that he hascorruptly disposed of public property of the U.S.: In that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and committed acts which, in contemplation of stitution, the confore, are high crimes andmisdemeanors: There Be it resolved, That the ComJudiciary Is there not a special be, and they are hereby, authorized to o: into the official conduct of AndrewJohnson, VEEP, discharging, the powers and duties of the office of POTUS, the and to report to this House whether, in their opinion, the said AndrewJohnson, while in said office, has been guilty of acts which are designed or calculated to overthrow, subvert, or corrupt the Government of the U.S., or any dept or office thereof; and whether the said AndrewJohnson has been guilty of any act, or has conspired with others to do acts, which, in contemplation of Constitution, the are high crimes and misdemeanors, rethuiring the interposition of the constitutional power of this House; and that said committee have power to sendfor persons and papers, and to customary oath administer the to witnesses.
Skip Skip Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I demand the previous question. Mr. SPALDING. I move it be laid upon the table. Mr. FINCK, I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative–yeas 39, nays 105, not voting 47;. So the House refused to lay the resolution upon the table. The question recurred on 2nding the demand for the previous question.
Mr. BINGHAM. I wish to inquire if the demand for the previous question is not 2nded whether it will not then be in order to move to refer the resolution.
Mr. BINGHAM. Then I hope it will not be 2nd ed.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I hope it will be. [Laughter]
Skip Skip The question being taken on deo 2nding the for the previous question, there were ayes 67, noes 49. Mr. BINGHAM demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Messrs. BINGHAM and AshLEY, of Ohio. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 75, noes 46. So The previous question was 2nded.The main question was then ordered. Mr. FINCK. I demand the yeas&nays on the passage of the resolution. The yeas&nays were ordered. Mr. MYERS called for the reading of the resolution. The resolution was accordingly read.
Mr. HUBBELL, of Ohio. '. to inquire whether a motion to refer the resolution to the ComJudiciary would at this time be in order.
The SPEAKER. It would not, the previous question having been 2nd ed, and the main question ordered. It could only be done by 1st reconsidering the vote by which the main question was ordered.
Mr. HUBBELL, of Ohio. Can the motion to reconsider that vote be made by a member who voted in the negative?
The SPEAKER. It would be in order for any member to make the motion from the fact that the ayes and noes were not ordered upon it.
Mr. HUBBELL, of Ohio. Then I move to reconsider the vote by which the House ordered the main question, and I will notify the House
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, and others. I object.
Mr. HUBBELL, of Ohio. That I intend to move to refer the resolution to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I object to debate. I want to make a speech myself. [Laughter]
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move to lay the motion of my colleague on the table. Several MEMBERs., no.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I demand the yeas and navs on the motion to reconsider. he yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I rise to a point of order. I understood
The SPEAKer to decide that the House could not take the yeas&nays on 2nding the demand for the previous question.
The SPEAKER. It can on ordering the main question.
Mr. WENTWORTH. The motion I understand is on reconsidering the vote by which The previous question was ordered. Now, if on the original question you cannot have the yeas&nays, you cannot on the other.
The SPEAKER. There are 2 questions. On 2nding the previous question the yeas&nays cannot be taken; on ordering the main question the yeas&nays can be taken. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. HUBBELL] moves to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I think this is not the motion of the gentleman.
The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that it is.
Mr. BINGHAM. I wish to inquire if the House reconsiders the vote and then refuses the demand for the previous question, whether the resolution will not then be open for amendment and debate.
Skip Skip Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Mr. ELDRIDGE. On that I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeasoq, nays 47, not voting 50; So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table. The question recurred upon agreeing to the resolution, upon which the yeas&nays had been ordered.
Mr. NIBLACK. I rise to a question of order. I submit whether the laying of the motion to reconsider othe table does not carry the resolution with it.
The SPEAKER. It does not, by the express language of the Digest: “In general, whatever adheres to the subjectof this mit;otion [to lay upon the table] goeson the table with asfor example, where a motion to amend is ordered to lie on the table, the subject which it is proposed to amend goeswith it. But it is not so with the Journal where it is voted to lay upon the table a proposed amendment thereto.”., “Nor with the bill or other proposition, where the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.” Barclay's Digest, page 109.
Skip Skip The question, was taken on agreeing to resolution; the and it was decided in the affirma tive–yeas 107, nays 39, not voting, 45; So the resolution was agreed to. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, mtRtv the resolution was adopted; upon the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM Tiiro SenATE. A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. MCDon LD, its Chief Clerk, notifying the House that that body had passed without amendment a JtResolution (H.R.No. 221) authorizing certain medals to be distributed to honorably discharged soldiers free of postage. The message further announced that the senate had passed abill (S. No.459) suspending the payment of moneys from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or bor of colored volunteers, and for other purposes. Also, a JtResolution (S.R.No. 154) to provide for the exhibition of cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next; in which the concurrence of the House was requested. EXPLORATION OF ISTH MUS OF DARLEN.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Has the morning hour “Fo "he SPEAKER. It has.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Then I move to proceed to business upon The SPEAKer's table. The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business upon The SPEAKer's table is the JtResolution of the Senate No. 149 to extend aid and facilities to the citizens of the U.S. engaged in the survey of a route for a ship canal across the Isthmus of Darien. The JtResolution was read a 1st and 2nd time. The question was upon ordering the JtResolution to be read a 3rd time.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to refer this JtResolution to the ComCommerce.
Mr. BANKS. I move to amend that motion so as to refer the JtResolution to the ComForAffrs.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask that the JtResolution be read. The JtResolution was read. It authorizes and requests the SecyNavy to furnish such aid and facilities to citizens of the U.S. who are undertaking an explo ration and survey of the Isthmus of Darien for the purpose of discovering a favorable line for a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as he may be able to furnish without prejudice to the naval service, and without additional expense to the Government of the U.S.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think, upon hearing that JtResolution read, that it properly belongs to the ComNavAffrs. Therefore I withdraw my motion to refer it to the ComCommerce.
Mr. BANKS. I move to refer it to the ComForAffrs.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to amend so as to refer it to the ComNavAffrs.
Mr. BANKS. I ask the Chair to decide to which committee it properly belongs.
The SPEAKER. That is a question for the House to decide. The Chair is of opinion that it can properly go to either committee.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask tha; the rule be read establishing the ComNavAffrs. I think that will determine the question.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the rule establishing the ComNavAffrs, and also the rule establishing the ComForAffrs.
The Clerk read as follows: “It shall be the duty of the ComNavAffrs to take into consideration all matters which concern the naval establishment, and which shall be referred to them by the House, and to report their opinion thereupon; and also to report, from time to time, such measures as may contribute to economy and accountability in the said establishment.. It shall be the duty of the ComForAffrs to take into consideration all matters which concern the relations of the U.S. with foreign nations, and which shall be referred to them by the House, and to report their opinion on the same.”
Mr. BANKS. I think that, under the rule, this JtResolution clearly belongs to the ComForAffrs.
Mr. BIDWELL. I ask for the present consideration of this JtResolution.
The SPEAKER. The question is now upon the motion to refer. If that motion should be voted down, the question will be upon the 3rd reading and passage of the JtResolution.
Mr. SCOFIELD. As a compromise between the different committees, I propose that the resolution be not referred at all, but that it be taken up and passed at once. It is a measure that everybody can understand, and the passage of which the interests of the country demands.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think it should take the usual course, and be referred to a committee.
Mr. BANKS. Then it should go to the ComForAffrs.
Mr. CHANLER. I rise merely to say a word in behalf of the commercial interests of the country. I do not know that the Gentfrom olio. [Mr. BIDweal] or the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofielp] is better entitled to speak for the commercial interests of the country than a Representative from the great city of NewYork. Now, while I am in favor of the most extended facilities for commerce, I certainly think that to meet those interests properly and justly, and to carry out properly the dignity of this body, it should be referred to and acted upon by a committee. If the commercial interests of the country demand the passage of this JtResolution, that demand will come with more force from a committee of this body than it will by any immediate and unconsidered action asked for by any individual member of this body.
Mr. BANKS. I withdraw my motion to refer, and trust that this JtResolution will be acted upon now.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not believe this House is prepared to pass this JtResolution without any further hearing or ebate. I desire to call the attention of members to what this JtResolution is, which they seem to be in such hot haste to pass without reference to any committee. It is for the as sistance of certain persons. What persons? The SecyNavy is to be authorized and requested to furnish such aid and facilities to citizens of the U.S. who are under taking an exploration and survey of the Isth mus of Darien for the purpose of discovering a favorable line for a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans which he may be able to furnish without prejudice to the naval service, and without. expense to the Government of the U.S. Now I desire to know upon what ground we are asked to legislate in this way. Why should we call upon the Navy Dept or any other Dept to give these special privileges to these private individuals? Sir, I am opposed to this proposition; at least I am opposed to its being put upon its passage at the present time. I want to know something more about it; I want to know who these individ uals are, and all about the matters involved in the consideration of this question. I do not see why there should be objection to having this bill take the usual reference, so that the appropriate committee may report all the facts in regard to this canal. It is, in my judgment, a mere matter of speculation.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I would like to ask the gentleman who has charge of this bill what is the character of the aid which the resolution proposes to give whether the resolution contemplates an appropriation of money for the purpose of assisting these private individuals. The proposition of the Gentfrom Illinois who has just taken his seat appears to me a very proper one. In the absence of full information on this subject it is nothing more than reasonable that the bill should take the accustomed course and be referred to the appropriate committee.
Mr. SCOFIELD. In answer to my colleague from Pennsylvania, o: jiwill say that I am not advised as to who has charge of this bill, or whether anybody has charge of it. All the information I have on the subject I derive from the debate in the Senate, which I suppose most of the members have read. this alleged that there has been discovered a new route over the isthmus far preferable to any heretofore known, and which it is claimed will be of more advantage to this country and the world than all our Navy put together. Ten gentlemen have associated themselves together and have contributed $1,000 each to pay an engineering party to go down and explore this route. They ask that the SecyNavy, who has Government vessels lying about the isthmus doing nothing, may be authorized to detail one of those ships to carry this party of engineers up the river, until they start out upon the overland route. The matter is to be left to the discretion of the SecyNavy.. He felt inclined, without any special authority of Congress, to grant the use of a Yessel for this purpose; but upon consideration it was thought best to ask the passage of this resolution. That is all there is in this proposition, as I understand it. I can assure the Gentfrom Illinois, from the best knowl edge I have, that this is no private speculation.
Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, the organization of Congress contemplates the investigation of all questions of legislation by both Houses. The Senate have doubtless acted upon what they thought was a sufficient reason for their action. It is our business to investigate the matter and decide for ourselves. We have all of us seen too much of hasty legislation, o through upon 1st impressions, especially while the war was in ho progress, when legislation was oftentimes very impera tive. There is no such imperative necessity now. Without having any opinion whether or not this is a just measure, one which ought to be passed, I do think it most manifest that we ought to refer the proposition to one of the standing committees for examination. If, as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Sco FIELD] seems to suppose, the bill is one proper to be passed, its reference to a committee will delay its passage for only a few days at far thest. Although I have no particular preference as to the committee to which the bill should be referred, I will move its reference, at the suggestion of gentlemen around me, to the ComNavAffrs, and on that motion I demand the previous question.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I have no objection to the reference of the bill, if that course shall accord with the wishes of the House.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and, under the operation thereof, the motion of Mr. MAYNARD was agreed to, and the JtResolution was referred to the ComNavAffrs. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, mtRtv the JtResolution was referred; on the table. agreed to. CHARLES CLARK. The next business on
The SPEAKer's table was the JtResolution (S.R.No. 146) for the relief of Charles Clark, marshal of the U.S. for the district of Maine; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and, on motion of Mr. BLAINE, referred to the ComJudiciary. WISCONSIN. The next business on The SPEAKer's table was the JtResolution (S.R.No. 102) construing and giving effect to the JtResolution entitled “A resolution for the relief of the State of Wisconsin, ” approved July 1, 1864; which was read a 1st and 2nd time.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move that it be referred to the ComClaims.
Mr. PAINE. I move to amend that it be referred to the ComPubLands.
Skip Skip The House divided; and there were ayes 58, noes 60. So the amendment was disagreed to. The motion of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, was agreed to. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, mtRtv taken; upon the table. agreed to.
PAYMENT FOR SLAVES. The next business upon The SPEAKer's table was Senate bill No. 459, suspending the payment of moneys from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or labor of.; volunteers or drafted men, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill, which was read, declares that the final report of the commissioners provided for in the 2nd section of the act of Congress entitled “An act making appropriation for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes, ” approved July 28, 1866, shall be made, through the SecyWar, to con and no money shall be paid from the 'reasury, or from any fund therein, upon the same, or otherwise, to any claimant under the provisions of section 24 of the act approved February 24, 1864, entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes, ’” approved March 3, 1863, until such report shall be approved and confirmed by Congress.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I desire that the bill shall be put on its passage. I will merely say that at the last session of Congress an amount was. to pay the owners of certain slaves who had entered the service of the U.S. The terms of the act are, that loyal owners shall receive compensation not exceeding $300; and it is made the duty of the SecyWar to appoint a commissioner for each of the slave States, then represented in Congress to pass upon these claims. The commissioner has been appointed and is now at work. I am informed by numerous letters I have received from the State of Missouri that the very worst rebels in that State are proving themselves loyal men for the purpose of getting the $300 allowed to them. I suppose it is the same in other States. To give Congress an opportunity to look into this matter the Senate have passed this bill, suspending payment until the report of the commissioner has been received and passed upon. That is the whole of the case.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is very nearly the same proposition I submitted at the last session on one of the appropriation bills; and I think it ought to pass.
Skip Skip Mr. BENJAMIN demanded the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to a 3rd reading; and it was accordingly read the 3rd time. Mr. BENJAMIN. I demand the previous question on the passage of the bill. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered.
Mr. MAYNARD. I should like to inquire whether this bill if passed precludes the payment of any such persons as Congress here after may on investigation agree ought to be aid, or merely suspend payment until we can have an opportunity to examine the report?
Mr. BENJAMIN. This merely suspends payment of anyone until Congress has an opportunity to examine the report of the commissioners sent out to investigate these claims.
Skip Skip Mr. RITTER demanded the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeas 107, nays 26, not voting 58;. So the bill was passed. Mr. BENJAMIN mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. PARIs Exposition. …i. The next and last business on
The SPEAKer's table was Senate JtResolution No. 154, to provide for the exhibition of several productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution was read in full. It instructs the ComrAg to collect and prepare as far as practicable, and with as little delay as possible, suitable specimens of the cereal productions of the several States of the Union for exhibition at the Paris Exposition and forward the same in proper order and condition for shipment to J. C. Derby, agent for the U.S. Government for the Paris Exposition, at NewYork.
Mr. BIDWELL. I hope this bill will be passed at once.
Mr. SPALDING. I would like to propose a slight amendment by providing that we shall incur no further expense than we have already appropriated money for.
Mr. BIDWELL. Why, this does not require any further appropriation.
Mr. BIDWELL. I certainly would have no objection to the amendment only it involves the necessity of returning the JtResolution to the Senate, which will cause delay. It is important, since the U.S. are to be represented in the Paris, Exposition, that we should without delay take every necessary step to be well represented. This resolution merely authorizes the ComrAg to prepare and forward to NewYork certain cereals.
Mr. SPALDING. I hope the gentleman will allow me to offer this soft amendment.
Mr. SPALDING. I move to amend by adding the words “provided it shall require no further appropriation.”
Mr. KASSON. Will the Gentfrom California yield to me a moment?
Mr. KASSON. I am opposed to the amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPAL DING.] This JtResolution does not make any appropriation. But even if it should require a small appropriation every member of this House representing an agricultural constituency ought to sustain it. I hope my friendfrom California will insist upon the passage of the resolution in its present form. The matter needs prompt action. I know the northwestern States are particularly desirous to have a comparison of their cereals with those of other countries; and in my judgment the result will be to save us from incurring unnecessary expense in the future by enabling us to ascertain y comparison what foreign cereals will be useful for introduction into this country.
Mr. BIDWELL. As I said before, I do not object to the amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio, but the amount of cereals necessary to be placed in the hands of the agent of the U.S. at NewYork in order to properly represent the different portions of the country cannot be very large. A very few bushels of grain from each State will be amply sufficient, and the cost of transportation cannot amount to anything serious, therefore I do not oppose the amendment. I would, however, appeal to the gentleman, who certainly must have the interest of his country at heart and who desires undoubt edly that we shall be well represented in the Paris Exposition, to withdraw his amendment and let us act upon the JtResolution at once. What amount of grain will it take to represent all the States of the Union? What will it cost r to transport it to NewYork? It does seem to me that it will be so small a sum that it will be better not to add the proviso. Let us leave it as it is, and let us be well represented in that important exhibition. If there is anything that deserves to be represented at Paris it is the staff of life, of which our country is so great a producer that it is becoming the granary of the world. I demand the previous question.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. ill the gentleman yield a moment?
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I hope the amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio will be adopted. As the resolution now stands it leaves entirely to the discretion of the ComrAg how much shall be selected for transportation to Paris. Of course the Government will be called upon afterward to make appropriation for the transportation of these cereals. How much that appropriation may be nobody knows. Now, sir, the agricult urists of my own State are themselves without any assistance from the Government (they do not ask any) for collecting such products as they desire to have exhibited, and Iso think it is throughout the northwestern States. The agricultural societies and men of wealth, if they think it necessary or important to their section of the country to be represented at Paris by the exhibition of seed, will send them over. I am entirely opposed to giving the discretion to the ComrAg as to what and how much shall be selected. He may send over ten ship loads.
Mr. BIDWELL., I wish to state to the Gentfrom Illinois that there is an understanding between the agent of the U.S. for the Paris Exposition in NewYork and the ComrAg here that certain States have furnished proper specimens, and perhaps certain other States will do it; but the idea is to secure uniformity and universal representation there. It seems that this can only be done through some great central agency, and the Dept of Agriculture seems to be the proper agency. Whenever it is found that specimens have been offered from any State, of course there will be no expense incurred in obtaining other specimens from that State; but we desire to have the entire country represented.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to ask the Gentfrom California a question.
Mr. BIDWELL, I will yield for that pur. pose, although I desire to call the previous question.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to know whether he understands by this resolution that the exponses are to be taken out of the present appropriation for the Agricultural Dept.
Mr. BIDWELL. Yes, sir; whatever expenses may be incurred.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. The Gentfrom California will allow me to answer the question of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. I saw the ComrAg this morning, and he said that this expense would be taken out of the appropriation already made for his Dept.
Mr. STEVENS. It happens that no appropriation has been made this year.
Mr. BIDWELL. We have passed the appropriation this year.
Mr. STEVENS. No, sir; the gentleman is mistaken. The appropriation is hung up now on an amendment to cut down the appropriation for the Agricultural Dept. If that amendment is to prevail and then we are to withdraw this amount which, I understand, cannot amount to less than 5 or 10,000 dollars I do not know that I shall object; but I think we should decide what the Dept shall get before we impose this jexpense upon it. A large appropriation has already been made for this purpose, under the eloquent persuasion of the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKs, and I had hoped that that would be the end of the expenditures for this foreign Exposition. I do not begrudge what has been already voted, because the knowledge we may acquire will probably be worth that much money; but I do object to taking this additional amount out of the funds appropriated to the Agricult ural Dept. I have a notion to send my own potatoes over there, and my friendfrom Connecticut [Mr. HUBBARD] would send his On10nS.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. I gave my friend some onion seed this morning.
Mr. STEVENS. I acknowledge the receipt of it; but I would really like to know what is to become of the appropriation for the Dept before I vote to exhaust it in this way.
Mr. BIDWELL. It is well known that the ComrAg has many ways in which to procure what is desired i. this resolution without any great amount of expense. I presume he will have merely to request the different agricultural societies with which he is in communication to get nearly everything which he would require; but if he should have to purchase a small amount, I want to know if the gentleman expects him to get it for nothing. The sum would be so small, if there should be anything to pay, that no one could object to it. Now, sir, as we have determined to be represented in this, great Exposition, I hope the American people will insist, through their representatives in this Congress that they shall be so represented as to have their country not surpassed by any nation under Heaven. If there is anything that would benefit this country by imparting information across the water, it would be to show the capacity of this country for producing the cereals, and for one I hope that we will do everything in our power to be represented at least in that important feature.
Mr. SPALDING. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question?
Mr. BIDWELL. I will; but I am occupying too much time.
Mr. SPALDING. How much have we already appropriated for this Paris Exposition? Did wo, hot appropriate money for this very purpose
Mr. BIDWELL. I understand that we apop:ropriated $100,000. SPALDING. We appropriated $250,000, and my object is to keep the expenditure within that amount.
Mr. BIDWELL. I now yield for 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS.]
Mr. BANKS. The expenditure for this purpose will be very slight indeed. The Agricult ural Dept can pay it out of its appropriations without interfering at all with the working of the office; or if the Commissioner cannot now do it, and the appropriations to be made for that Dept hereafter shall be such as not to justify it, then he will not do it. It is left entirely to his discretion. Most of the States have already forwarded specimens of their cereals; and agricultural and other societies interested in grain in the principal States have collections which can be forwarded with very little expense. I hope the resolution, with the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING] will be allowed to pass.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. As the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. .will not change the JtResolution, I move to lay it on the table.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and upon a division there were ayes 47, noes 50. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for the yeas&nays upon the motion to lay the JtResolution on the table.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon ordering, the yeas&nays; and upon a division there were ayes 12, noes 70. So, one 5th not voting in the affirmative, the yeas&nays were not ordered. The motion to lay on the table was accordingly not agreed to. . The question recurred upon 2nding the call for the previous question; and being taken, upon a division there were ayes 63, noes 38. So The previous question was 2nded.The main question was then ordered. The 1st question was upon the amendment of Mr. SPALDING, to amend the JtResolution by adding to it the following words: Provided. That it shall require no further appropriation from the public Treasury.
Skip Skip The question was taken, and The amendment was agreed to. The JtResolution, as amended, was then read the 3rd time. The question was upon the passage of the JtResolution as amended. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Upon that question I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeas 84, mays 48, not voting 58;. So the JtResolution was passed. Mr. BIDWELL mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to. ENIROLLEDJtResolution SIGNED.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a JtResolution of the following title:JtResolution (H.R.No. 221) authorizing certain medals to be distributed to honorably discharged soldiers free of postage; when The SPEAKer signed the same. RIO GRANDE LAND GRANTS.
The SPEAKer laid before the House a communication from the SecyTerritory of NewMexico, transmitting a JtResolution of the territorial Legislature regarding Rio Grande land grants; which was referred to the ComPubLands and ordered to be printed. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. HENDERSON asked and obtained in definite leave of absence for Mr. DENNY, Dele gate from Washington Territory. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. KASSON. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a JtResolution declaratory of the meaning of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A. If objection be made I shall move to suspend the rules.
Mr. KASSON. I think the gentleman will withdraw that motion if he will hear the JtResolution reported.
Mr. THAYER. I insist on the motion. The motion was not agreed t;o there being– ayes 40, noes 70.
Mr. KASSON. I move to suspend the rules to introduce the JtResolution which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows: Whereas the Congress of the U.S. at the 2nd session of the 38 h Congress, proposed to the several States for adoption the 13th amendmentto the Constitution of the U.S., which has now, by the ratification of of 4ths of the States of the Union, become part o the Constitution, and which by its terms forever prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude “except as a ofor crime whereof the party shall have been duly conyicted;” and whereas in some parts of this Union it is asserted and maintained that, not withstanding said amendment, it is lawful to sell or otherwise commit into unofficial subjection to slavery personswho may be convicted qf aw, by reason whereof certain of nfefenrs ieosragtariibnusnt athlse have adjudged free citizens of the U.S. to be so disposed of as to reestablish chattel slavery for life or for years, against the principles of tian religion, of civilization, and of the Constitutions of the U.S., which now recognizes no involuntary servitude, except to the law and to the officers of its administration: Now therefore, Be it resolved, doc., That the true intent and meaning of said amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude forever in all forms, except in direct execution of a sentence imposing a definite penalty according to law, which penalty cannot, without violation of the Constitution, impose any other servitude than that of imprisonment or other restraint of freedom under the immediate control of officers of law and according the to the usual course thereof, to the exclusion of all unofficial control of the person so held in servitude; and that all orders, judgments, or decrees, authorizing or directing the sale or disposition into servitude of any person within other jurisdiction of the U.S. otherwise than as above declared to be lawful, are and shall be taken and held to be in violation of the 13th constitutional amendment aforesaid, and therefore void.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is known to every gentleman in the House that in certain States of this Union, notwithstanding the constitutional amendment referred to in this JtResolution, men are being, perhaps every month; sold into perpetual slavery, under a form of law by which inferior tribu mals order that a man shall be sold at public auction, and call that an execution of a legitimate sentence of the law. This seems to me to have arisen from the fundamental error of supposing that when we abolished slavery throughout the U.S.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I rise to a question of order. Is debate in order upon a motion to suspend the rules?
The SPEAKER. It is not, if any member objects.
The SPEAKER., The question is on the motion to suspend the rules.
Skip Skip Mr. ELDRIDGE. On that motion I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were yeas 111, nays 26, not voting 54; So (2/3rds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended. The JtResolution was accordingly introduced and read a 1st and 2nd time.
Mr. KASSON. to get the attention of the House for a few mo.ments, and some desire the House to adjourn. As this is now before the House, if I can retain it as the 1st business for tomorrow, Iing am will. to yield to any gentleman. I yield to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to make a motion in reference to House bill No. 543, which relates to the subject of reconstruction. propose to be absent from the city for a few ays, I move that the bill be postponed tempo rarily, for one week after the adjournment tomorrow, and to be taken up immediately after the reading of the Journal. There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly.
Mr. STEVENS. I wish to modify my substitute so that the modification may be printed Several gentlemen desire s As I before it again comes up for consideration. I move to add after the 4th section the following: And no person shall be deprived of the right to vote or otherwise disfranchised by reason of conviction or punishment for any crime other than for insurrection or treason or misprision of treason. Ipropose to add that as a modification of my substitute, that conviction for crime except for treason shall not take away the right to vote. And if the House will indulge me, I will give reason for it now, so that gentlemen may understand it. gentlemen connected with the Freedmen's Bureau I knew it for weeks past, but only yes. terday received the information officially that I have received information from, in NCarolina and other States where punishment at the whipping post deprives the person of the right to vote, they are now every day whipping negroes for 1000and one trivial offenses; and one of the lieutenants now there I need not name him, becauseas he fears it might be fatal to him told me last Saturday that they are taking them up in the different counties, and in one county before he left they had whipped every adult male negro whom they knew of. They were all convicted and sentenced at once, and he ascertained by intermingling with the people that it was for the purpose of preventing these negroes from voting under the bills which have been passed. I now move that the substitute, as modified, be ordered to be printed. The motion was agreed to. NATIONAL BANR CIRCULATION.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution: Resolved, That it is not expedient to circulating increase the notes of the national banks othe amount of $300,000,000, as now prescribed by law; and any such notes required for organizing additional capital in national banks, should be provided by h; the proportion of circulating notes which the several banks are now entitled to receive from the Comptroller of the Treasury. And I ask that the resolution be put upon its passage.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move to suspend the rules.
The SPEAKER. That motion is not now in order.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania to withdraw his objection.
Mr. THAYER. I object to such hasty legis:lation, and I shall insist on my objection. This sir, is not the way for this House to act upon a question of such importance. in not AMENDMENT TO THE TARIFF BILL..
Mr. ALLEY. I ask unanimous consent to ontroduce the following resolution: fo Resolved, That the ComWays&Means o: instructed to report a bill, if in their judgment "oxpedient, to oimmediately so much of ifact the of July, 1864, as is contained in the follow ng clause of section 5 of that act: “On lastings nohaircloth, silk twist, and other manufactures o !. loth, woven or made in patterns of such size, shape, of to indform, or cut in such manner as to be fit for shoes, impers, boots bootees, gaiters, and patterns exclu origely, not combined with india rubber, ten%, in on to W: "id valorem.”.
Mr.THAYER. Does that instruct the com. nittee? Does it give the committee discretion, or is it i. peremptory?
Mr. ALLEY. It is merely a resolution of nquiry. fr.THAYER. Then I withdraw my ob. jection.: The resolution was adopted. FRASER, TRENHolm AND company..
Mr. DEMING, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was. read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, by the HoRep, That "the President is orequested, if in his judgment not incompatible with the public interest, to comroomunicate to the House all correspondence between the State Dept and Messrs. Adams, minister at the Court of StJames, Dudley, consul at jo Liverpool, Morse, consul at London, Gibbs, Treasury agent, or with any other persons respectingthe com!, promise of certain suits instituted in the English courts in behalf of the U.S. against Fraser, Trenholm & Co., alleged agents of the socalled confederategovernment or SINKING FUND.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, by unanimousconsent, introduced a bill to authorize the issue of Treasury notes not bearing interest to To be used in providing a sinking fund for the exto tinguishment of the national debt; which was of read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComBanking&Currency, and ordered to be printed. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY AGAIN.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand on the regular order of business.
Mr. KASSON. I move to adjourn, in accord oance with the understanding I have that the s: pending JtResolution will be the unfinished business of tomorrow.
Mr. THAYER. I object to the gentleman's. any condition with the House. If that be the legal status of the JtResolution if we adjourn now, very well.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has already stated if the House now adjourns this will be o the 1st business tomorrow. o: MURDER OF UNION SOLDIER8.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, by unani.,mous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:. Resolved, That the special committee appointed to investigate the murder of Union men in SCarolina be instructed to inquire into the factsconcerning the murder of Edward M. Knowles, 1st lieutenant company K, 4 2nd Indiana regiment, at Au:. eorgia, in December, 1864, while a prisoner of ar. soldiers' Bou NTY.
Mr. MILLER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill supplementary to an aet granting additional bounty to certain enlisted soldiers, approved July 28, 1866; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComMilAffrs, and ordered to be printed. And then, on motion of Mr. KASSON, (at 3 o'clock and 45 mininutes p.m.,) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. TUESDAY, January 8, 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 communication from the SecyInterior and Acting PostMGenl, transmitting the report of the commissioner appointed under the JtResolution of May 16, 1866, entitled “A JtResolution relative to the courts and postoffice of NewYork city, ” to select a proper site for a building for a postoffice and for the accommodation of the U.S. courts in the city of NewYork; which, on motion of Mr. RAMs EY, was referred to the ComPostOffices, and ordered to be printed.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That order will be entered, no objection being made. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. SHERMAN, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred a memorial of the Wine na and StPeters Railroad Company, of Minnesota, praying that certain additional duties on railroad iron imported in 1863 be refunded, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.494) for the relief of the Wine na and StPeters Railroad Company. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading, and the report was ordered to be printed. RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE EXPENSES.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am instructed by the ComFinance, to whom was referred a JtResolution (S.R.No. 151) appropriating money to defray the expenses of the joint select comRetrenchment, to report it back and recommend its passage, and I ask for its present consideration. By unanimous consent, the JtResolution was considered as in ComWhole. It proposes to appropriate $15,000, or so much of that sum as may be necessary, to defray the expenses of the joint select comRetrenchment. The money is to be drawn from the Treasury as required, upon the order of the SecySenate; and money allowed by the committee to witnesses attending before it or to i.employed in its service and paid by the SecySenate in pursuance of its orders, is to be credited and allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury. The JtResolution was reported to the senate, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. BILLS INTIRODUCED.
Mr. HOWARD asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.495) authorizing the payment of the rewards offered by the POTUS and the officers of the War Dept in April and May, 1865, for the capture of JeffersonDavis; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComMilAffrs , and ordered to be printed.
Mr. RAMSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.496) to establish certain post roads in NewMexico; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPostOffices. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the President be requested to inform the Senate if any violation of the act entitled “An act to protect all persons in the U.S. in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication” have come to his knowledge, and if so steps what if any have been taken by him to enforce the law and punish the offenders. PENSION AGENTS.
Mr. CRAGIN. I move to take up Senate bill No. 69, which was under consideration during the morning hour yesterday. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the amendment of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pen isions, the pending question being upon the 1st amendment reported by the ComJudiciary to the House amendment, which was in line 11 of the House amendment to strike out the word “January” and insert “October.” "
Mr. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken, if I can have the attention of the Senator who has this bill in charge, I would ask him whether it would not be well to extend the same principle to other officers. The bill confines it to pension agents; but it seems to me there are many other offices which are filled by the depts that, under the circumstances of the hour, it would be well for the Senate to place to a certain extent, under the protection of law. I have not applied my attention particularly to this bill to see whether it can be amended in that respect; but I think that there areappointments which are made for instance, in connection with the customs and in connection with marine hospitals which it would be well to bring in some way under the protection of the Senate. Would it not be well, I would ask the Senfrom NewHampshire, to extend the application of the bill to other officers?
Mr. CRAGIN. The Senfrom Massachusetts is mistaken in supposing that I have special charge of this bill. pending amendments to it were reported by the ComJudiciary, the chairman of which committee is now out of his seat; but I think the Senfrom Indiana [Mr. LANE] has more information on this subject than I have. I have a special reason why I desire that this bill should pass at an early day. I suppose that the general bill introduced by the Senfrom Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs] would cover the point suggested by my friendfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure that my friendfrom Indiana will accomplish his purpose if the bill shall pass in the shape in who, it is now upon our table. Why the President has dismissed those persons who formerly held these situations and appointed others is a matter of which I know nothing. I take it for nted he has appointed competent men, for have not heard that there was any charge of incompetency for the duties of the office on the part of anybody. But the House amendment, if I heard it correctly read at the desk, provides that the persons who are in office are to remain in office until their successors are appointed.
Mr. LANE. The Senator will pardon me one moment. That is the very thing that the ComJudiciary have proposed to strike out. That is the amendment that I favor.
Mr. JOHNSON. Then the object will not be accomplished, because the President can nominate the same men.
Mr. JOHNSON. We can pass upon them, and he will continue to nominate. It is not the question what the President should do. I have a very decided opinion upon that question myself; but that is not before us now. We are not now considering what the President should do in the case of an appointment of his during the recess, which, upon its being presented to the Senate by a nomination, has been rejected by the Senate, and he has reappointed the same man after the Senate has adjourned. As the law stood at the time these appointments were made, and as it stands now, the President had a right to appoint these officers, or the SecyInterior had, which is the same thing, for he acts under the advice of the President, without consulting the senate at all. This is not, therefore, such a case as my friendfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] would seem to suppose from a side, remark he dropped to me; but it is a very different case. The only question here is whether the men who are in office now shall go out of office at the expiration of a certain number of days after the passage of this bill. As I said before, I do not see that that object will be accomplished, because the President can appoint them again. We can reject them, of course, but he can go on appointing, and we go on rejecting, and the office in the mean time will not be filled. My own impression is, and it was under that impression that I voted for the original bill when it passed the Senate, that these appointments should be made with the consent of the senate. They are now much more important than they ever were before. The officers are in trusted with a large amount of money, and their competency, therefore, is a question upon which I think the Senate should have the authority to pass.
Mr. JOHNSON. I suppose nothing that I said could have induced the honorable member from Ohio to think that I concurred in the propriety of reappointing a person whom the Senate had rejected. I said that I had a very decided opinion upon that question, and that is, that it is an abuse of the power of the President. Whether he has the power is a matter about which, until lately, there has been no doubt, because not only one AttyGen, but all the Attorneys General to whom the questions have been submitted, and all the presidents since the days of Washington, have concurred in the doctrine that the President is at liberty to reappoint one who has been rejected by the Senate. My own opinion is, irrespective of that construction of the Constitution, that the Constitution warrants no such thing; and I am perfectly willing to go as far as the Senfrom Ohio, if it can be accomplished by legislation, to legislate upon that subject so as to prevent what, in my judgment, is an abuse of the power if the power exists. But that is not the question here, for the reason I stated just now. The President is under no obligation to consult the Senate on these appointments.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the senate ready for the question on the proposed amendment to the amendment?
Mr. HOWE. I was going to suggest, in accordance with the opinions of several Senators with whom I have conferred, that July would be a better time to introduce there than Octo ber; but I suppose the action of the Senate is confined now to either accepting or rejecting that specific word, is it not? Would it be in order to move now to amend that proposition o
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair thinks not. It is an amendment to an amendment.
Mr. HOWE. I supposed so. I think we had better not agree to that amendment, and I will then move to amend by inserting “July” instead of “January.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. The decision just announced was hasty, inadvertent. The Chair is of opinion that under the rule the amendment of the House becomes a part of the text of the bill, and being a part of the text of the bill an amendment to it stands upon the same ground as an amendment to an ordinary bill, which is susceptible of an amendment to it as an amendment; so that the motion of the Senfrom Wisconsin, if he chooses to make it, will be in order.
Mr. HOWE. Very well, sir. I move then to amend the amendment by inserting “July” instead of “October.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. Then the nestion is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Wisconsin to the amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I should like to have it stated what is the effect of that amendment to the amendment, or have the amendment read as it will stand if amended. The SECRETARY. The amendment, if amended as proposed, will read as follows: And providedfurther, That the term of office of pension agents appointed all since the 1stday of July, A. D. 1865, shall expire at the end of 30 days from the passage of this act.
Mr. SUMNER. Is the pending question oil adopting the whole amendment as it comes from the House?
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is only on the question of striking out the word “Oc tober” and inserting “July” at the present time.
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 the bill for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union.
Mr. LANE. I move to postpone the unfinished business for the purpose of getting a vote on this matter. I think it can be disposed of in a few moments.
Mr. WADE. I believe this subject is going to lead to a long debate, and I can hardly consent to a postponement of the bill for the admission of Nebraska which I have been endeav oring now for nearly 6 weeks to urge to a conclusion. I do not like to interpose an objection to the bill of the Senfrom Indiana, but really it seems to me I ought not to permit the bill which was under consideration yesterday to be postponed. I am satisfied this subject will lead to a debate. I hope we shall proceed with the unfinished business of yesterday.
Mr. LANE. If this subject leads to debate I shall not object to its postponement.
Mr. WADE. If it is not going to lead to debate, I am very willing to let the special order lie over informally.
Mr. JOHNSON. I do not propose to debate it, but I suggest to the Senfrom Indiana that he had better let the bill lie on the table for the present. It seems to me to be very defective. It would involve the most of the soldiers to whom pensions are due at times to very great inconvenience. The present pension agents, if we pass this bill, go out at a certain time, must go out, no matter what the Senate shall do.
Mr. LANE. If Senators wish to look at it further I shall not object. I withdraw my motion. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a letter from the SecyWar, communicating, in compliance with the requirements of the acts of April 21, 1808, and March 3, 1809, statements by the chief of ordnance showing the orders given and purchases made by the ordnance office during the calendar year ending December 31, 1866; which, with the accompanying documents, was referred to the ComMilAffrs . He also laid before the Senate a communication from the SecyWar, communicating, in compliance with the requirements of the acts of April 21, 1808, and j.17, 1862, the QuarterGen’s statement of the contracts made by his dept from July 1 to December 31, 1866; which was referred to the ComMilAffrs .
Skip Skip ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. McPersox, its Clerk, announced that The SPEAKer of the House had signed the enrolled bill (S.No.459) suspending the payment of moneys from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or labor of colored volunteers or drafted men, and for other purposes; and the enrolled JtResolution (S.R.No. 154) to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next; and they were thereupon signed by the Presi.dent protempore of the Senate. SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT –VETO. The message also announced that the HoRep, having reconsidered its action on the bill (S.No.1) to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol, agreeably to the Constitution of the U.S., had passed the bill by a vote of 2/3rds of the members of that body, the objec.tions of the President to o: the contrary notwith.
Mr. MORRILL, I desire to ask the unan imous consent of the Senate to introduce the following resolution, which is necessary to perfect the legislation of yesterday:. Resolved, That the SecySenate, be directed to present to the SecyState the bill entitled “An act to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol, ” together with the certificates of the SecySenate and the Clerk of the HoRep, showing that the said act was passed by a vote of 2/3rds of both Houses of Congressafter the same had beenreturned to the Senate by the President with his objections, and after the reconsideration of said act by both Houses of Congress, intion. accordancewith the ConstituThe resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. ADMISSION OF Nebraska. The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.456) for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The pending question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. W. to the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. BRowN]
Mr. GRIMES. I ask for the reading of the amendment to the amendment.
The Secretary read the amendment to the amendment, which was to strike out all after the word “color, ” in line 5 of the amendment of Mr. BRowN, and in lieu thereof to insert: Excepting Indians not taxed; and upon the further fundamental condition that the Legislature of said State, by a solemn act, shall declare the assent of said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the POTUS an authentic copy of said act; upon receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall forth with announce the fact, whereupon said fundamental condition shall be held as a part of the organic law of the State; and thereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of said State into the Union shall be considered as complete. Said State Legislature shall be convened by the territorial Governor within 30 days after the passage of this act, to act upon the condition submitted herein.
Mr. WADE. This is the same amendment that was up when the Senate adjourned yesterday. I hope it will be rejected.
Mr. SUMNER. In the absence of my colleague I moved that amendment. I believe I called last evening for the yeas&nays. I am mistaken; the Senfrom Ohio called for the yeas&nays. I suggest to him to with draw the call.
Mr. WADE. I have no desire to have them. I called for them because I wanted to ascertain whether there was a quorum present, and I found there was not.
Mr. SUMNER. By unanimous consent the call can be withdrawn.
Mr. WADE. if I can have permission to withdraw the call I will do so.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Ohio asks leave to withdraw the call for the yeas&nays. It can only be with drawn by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Is there any objection? No objection being made, the call is withdrawn. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. SUMNER. I would say at this stage that I should prefer to take a vote on that amendment, if possible, without bringing it in conflict with any other proposition. I think it would be better, therefore, that we should vote, if the Senate is so ". on each of the pending propositions without.. one with the other; therefore I shall be gla to have this amendment for the present out of the way so that we can proceed at once to the consideration of the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, who is not now in his seat.
Mr. SUMNER. Very well; I have no objection. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The ques.tion now is on the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. Brown]
The Secretary read the amendment, which was to insert at the end of the 2nd section of the bill the following proviso: Provided. That this act shall not take effect except upon the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska there shall be no denial of the elective franchise, or of any other rights, to any person, by reason of race or color, and upon the further condition that this fundamental condition shall be submitted to the voters of the Territory of Nebraska at an election to be held on the 1st Tuesday of next. And at such election said voters shall declare their assent to or dissentfrom the condition aforesaid in such form as shall be prescribed by the Governor of said Territory. And o votes given at such election shall be returned to such Governor within – days from the dayof the election, who shall forth with canvass the same. And if a majority of such votes shall be for this condition, the Governor shall certify that fact to the POTUS, who shall by proclamation announce the fact: whereupon, without further proceedingson the part of Congress, this act shall take effect.
Mr. WADE. I hope the friends of the bill will not vote for this amendment, because it is equivalent to rejecting the constitution. It will have to go back before the people, and will be equivalent to making a new constitution. Those who are in favor of the bill I presume will vote against this amendment.
Mr. GRIMES called for the yeas&nays on the amendment, and they were ordered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. L.should like to know how this amendment stands with reference to the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Vermont, o: DMUNDs]
Mr. WADE. No; it has not been offered. It was only presented informally. He proposes to offer it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If this amendment of the Senfrom Missouri shall not be agreed to, then I propose to offer the amendment which has been printed, and which I submitted on the 20th of December; but I do not wish to offer it as a substitute for the pending amendment, because either of them intrinsically would produce practical justice. I prefer my own to that of the Senfrom Missouri, because I believe it puts the authority of Congress over this subject on its true ground.
Mr. SUMNER. A good Republican of Nebraska.
Mr. WADE. What office does he hold in the Territory?
Mr. SUMNER. None that I am aware of Sir, these are noble words, declaring the noble ambition that Nebraska should take the lead in the file of republican States. Here is another letter: December20, 1866. Hon. CHARLEs SUMNER: I desire to express to you drs those Senators who thinks talk, and act like on the admission, of Nebraska, with her present constitution stained with gutaneousdistinctions, my warm and profound regard and admiration; and to assure you, as a citizen of Nebraska, that I kept most sincerely hope that Territory will be in her present condition until she exhibits a clean breast or chart for your approval. Principle is ever paramount to og any temporizing: therefore, for the honor of a just and patri o NteicbrSaesknaa, the f, oramndestthiye'dperseirseent and future welfare of that she may be taught to acknowledge equality before the law. Beside, it seems to resemble arrogant presumption, not to say insult, for her people to "knock for entrance” on any other principle, especially in view of the impressive lesson of the age and the stern logic of have had no conversationwith her Senators elect on this subject, both of whom I know personally, and whom I can indorse as radical: but I must confess that if Gabriel were asking for admission with such a iffue I would say, “Depart from me; I know you not." Now, honorable sir, since nothing good, even on the low plane of expediency, in view of the present radical majorities in Congress, can result from the admission of Nebraska at present; and since it would save the peopleof that Territory from future political discussionsand dissensions, and since it would prevent the Senate from the sanction of injustice and the establishment of a reprehensible precedent, I most sincerely trust that your honorable body will sanction and sustain the cause of justice and hu manity by keeping Nebraska.' out in the cold”Juntil she can pronounce the American shibboleth, “Liberty and equality.” ery respectfully.
Mr. HOWARD. I beg to inquire of the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts whether he is acquainted with the writer of that letter, either personally or by reputation?
Mr. SUMNER. Yes, by reputation; not personally.
Mr. WADE. Then we ought to pay no at tention to it.
Mr. COWAN. I beg the honorable Senator's pardon. I would not diminish his stature an inch or half an inch, nor take a hair from his head; and he weighs 140 o if you please. Is that equality? The onorable Senfrom Massachusetts is largel learned; he has traversed the whole field. human learning; there is nothing, I think, that he does not know that is worth knowing and this is no empty compliment that I desire to pay him now and he is so much wiser than I am that at the last elections he divined exactly how they would result and I did not. [Laughter]. rode triumphantly upon the o: wave, and I was.?and came out with eyes and nose suffused and hardly able to gasp.
Mr. SUMNER. You ought to have followed my counsel.
Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senator specify some instance where an ordinance has not been required or has not been passed on a State being admitted?
Mr. GRIMES. I suspect that if the Senfrom Vermont had pursued his inquiries a little further and examined the legislative proceedings of the 1st General Assemblies of those States that were erected from Territo ries, he would have discovered that in every instance there was an ordinance passed affirming the act of Congress, ratifying and agreeing to the terms imposed upon them.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to ask my honorable friend how there could be any act of a State as a State until the State should have been admitted into the Union; and how, therefore, the action of the State afterward, after she had her place, or any failure to act if she failed to act, could affect the validity of the previous act of Congress?
Mr. GRIMES. As I am by birth a Yankee as well as the Senfrom Vermont, I will answer his question by asking him another. I will ask him how he expects to get this amendment which he proposes ratified and confirmed unless it is by an act of the 1st General assembly of the State of Nebraska, and without that what is the effect of it? I would ask the Senator further how is a man who may be aggrieved by the people of the State of Nebraska not adopting this provision and not. to it to seek his remedy? The Senator will answer me, “in the courts.” He told us so the other day. The case is then carried through various courts until it reaches your supreme judicial tribunal here. How that will decide nobody knows. I object to his proposition, because we have the power now to fix this question beyond cavil and doubt, and beyond any possibility of a supreme court or any tribunal deciding against us, and I want to have it thus fixed before it goes out of our hands. The Senator referred to the act admitting the State of Ohio. Just such a provision as that was incorporated in the act authorizing the admission of the State of Iowa into the Union. That State, which I have the honor in part to represent, was the 1st State created west of the Mississippi river and north of the Missouri compromise line, and Congress saw fit in its wisdom to declare that that same provision which had been contained in all the organic acts and all the legislation in regard to the Territories that now compose the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin should be extended to us, and when we came into the Union we passed a law ratifying and agreeing to the stipulations that were fixed in that act of Congress.
Mr. GRIMES. If we were to repeal the law, and any persons were aggrieved by that repeal, then they would be in exactly the position in which the colored people would be in Nebraska if the Senator's amendment should be adopted here. They would have to seek their remedy in the judicial tribunals; and how the judicial tribunals may settle the question he does not know and I do not know. But we do know that we have the power to settle it here our selves while the question is before us, by requiring the people of the Territory to agree to the provisions of the constitution striking out the word “white, ” But it is proposed that Suppose you should we shall refuse to settle it for ourselves and shall allow it to be sent before a tribunal in which I think that a great many of the people of this country at this moment have not an very great confidence as to the manner in which they will decide questions of this character.
Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I do not propose to argue this question over again, because it has been so thoroughly investigated and debated on both the bills for the admission of Nebraska and Colorado that it seems to me scarcely possible for anybody to say anything new on the subject. Indeed I have hardly heard a word in this debate which was not put forth on several other occasions. The Senate, by a very large majority, passed their judgment 2 or 3 times upon this and a kindred question; and I have not the vanity to believe that if I were to }. that deliberate judgment of the Senate I should have eloquence enough or influence enough to overturn and reverse it. I was therefore in hopes that when this bill again came up for the decision of the Senate this year, before identically the same members who passed upon it at a prior period, we should not have to waste so much time no, I will not say waste, but take so much time for its consideration. do we not go to work and Fo republican y But, sir, there were somethings said by the Senfrom Massachusetts to which I feel bound to reply in some measure, though not at length. called this a rebel State and a rebel constitution
Mr. CRESWELL. No, he read from a letter in which that statement was made.
Mr. WADE. Perhaps he read it from a letter. I heard those words and supposed they were his own, or if they were not his own that he adopted them by making use of them in the Senate.
Mr. SUMNER. Those words were in a letter from a citizen of Nebraska which I read, directed against the admission of the State at this moment.
Mr. WADE. I did not see the gentleman when he was making use of these observations, but I was very sure that I heard this language repeated once or twice, “the rebel constitution of Nebraska.”
Mr. SUMNER. I did not use that language in Wscl
Mr. WADE. I suppose not. I should think nobody here could use it, because this is one of the most republican and equitable constitutions that I ever read with the exception of this provision on the single question here in controversy. I am told and believe that it was copied almost literally from the constitution of Wisconsin. The draughtsman of it took that constitution, as I am informed, as the guide and copied its language and provisions into this, so that the 2 are almost identical. The Senator read, or said without reading, that this constitution was made by the enemies of the Government, by Copperheads, or something like that.
Mr. SUMNER. I read that from a letter; I made no such statement myself.
Mr. WADE. Then I want to contradict the impression sought to be made by the letter you read; and if you dissented from the sentiment of the letter you ought not to have read it; or if you did read it you should have told us that you utterly dissented from it. That course would have relieved me from the necessity of making any observations on it. The fact, as I am informed, and do not doubt, is that all the Republican members of the Legislature voted for this constitution unanimously, and only 5 of what are called the Copperhead party and all the rest of that party voted against it. That is the way this constitution comes here, by the will of our friends, those who act with us, those who are Republicans, those who fought with us during the war; and it was opposed by the Democrats who favored the cause of the enemy. Therefore it has a very good parentage; it comes from a very respectable source; or at all events we ought to consider it so, for it comes from the food. of gentlemen holding the same doctrines that we hold, endeavoring to establish the same principles that we under take to establish. But it was made at a time when this particular question had not been so much agitated as it has been now. Perhaps there was some little controversy on the subject when this constitution was adopted, but the attention of the Legislature does not seem to have been called to it particularly. They seem to have followed the usual form. Congress itself, in the enabling act, had not called any attention to it. That bill passed here, I believe, without the criticism of anybody, without the opposition of anybody so far as I can remember. All seemed to be agreed that these people might come into the Union upon the same terms that other States had formerly come in.
Mr. SUMNER. Will my friend allow me to remind him there that he is a little in error. There was this new condition inserted for the 1st time on this occasion, that their constitution should not be repugnant to the principles of the DeclarIndep. I voted for that myself.
Mr. WADE. Very well; I believe that it is not repugnant to the principles of the DeclarIndep as understood at all times since that instrument was made. The contem raneous construction of it, that which has been followed by courts and public inen and Legislatures in all the States, and by Congress, has been the construction which the makers of this constitution followed. If they erred, they erred in company with all the statesmen who had preceded them. It was never before supposed that a State was not republican because itexcluded certain classes from the right to vote.
Mr. SUMNER. My friend does not seem to be aware of the new words that were introduced in this enabling act; they were not words requiring a republican government, but requiring that the constitution should not be repugnant to the principles of the DeclarIndep. These words were introduced for the 1st time, as I understand, in the enabling act for Nebraska, and I think also for Colorado.
Mr. HOWE. Permit me to say to the senator that I did not admit that I was seeking for recnforcements of principles. I acknowledged that I was seeking for reenforcements of votes to enforce those principles; but I said that we had got votes enough now.
Mr. WADE. I think I did not misapprehend the gentleman. He did not want any new principle, but he wanted forces sufficient to carry our principles out against all opposition. So do I; but how he could come to the conclusion that we shall not want any reen forcements I am unable to say. When he have the vote to which he referred, had the SCOTUS made a decision which lets loose upon all the Union men of the South the bloodhounds of those rebellious, unrestricted States, and denies the right of the military power to protect them? Did he know then that 2 of the depts of this Government, or perhaps, more properly speaking, one of its depts and fo executive branch of the whole, had turned in with the adversary and were ready now to abet his cause? I tell you, sir, you want reenforcements, in prospect too, such as you ever did, to establish and carry out your principles.
Mr. HOWE. I beg leave to say that at the time I cast that vote in favor of the admission of Colorado the Supreme Court had not made any such decision as is referred to by the Senfrom Ohio. I beg leave to say further, however, that in spite of any decision that the Supreme Court has made, if bloodhounds have any of our friends by the throat in any of these lately rebellious communities, and stillrebellious communities, the fault is with the congress of the U.S., and not with the Supreme Court, because there are here in both these Houses duly accredited representatives of the loyal party of the nation, sufficient, in spite of the President and in spite of the supreme Court, to place over all our friends in every one of those communities a government springing from this authority, responsible to this authority and to this authority alone.
Mr. WADE. Very well, suppose that is so, there are enough in numbers; but yet you are in default. I want to reenforce you with some that will make no default; I want to bring you soldiers that will not shrink from any respon sibility; and such are knocking at your doors today. They are not the limping sort that will leave your friends in peril. If Congress is delinquent, it is because you have not these reen forcements that I want to bring here. If the Senfrom Wisconsin stood by his original reasoning and found Congress not sufficient in courage, innerve, in resolution to do that which they ought to do for the protection of their friends in the southern States, he ought to be as eager to reenforce them by proper soldiery, if I may so speak, as he was when he gave his former vote.
Mr. HOWE. If my friend will indulge me in one more word I shall be glad to say that when he was talking of reenforcements I supposed he was talking of the expediency of adding to our numbers more of the same kind.
Mr. HOWE. If he means to say that here is an opportunity to bring in some men of a better kind, that is a new proposition, and it is one that I have not yet considered fully, and I do not know exactly upon what evidence to determine that question if I am called upon to consider it.
Mr. HO WARD. I wish to say one word just at this point in the honorable Senator's argument. Twish to ask him whether he be. lieves it to be a constitutional principle that Congress may insert such an amendment as has been offered by the Senfrom Vermont, that is to say, a perpetual condition restraining the people of the State of Nebraska, after she has been admitted into the Union, from regulating the suffrage of her people? I admit that a condition precedent may be enacted, but not one which is to have an expostfacto operation.
Mr. WADE. That was my trouble before, Mr. President. I do not believe we can make or adopt any constitution for them which the people of Nebraska may not change if they call a convention and see fit to do it. I think, however, that the conditionmentioned in the amendment offered by the Senfrom Wer mont would be just as valid and irrevokable as any other part and parcel of that constitution; for if the suffrage had not been limited to white persons, does the Senator contend that the State, after you had admitted her, could not call a convention and restrict it to white persons or females, or anybody else? It is just as strong, as valid, and as certain as any other provision in the constitution in my judgment.
Mr. HOWARD. I infer from the honorable gentleman's remarks that he thinks this is not a perpetual condition, and that the people of the State, after they have become a State under their constitution may repeal it and set it aside. That is by no means the idea of the honorable Senfrom Vermont. He insists, as he expresses it in his amendment, that this restriction shall be perpetual and fundamental.
Mr. WADE. That language is well enough in an instrument of this kind, but I suppose, as a matter of fact, like any other provision in their constitution, which is not a matter of compact between the Government of the Uni.ted states and the State, they may call a convention and change it. They may change any clause of their constitution they please, provided they do not make it antirepublican, and this among the rest. While I contend that it is just as valid and as lasting and everlasting as any other provision of their constitution, still the whole of it is subject to modification and change like everything else, at the will of the majority of that people changing their constitution.
Mr. HOWARD.. If the gentleman will par. don me, let me call his attention to another clause in the amendment which he promises to vote for: And if any person or persons shall, contrary to this section, in any manner abridge or prevent the exercise of such right–
Mr. WADE. That is not in the amendment now, and is no part of it. It has been modified by leaving that out.
Mr. HOWARD. I was not aware of that. Then let me say another word. The Gentfrom Vermont treats this as a convention, as a compact between the people of the State of Nebraska and Congress, never to be repealed, altered, or.at all without the consent, of course, of both the parties to this fundamental compact. such was the explanation he gave other day, if I recollect aright
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senfrom Michigan does not state my position correctly by an means. I treated it as a law of the?. States which Congress passes under the constitution authorizing it to pass the law, and being thus passed, it is the paramount law of the land, above the constitution of Nebraska, or above any act which her people can affect or change. It may be also, in addition to that, in a certain, limited, and technical sense, in the nature of a compact, just as an ordinary charter of incorporation to a private corporation is, in a certain sense, a compact when they accept that charter and act upon it. But so far as any force or power that we have over it is concerned, I contend that we derive it from our constitutional power to pass the law, and it being a law, the constitution of Nebraska, the action of its people, has no effect upon it whatever. That, therefore, Mr. President, is the quality which, in my mind, gives it the superiority that I think it has over any other mode of treating this subject, because if you introduce it by compact into the constitution of Nebraska, then it becomes, so far as it is part of that constitution, merely the constitution of that people, and whenever you can get a majority of that people to alter that constitution, so far as it is their constitution it no longer exists; but I have yet to learn from the superior learning of my friendfrom Michigan that it is in the power of the people of any State to change an act of Congress passed as the law of the whole land under our supreme authority.
Mr. HOWARD. Suppose that, instead of this being a statute of the U.S. securing the right of suffrage to the colored population, it were a high congressional statute, emanating from the sovereign power of the U.S., declaring that in the State of Nebraska property, real and personal, should not descend to heirs at law at all, but that, on the death of the owner, following out the sugtion of Mr. Jefferson in his boyhood days, it should escheat to the State; would it be competent for the Legislature of the State to pass an act in the teeth of that congressional statute directing that the property should descend to the heirs at law'” And if it would be competent for them to do it, upon what ground can the Senfrom Vermont uphold the supremacy of this congressional statute of his in relation to the right of suffrage, because the political power of the State over both subjects is precisely the same the sovereign power of the State as a State?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will answer my friend. I say it would not be competent for the Legislature of Nebraska to interfere at all with that law; and the only reason why we do not insert such a principle into the act of admission is because it does not commend itself to our sense of fundamental justice and right. That is the reason. I admit that we have the perfect right to impress any condition that we please when we create a State, which is nothing but a political corporation. We can give it just such a life as we choose to give it. If it does not choose to live under that law, let it stay dead. If it does not choose to accept that life and act upon it, then it only acts upon it under the law of the life we have impressed upon it.
Mr. HOWARD. Then the argument leads directly to this conclusion, and it is irresistible and unavoidable, that in reference to the new States that are to come into this Union here after, Congress is clothed with omnipotent, des potic power over everything, no matter what it may be, which has heretofore been regarded as subject only to the power of a State. Sir, tell me not that this is not a despotic doctrine; tell me not that the new States of the far West will agree to it. Sir, I am astonished I say it, of course, with great respect to the Senfrom Vermont to hear a doctrine so tyrannical and despotic advocated upon the oor of the Senate.
Mr. HOWARD. Where do we get the power to leave it to them?
Mr. FESSENDEN. Was that at war with any express provision of their constitution?
Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir; it was not at war with any express provision of their constitution, except that general declaration (not an express provision) of the right of the people of the State to exercise complete political sovereignty over all the subjects within its territory. And I need not say to my honorable friendfrom Maine that the erection of a sovereignty and giving political power to the people of a certain district conclusively implies that all the political domain in that territory becomes the public domain of the new sovereignty, unless there be in the act creating it, or in the compact by which the act of union is formed, if it be one, some provision to the contrary, because the primafacie and fundamental principle of political communities is, that dominion over o public lands within the bor ders of that community resides in the sovereign power that controls it; and therefore it is that the very subject of the public lands is an instance and a case in point of the exercise of the highest possible power on the part of the Government of the U.S. in declarin that, notwithstanding this general principle of politics, the State of Michigan should exercise no such control. Her Senators came in; she has not exercised the control; and now, as the Senfrom Michigan would put it, suppose she should turn around and undertake to tax the lands of the U.S., to exercise disposal over them on the ground that upon the general principles of politics, being a sovereign and independent State and never having as sented to this condition imposed upon her by the Government of the U.S., her opower was complete; I do not think her Legislature or her people will do it; but if they should, they would discover I fancy, even as the Supreme Court is now constituted, that their road would be a short one to success in a matter of that kind.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Before the Senfrom Vermont takes his seat, there is one point to which I wish to call his attention. It is this: the Constitution of the U.S. as it is, and the Constitution as it is proposed to be, should the constitutional amendment be adopted by the States, expressly admits the right of the States under the Constitution to restrict the franchise. Youpremember the provision of the Constitution as it stands.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. And the provision of the constitutional amendment which is proposed to be adopted, and which several of the States have already ratified.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That latter provision is in these words: “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for the President and Vige POTUS, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being 21 years of age and citizens of the U.S., or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in.which the number of such malecitiztehnes sphraoll ear to the whole number of years of age malecitizens 21 in such State.” This constitutional amendment recognizes expressly the power of a State to restrict its suffrage and to deny it to a portion of its male citizens for various reasons. Now, the point to which I call the Senator's attention, and the I wish he would answer, is this: can congress by any law, or a State by the ratification of any law of Congress, in any way whatever affect or change that constitutional power which is here admitted to exist in the States? Would not a provision adopted by a State Legislature or the Congress of i. U.S., or both together, be absolutely void in view of this provision of the Constitution of the U.S.? Could they alter that? Could they limit the State so that it would not have this power which the Constitution gives? It seems to me it is impossible.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will answer that question by asking my friend one: whether he thinks that constitutional amendment has been legally adopted yet?
Mr. EDMUNDS. Then if it has not been adopted we will reserve the discussion of that question until it arises.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman does not answer the whole question. Under the Constitution as it is the right of each State to define the qualification of its voters is expressly recognized; and as I stated in the beginning, not only the Constitution as it is recognizes that right, but the Constitution as it is proposed to be in case the amendment shall be adopted. So I propose to cover both grounds, and it is equally strong whichever you take, the Constitution as it is or the Constitution as you propose to make it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I shall be glad to have my friendfrom Wisconsin point out to me that clause of the Constitution as it is, as he calls it, which declares that the people of a Territory who are about being erected into a State shall have the right, against the will of Congress, to prescribe any qualification whatever to any of its citizens.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is not the question I put at all about the people of a Territory.
Mr. EDMUNDS. No; it is a question I put.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The question I put is: whether the people of a State by any act which Congress or the Legislature of the State, or both of them together, can pass can be deprived of a right conferred by the Constitution of the U.S. Is not such a provision in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S.? The Constitution of the U.S. is the supreme law.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If my friendfrom Wisconsin got up for the purpose of asking me whether I think Congress can pass a law in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S., I shall be obliged to admit, without much reluctance, that I do not think they can.
Mr. EDMUNDS. No; it would not be a law, because it could not have the effect of a law. The question, then, is, not whether congress can pass a valid law in violation of the Constitution of the U.S., but, as my friend now puts it, whether in erecting the people of a Territory into that political corpo ration which we call a State we can provide by law that there shall be equality among men in that State. I undertake to declare, without the fear of successful contradiction, either here or in the Supreme Court, that there is no clause. in the present Constitution which prevents us from passing such a law. The present Constitution, it is true, declares that representation in the various States shall be based upon certain principles, which implies, inasmuch as it is based upon the principle of the qualified electors to the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures, that the people of those States may define what are the qualifications of the electors to the most numerous "branch of the Legislature; but it does not prove any inequality in the State if when we create a new one we require equality among its citizens any more than the same argument would apply on the subject of slavery which the present constitution, but for the late amendment, gave the States the right to dispose of. If we choose to erect a Territory into a State, it does not imply that we may not impress upon it, as a art of the fundamental charter under which it shall act, that equality among men in respect to servitude and in respect to the political right of voting should prevail. There is mothing in the Constitution which can be argued on that point.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understand the Senfrom Vermont to concede that under the Constitution as it is the States have a right to rescribe the qualifications of their electors. ow, the point is, can we, by an act of congress which shall be accepted and ratified by the Legislature of Nebraska, change that constitutional provision so that Nebraska cannot define the qualification of her electors when she becomes a State?
Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes; because she be comes a State of a particular character, a State to whom there never has been imparted the power to act in violation of the law of her existence which we give to her. That is the reason.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. My answer to the Senator would be this: Nebraska is a State under the Constitution or she is not. If she is a State under the Constitution, having the rights of a oto State which the Constitution gives, she must have the right to define the qualification of her electors after she is ol.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Constitution gives to a State which we create under an express to power of the Constitution just such rights as we choose to remit to her and no others. That or is the very point upon which we have been arguing; and therefore, when we create a State of this description, it is too late for her to say, to or for any advocate of hers to say, “although I have been born into life with this complexion to and this character as the method upon which wa. I must act, I will now go back to some other State and say that she has privileges which I T o have not.”
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will my friend allow me to say one word further?
Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly. to Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is this: I think he so falls into a fundamental error when he speaks or about Congress creating States at all. States grow; States are born; Congress does nothing Yut recognize their existence and admit them fo into the Union under the Constitution. Wer also mont did not grow out of an enabling act of Congress. She came here, growing out of a revolution against the States of NewYork and !: NewHampshire, and set up a government of a fo her own, which was recognized by the Congress fo of the U.S., and she was admitted. So or was Tennessee; so was Michigan; and so were many of the other States, not in virtue of enabling acts; they grew. It was the people to growing up into society that constituted the States, which were recognized, it is true, by: Congress, and admitted when Congress in their? good pleasure thought proper to recognize and: to admit them. I deny altogether that Congress to creates a State. It has not the power to create Stato. It has only the power to admit those o: communities which have grown into States or: the Territories of the Union into fellowship … under the Constitution, with the rights of other or States under the Constitution; but when ada mitted the Constitution is the supreme law which governs every State. Anything that Congress can enact or the Legislature of the State enact to the contrary is as nothing has no effect whatever; and when Nebraska comes in under the Constitution of the U.S., that cona stitution reads just the same in Nebraska that it reads in Vermont or in Virginia; and it says. to the Legislature of Nebraska and the people? of Nebraska that the State has the right to define the qualifications of its electors, and? no law of Congress can change it or interfere. with it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I am very much obliged to my friendfrom Wisconsin for having inter2 polated into the middle of my plain observa,tions a sufficient amount of of to give, them a color to the people. ow, I want to ask my friendfrom Wisconsin for a little more eloquence in which he shall tell me, supposing then his idea of a State is true, that we reject this bill altogether, is Nebraska a State still or a Territo.
Mr. Bottle. In a territorial condi 1 ort.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Then I take it there is no State of Nebraska now, as he admits. He admits that there will be no State of Nebraska until we pass this law. What then makes the State of Nebraska? What gives it its life? It must necessarily be, on his own premises, the law which sets it;up and it is a mere quibble and a play upon words which talks about adinitting a State as if it preexisted. It is the apeotraotifonadmission that creates the political cor which is a State. There is not anything about the idea of a State except that it is a mere political person created by certain rules for certain purposes. That is all there is of a State. It is not any myth, it is not any huge bugbear the o: Cannot understand, but it is simply and practically a business corpora. o i. ttion, endowed with the faculties which are given to it by the law that creates it. If it is the will of the people of Nebraska that creates it, then they may give it such an existence and such a law and such faculties as they please in spite of us. If it is our will that creates it and brings it into life, we may modify and limit the exercise of its will according to our notions of justice and propriety. Therefore, Mr. President, I have to say that the fundamental difference between the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin and the honorable Senfrom Michigan and the honorable Senfrom Iowa, who have addressed themselves to this amendment, and myself, is, that while they seem to suppose that the State is a State in spite of us, and that we merely make a bar gain and a treaty with her by which we come into an alliance, my own position is, and on my side the simple proposition is, that it is the law of Congress that creates the State.
Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I gave way for an explanation; but there has been a good deal of eloquence and a good deal of argument and a good deal of good law illustrated since I gave way. However, I had pretty much got through with what I had to say. All I.say was, that I am willing to take the bill as it originally stood without any amendment; but I was in hopes that these amendments would tend to harmonize and unite us all if they could be adopted, especially this one of the Senfrom Vermont, which I know met the approbation of many very good lawyers in the Senate who believed it could be done, and if it could be done properly it would perhaps reconcile all the difficulties that have been surrounding this matter. I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont, if it shall be adjudged to be constitutional and right, will be adopted andingrafted upon this bill; and if that will tend to unite us all, so much the better. If it should be rejected, then of course the bill will stand as when we voted for it before; and I presume the minds of the Senate are not changed upon that subject. I do not wish to say anything more about it, and am prepared to vote.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. SAULSBURY. When the Constitution of the U.S. was adopted were negroes allowed to vote in the State of Maryland?
Mr. SAULSBURY. When did they cease to be allowed that privilege?
Mr. SAULSBURY. Was the government of Maryland republican in form after that?
Mr. CRESWELL. It was so held. But if the gentleman had listened to my argument he would have heard that I contend that where slavery is recognized and protected by the constitution of the U.S and by the States, it is one thing to exclude slaves and chattels from all participation in the Government, but a very different thing, when slavery has been universally abolished, to disfranchise free men and citizens. That is my position. The law is changed, and events have remodeled the whole question.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Allow me to ask the honorable Senator another question. If the laws of Maryland now exclude the negro population from voting, does my honorable friend say that on that account the government of Maryland is not republican in form within the sense of the Constitution of the U.S., and therefore requires the interposition of congress to make it republican?
Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the reading of the pending amendment.
The Secretary read the amendment proposed by Mr. EDMUNDs.
Mr. JOHNSON. I suggest to the mover of the amendment that perhaps he had better make the exception narrower than it is by striking out the words “ or any other right, ” for if it passesin its present shape the Indians may have every right taken from them. The State is to be prohibited from interfering with the question of suffrage, or interfering with another right, except in the case of io. am sure the honorable member did not mean to place them under the absolute control of the State, so as to enable the State to do with them with reference to any rights which the Constitution secures, just what she thinks proper. After having made that suggestion I will proceed now very briefly to state why I am unable to vote for the amendment, if the Senate are desirous of taking the vote on the bill this evening. If it is the pleasure of the Senate that the debate should go over until tomor row, it would be equally agreeable to me, but I do not ask it on any account personal to myself. I do not therefore ask for an adjournment; but if any other Senator thinks, proper to move an adjournment I will yield the floor for that purpose.
Mr. CONNESS. I think it must appear clear to the Senator having this bill in charge that we cannot come to a vote today; and I move, therefore, that the Senate do adjourn. now.
Mr. WADE. But it seems to me we shall never get through unless we hold on. We have been now, f believe, 4 times endeavor ine reach a vote on this subject. he question being put on the motion to adjourn, a division was called for.
Mr. WADE. If the Senfrom California will withdraw the motion I will see if we cannot come to an agreement as to the time when we shall take the vote. It seems to me that unless we do that, there is no hope of ever reaching a conclusion.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that; and I suggest that we take the vote tomorrow at 4 o'clock. [“Agreed.”]
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion is that the Senate adjourn. It is not debatable.
Mr. CONNESS. I suppose I have a right to withdraw that motion.
Mr. CONNESS. f". to say to the Senfrom Ohio that this motion was a friendly motion to the measure he has in charge.
Mr. CONNESS. I withdraw the motion In O.W.
Mr. WADE. I am very anxious to have a time fixed, if it can be done by consent of the Senate, when at some hour tomorrow we may agree to take the vote.
Mr. JOHNSON. If the honorable member will propose 4 o'clock tomorrow I think it will be acceded to.
Mr. WADE. If it is understood that we are to take the vote tomorrow at 4 o'clock I shall not resist an adjournment.
Mr. SUMNElt. Say that debate shall close at 3 o'clock. Several SENATorts. 3 o'clock.
Mr. WADE. Is 3 o'clock satisfactory? [“Yes.”] Very well.
Mr. CONNESS. I renew the motion to adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, January 8, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. Dr. PAton, of NewHaven, Connecticut. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, was received, announcing that the POTUS, having returned to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill entitled “An act to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol, ” with his objections thereto, the Senate proceeded, in pursuance of the Constitution, to reconsider the same, and resolved that the said bill do pass, 2/3rds of the Senate agreeing to pass the Sain e. The message further announced that the senate had agreed to the amendment of the House to the JtResolution of the Senate No. 154, to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris exposition in April next. CORRECTION.
Mr. SHANKLIN. I rise to correct the Journal of yesterday. Upon the passage of the resolution offered by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AsHLEY] I am recorded as not having voted. I was in my seat, and voted in negative. the
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for the regular order. ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. NIBLACK. I, rise to a privileged question. Today is the anniversary of the battle of NewOrleans. The day has been usually observed as a holiday. Congress has always, I believe, observed it as such. I therefore move that the House adjourn.
Skip Skip The question was put, and the Chair decided that the noes had it. Mr. FINCK. I demand the yeas&nays. Upon the demand for the yeas&nays there were ayes 19, noes 90; not one 5th of a quorum. o: FINCK. I call for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. FINer and DEFREEs The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 22, noes 88. The SPEAKER. The Chair votes in the negative, so one 5th not having voted in the affirmative the yeas&nays are not ordered. [Laughter] ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER. The regular order having been insisted on, the House will resume the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, on which the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssox] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. KASSON. If there is no objection I will yield to the Gentfrom Maryland, [Mr. J. L. THoMAs] PATAPSCO RIVER, Mr. JLTHOMAS offered the following resolution; which, being a call for executive information, was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the SecyWar be and is hereby, requested to transin it to the House all information in the possession of the War Dept as to the cost of completing the ship channel of the Patapsco river near the harbor of particularly Baltimore city, and whether the proper estimates and surveys authorized and directed by an act of the last session of Congresshave been completed. LIGHTING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Mr. HUBBARD, of WestVirginia. I ask unanimous consent to offer a resolution for which I have the consent of the ComPubBldg and Grounds.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I called for the regular order of business supposing that it would be the call of the committees for reports. I hope the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] will move to postpone his JtResolution and allow the committees to be called in order that we may be able to get at the presidential veto.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will lay before the House the veto message without interrupt ine regular order.
Mr. HUBBARD, of WestVirginia, by unan imous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComPubBldg and Grounds be directed to inquire into the best and most economical mode of lighting the public buildings and grounds, and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise. PERSONAL Explaxation.
Mr. NEWELL. I desire to state that apprehending I should be absent yesterday t paired with my colleague. Rogers] on the vote on the resolution offered by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. As HLEY]
Mr. ROCERS. I should have voted in the negative of course. [Laughter]
Mr. KOONTZ. will state that I was detained from the House yesterday by sickness. if I had been present I should have voted for the resolution of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] in reference to the impeachment of the President. MASSACRE AT FORT PeiiL. Kearn EY.
Mr. RANDALL, of Kentucky, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComIndAffrs inquire into and report to the House the circumstances attending the reported massacre of 3 officers and 91 enlisted men at Fort Phil. Kear ney on the 20th of December last, and that they inquire and report whether in their opinion the continued commission of outrages by the Indians is in consequence of or has excuse or palliation in any mismanagement or improper conduct by Government officials or citizens; and that, they also inquire into the expediency of providing by law for an im: mediate or early transfer of the superintendency of our Indian affairs to the War Dept, ald report by bill or otherwise. PROTECTION OF SHIPPING interEST.S.
Mr. LYNCH, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Whereas the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the country, were during the war of the rebellion protected and stimulated improved, while our great commercial interests were nearly ruined 1867. o 341 for lack of that protection which the Government was unable to afford; and whereas the restoration of our commerceis of great national importance and essential to the maintenance of our position asa 1st class Pojwoeived Therefore That the ComWays&Means be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the expediency of allowing a drawback on all duties and toxes upon all articles used in the construction of stcarn and sailing vessels. root of crescENT city.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:. Resolved. That the ComCommerce be directed to inquire into the expediency of constructing a breakwater at the port of CrescentCity, California, and report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. BIDWELL. I have a memorial on this subject, and I move that it be referred to the ComCommerce. The motion was agreed to. ELECTION IN DISTCOL.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution: Whereas differences of opinion are manifested upon the subject of universal suffrage; and whereas it has been legalized only in the DistCol, and must be tested there if anywhere: Therefore, Resolved, That the ComDistCol be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for an immediate election of ail officers in said District.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I object. ENROLLED BILL AND RESOLUTION SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill,". that the committee had examined and found duly enrolled an act (S.No.459) suspending the payment of moneys from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or labor of colored volunteers or drafted men, and for other purposes; andJtResolution (S.R.No. 154) to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris Exposition in April next; when
The SPEAKer signed the same. JOHN B. COTHRAN.
Mr. STOKES. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill for the relief of John B. Cothran, for the purpose of putting it upon its passage.
Mr. RANDALL. I object. MURDER Of UNION SOLDIERs.
Mr. ARNELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved. That the committee appointed by House this to investigate into the facts and circumstances of the murder of Union soldiers in SCarolina, be instructed further to investigate into all the facts and circumstances connected with the murder of a I U.S., soldier named Crego, at Tennessee, Nashville, in Decemberlast; also to investigate into all the facts and circumstances connected with the murder of Frank Erickson, a Union soldier at tryillo, Tennessee, Som in December last, and to report to this House. WILLIAM M. EDI, IS AND BROTHER.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania, by unan imous consent, introduced a bill to authorize the SecyTreasury to examine and settle the claim of William M. Ellis & Brother: which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. JOHN B. COTHRAN.
Mr. STOKES. I ask that the bill for the relief of John B. Cothran, of Tennessee, to which objection was made by the Gentfrom, Pennsylvania, [Mr. ". be referred to the ComInvalidPens.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I have no objection to that. The bill was accordingly received, read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. suffIt AGE IN DistCol.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I must now insist upon the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER, The Constitution of the U.S. requires the Senate and HoRep to proceed at once to the reconsideration of a bill returned with the objections of the President thereto. The Chair asks leave to lay before the House a message from the Senate. No objection was made.
The Clerk read as follows: IN SENATE of THE U.S., January 7, 1867. The POTUS having returned to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill entitled “An act to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol, ” with his objections thereto, the Senate proceeded, in pursuance of the Constitution, to reconsider the same: and Resolved, That the said bill do pass, 2/3rds of the Senate agreeing to passthe same. Attest: J. W. FORNEY, SecySenate.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Upon that question I call for the previous question.
The SPEAKER. The Constitution requiring that upon the reconsideration of bills returned by the President with his objections thereto, the vote shall be taken by yeas&nays and entered upon the Journal, the Clerk will call the roll. The question was accordingly taken by yeas&nays; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 113, nays 38, not voting 4;1
The SPEAKER. On the question whether the House, on reconsideration, agrees to the passage of this law, the yeas are 113, the nays 38. It having been certified that the Senate, upon a reconsideration of the passage of this bill, agrees to its passage by a 2/3rd vote, and the HoRep, upon a similar reconsideration, having agreed to its pass age by a 2/3rd vote, I therefore, according to the Constitution of the U.S., do declare that, notwithstanding the objections of the POTUS, the act to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol has become a law. [Applause on the floor and in the galleries promptly checked by The SPEAKer]
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. FortNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed a JtResolution (S.R.No. 151) appropriating money to defray the expenses of the joint select comRetrenchment, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in order is the consideration of the JtResolution in relation to the abolition of slavery, pending at the adjournment of and upon which the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. NIBLACK. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment to make a suggestion?
Mr. KASSON. I think I probably know the motion the gentleman desires to make. if I am not mistaken the gentleman P. to move an adjournment in honor of the 8th of January. propose, by the passage of joint this resolution in the interests of the free citizens of the U.S., to celebrate the 8th of January better than it was celebrated originally at NewOrleans.
Mr. NIBLACK. the then proposes to memory hoofnor the colored people, and not the General Jackson.
Mr. SCHENCK. It will be in honor of the negroes who fought under him. MRS. M. B. HUMPHREY.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will my colleague [Mr. KAssoN] yield to me for a moment?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I submit the following resolution, and ask that it may be considered at the present time: Reso?red, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be directed to pay Mrs. M. B. Humphrey, widow of the late Hon. James Humphrey, the amount of increased compensation provided by law from the commencementof the present Congress to the date of the death of her husband.
Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman allow me to move an amendment to his resolution to insert a provision for paying to Hon. D. W. Gooch increased compensation from the time of his election to the date of his resignation?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. No, sir; I cannot yield for that purpose. I call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main 'question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was agreed to. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, the proposition now before the House is, in my judgment, 2nd in importance only to the amendment of the Constitution itself, which was adopted, prohibiting slavery in the U.S. I apprehend that few members of this House or of Congress, at the time of the passage of the amendment, supposed that in the very sentence abolishing slavery throughout the U.S. they had also made provision for its revival under another form and through the action of the courts of the country. The facts certified to us by the newspapers of the South, from week to week, show that the result of that action, as it is there construed, is to revive the institution of chattel slavery with all its odious characteristics; that free men, declared to be free by this clause of the Constitution, are put upon the auction block today and sold to the highest bidder into slavery. Wow, sir, I have felt the conviction which I have no doubt is shared by every loyal member of this House that this was not within the intention of that antislavery amendment of the Constitution, and that to tolerate it in this land of liberty is to tolerate a usurpation by inferior judicial tribunals directly in the face of the Constitution of the U.S. Sir, this clause, as we know, was drawn from the ordinance of 1787.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the Gentfrom Iowa yield to me for a question?
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to inquire of the gentleman, in the 1st place, whether this is intended as an additional amendment to the Constitution? I ask this question as prelim inary to another.
Mr. KASSON. The gentleman is well aware that it is not.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Then I wish to inquire of the gentleman whether in his judgment this Congress has the power to give construction to a constitutional amendment which shall be binding upon the States which have adopted that amendment?
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I must beg the gentleman's pardon if he has answered my question. It seems to me he has not answered it. The question I propounded is this: if we have adopted a constitutional provision which has also been adopted by the requisite number of States to put it in force as a part of the fundamental law, whether by the simple act of congress we can enlarge that provision or change it in any form so as to give an effect to it different from that which its language and spirit must bear?
Mr. KASSON. The question, as now presented, is modified in form from what it was before, as well as in substance, thus showing I have effectually answered the question as to our right to give effect to that clause of the amendment. And I now answer the 2nd form of the question. While I must confess, and, as I cheerfully do, admit that he cannot, by a construction we give to the Constitution, overrule the right of the sovereign judicial tribunal of the country to pass as it thinks right upon a constitutional clause, I do assert that Congress, as the power originally creating the clause, has the right to construe it, and that there is not a loyal tribunal in this country that will dare to treat with disrespect the construction given by this body to this clause of the Constitution, if you admit it to be doubtful in its construction. And I should have added this, sir, if the question had not been put, that it is the duty of this great branch of the government, which originates legislation, to affirm what they meant by that legislation whenever it shall be called into doubt by existing facts in the country. This construction will have, as I have shown by the terms of the amendment including the 2nd clause, the legal force necessary, and in addition to that I trust it will have a vast moral force throughout the U.S., particularly if the gentlemen on that side of the House will, at this late day and hour of repentance for their opposition to the original amendment, come in and affirm now, in harmony with the great sentiment not only of the U.S., but of the whole civilized world, that the construction of every doubtful law in this free country shall be in the interest of on and for the protection of rig‘ht.s. individual FINCK. I wish to inquire of my friendfrom Iowa whether he claims there is power in the legislative dept of this Government to declare the judgment and decree of a court to be void and to be set aside?
Mr. KASSON. If the decree be valid the action of this body cannot defeat it. We have the right to declare invalid what is so in itself; but the effect of this proposed action of congress, by virtue of the construction I have attempted to show we had the right to give, will be to declare the consequences of the other construction to be void and of no account in the execution of the law.
Mr. FINCK. It is proposed by this JtResolution to declare that all orders, judgments, or decrees authorizing or directing the sale or other disposition into servitude of any person within the said section of the U.S. otherwise than as above declared to be lawful, are and shall be taken and held to be in violation of the 13th constitutional amendment aforesaid, and therefore void. Now, I ask whether there is any precedent in the history of the legislation of this Congress to authorize by legislative enactment the setting aside of the judgments and decrees of a court, whether Federal or State? I ask whether the appropriate jurisdiction of this branch of Government is not to make laws and to allow the judiciary to determine what the law is 2
Mr. KASSON. I answer, Mr. Speaker, that from the beginning of this Government to this day, whenever a law which justified arrest and imprisonment of a citizen has been repealed and ceased to exist, the party imprisoned must be set free. I further say that by virtue of the legislation proposed, the effect will be that men who are in servitude under color of this false construction of the law will be inevitably entitled to their freedom.
Mr. FINCK. One more question. I ask my friend whether this question does not belong appropriately, legitimately, and constitutionally to the SCOTUS and not to Congress 2
Mr. KASSON. I am glad my friend has put that question for it presents an additional reason which I intended to present for the prompt action of Congress on the subject. There are questions now pending in inferior tribunals which are soon to be determined probably by the superior tribunals of some of the States of this Union, and by the supreme judicial tribunals of the U.S., on appeal from the decision of the lower tribunals in question. But before that is done it is the duty of congress to exhaust its power, whether originally to construe such amendment, or deliberately, under the 2nd clause, by actual legislation, to declare what shall be the law of the land. If we adopt this JtResolution, and it be comes law prior to the final decision of the question referred to, we vastly strengthen the grounds on which the U.S. judiciary can decide this to be the right construction, supported as it is by the construing and positive legislative power of the U.S. Why, sir, if this be not done, you not only fail to construe your own act and exhaust your power in the interest of the liberty of the citizen, but you leave the local laws which we believe to be in contravention of that clause of the Constitution in full force and effect over the State tribunals, while we ourselves are silent on the subject to the extent of our power of legislation. I wish to add, as I have already stated, that the final decision of this question rests in each case properly presented to it with the supreme judicial tribunal of the country.
Mr. FINCK. I wish to ask a further ques.tion; whether there is not a complete remedy for the cases to which the gentleman has referred in the courts, State and Federal complete redress for the grievances of which he complains?
Mr. KASSON. No, sir; I state emphatic ally, no, in point of fact. Why, sir, within sight of the eyes of the very Goddess of Liberty if they possessed the power of seeing that stands on the dome of this Capitol, we find these barbaric enormities transpiring, almost within the hearing of our own ears, in the State of Maryland.
Mr. FINCK. One more question. I ask the gentleman whether this very question of the true construction of the constitutional amendment is not now pending before the judicial tribunals arising out of a case in the State of Maryland?
Mr. KASSON. I understand it to be pending before inferior tribunals, and I understand they have a right to bring it to the highest Federal tribunal.
Mr. FINCK. Certainly, that is all I want.
Mr. KASSON. But prior to that being done, I insist on the argument I have offered, that in the interest of freedom this Congress should exhaust its power, alike of construction and of legislation, in aid of the determination of the rights of these citizens under the laws of the U.S. to personal freedom from any control except that of the law and its officers. I now ask the Clerk to read, in justification of the necessity for some legislation, an extract from a paper showing what has been done near us in the State of Maryland:
The Clerk read, as follows: NEGROESsoI, D AS A PUNISHMENTFORCRIME. PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will offer for sale at the courthouse door in the city of Annapolis, at cleven o'clock a.m. on Saturday, the 22d of december, a negro man named John Johnson, aged about 40 years. The said negro was convicted at the October term, 1866, of the circuit court of Anne Arundel county, of larceny, and sentenced to WILLIAM BRYAN. besold. Sheriff. BALTIMoRE, December24. 4 negroes convicted of larceny, and ordered to besold by Judge Magruder at Annapolis, were sold on Saturday last.
Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question?.
Mr. THAYER. I wish to inquire whether he intends to give an opportunity for amendment of this resolution.
Mr. KASSON. I have modified it in the last clause, and I will ask the Clerk to read it a modified bore the gentleman offers his amendment.' '
Mr. THAYER. I understand the gentleman intends to afford an opportunity to propose amendments.
Mr. KASSON. I prefer 1st to hear them lest they may defeat the object of the JtResolution. I ask the Clerk to read my mod ification.
The Clerk read as follows: Strike out of the last part of the proposed JtResolution the following: And that all orders, figments or decrees authorizing or directing the sale or other disposition into servitude of any person within the jurisdiction of the U.S. otherwise than as above declared to be lawful, are and shall be taken and held to be in violation of the 13th constitutional amendment aforesaid, and therefore void; and insert in thereof the following: lieu And that all orders, judgments, or decrees authorizing or directing any disposition, into involuntary servitude of any person within the jurisdiction of the U.S. otherwise than as above declared to be lawful, or authorizing or directing the sale of any person in any casewhatever into slavery or involuntary servitude, are and shall be taken and held to be in violation of the 13th, amendment to the Constitution aforesaid, and void.
Mr. KASSON. The point to which I wish to call attention in the proposed amendment is this, that it proclaims distinctly, while it was left slightly in doubt in the former draft before the country, that no such thing as selling a man into slavery can possibly exist in the present condition of the Constitution and laws of the country; that there must be a direct condemnation into that condition under the control of the officers of the law, like the sentence of a man to hard labor in the State prison in the regular and ordinary course of law, and that is the only kind of involuntary servitude known to the Constitution and the law. I will now yield to allow the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYERJ to have his amendment read.
The Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: That any person or persons who shall hereafter sell, or offer for sale, or attempt to sell any person or persons whomsoever within the limits of the U.S., or who shall make or issue any order for such sale, or who shall in anywise participate in such sale or attempted sale, shall be held to be guilty of felony, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a period of time not exceeding ten years, or fined in a sum not exceeding $10.000, or both, in the discretion of the court by which such offender shall be tricd.
Mr. THAYER. I desire, with the permission of the gentleman, at some time when convenient to himself, to say a very few words in support of my amendment.
Mr. KASSON. I will say that if that were added as an additional section to the bill and the title were altered so as to conform to Iit, should have no objection to that legislation to enforce what I have declared to be the present state of the law. I want this construction as a matter of justice to the Congress of the U.S and the people who adopted the constitutional amendment, to show that they never intended chattel slavery to be reestablished under any circumstances; and I have no objection to taking the amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania as a 2nd section to enforce the construction which I insist on.
Mr. THAYER. If the gentleman will allow me a single moment I will say that I think the construction sufficiently appears from his preamble. I do not like, I must confess, the idea of ltaows being passed purporting upon their face construe the Constitution. But I assume and I presume no man doubts that the true interpretation of the constitutional amendment is exactly that which is proposed by the Gentfrom Iowa. I propose to assume that it is a gross violation of the Constitution of the U.S and of the liberties of the citizen of the U.S. to attempt to sell a man at public auction, either in fee simple or for a term of years. I propose to assume this and to enact a law which shall punish any violation of that constitutional provision.
Mr. ROSS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. ROSS. I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he is aware that there are some 3,000 Indians held in slavery at this time in the Territories of NewMexico and Colorado 2
Mr. KASSON. I understand they are held in what they call peonage, which is very like slavery, and this side of the House, within a few days past, has taken action with a view to remedy that evil.
Mr. KASSON. And I have no doubt my excellent friendfrom Illinois [Mr. Ross] will have his name recorded against any action which will tend to abolish that system. [Laughter]
Mr. ROSS. Is the gentleman aware that Government officers are owning and buying and selling these Indians in slavery in Mexico and Colorado'
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining?
Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, the proposition which is embraced in the pending measure I am ready is, in my judgment, peremptorily demanded by the present circumstances of the country. It was to be apprehended, sir, I suppose, that an institution so deeply rooted as was the institution of slavery, which was for so many years apparently so invulnerable, and which, o. it has received at the hands of the people of the U.S. its mortal wound, yet continues even amid the throes of its last agony to assert something of its former malignant power; I say it was to be apprehended that such an institution would even yet make some feeble struggles for vitality, in opposition to the great decision of the people against its future existence. We were prepared for it; and the occasion which calls for and demands the instant passage of the proposed law is one which we might naturally have anticipated. Sir, we have been told by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. FINck] that legal proceedings have been instituted against the judge in Maryland who had the audacity, in the face of the constitutional amendment and in the face of the civil rights law, to offer for sale 4 human beings, citizens of the U.S and protected by its laws. But, sir, does not the gentleman know that in the Senate of the State of Maryland a bill has already been introduced to indemnify that judge against the consequences of his conduct, and to save him harmless from the outrage which he has attempted to inflict under color of State law.
Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman will allow me to inquire whether he does not also know the fact that a bill has been introduced in the Maryland Senate for the purpose of repealing those provisions of the legislation of that State which now authorize penal slavery.
Mr. THAYER. I will say, in reply to my honorable friend, that, however that matter may be, I have been credibly informed that the statement I have made is the fact, and that the Legislature of Maryland in all probability is about to attempt, so far as it has the power so to do, to indemnify this cruel and insubordinate judge for his outrages against American citizenship.
Mr. FINCK. I wish to inquire of my friendfrom Pennsylvania, as a lawyer, whether that bill, if passed, would in any manner affect the legal right which the men sold would have to appeal to the courts.
Mr. THAYER. I will answer my friend. I ilo not know what the details of that bill may be; I have never seen it; but the information which I have received, that such a bill has been introduced into the Maryland Senate, is of a reliable character.
Mr. KASSON. I wish to suggest to my friendfrom Pennsylvania, that perhaps his proposition covers all the points I desire, with one exception. It does not touch the case of those who are now held in bondage. I propose to modify it by inserting these words: “or who shall hereafter hold in servitude any person so sold.”.
The SPEAKER. Does the Gentfrom Iowa accept the amendment, as modified, for his own resolution?
Mr. KossoN. "I do not understand in what year the action to which the gentleman refers was taken.
Mr. KASSON, Prior to the adoption of the constitutional amendment?
Mr. KASSON. I wish to state that my objection is not to what was done before, but that judges are adhering so closely to the old ideas, notwithstanding the amendment.
Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman will pardon me for telling him iI think he has hardly followed me in my remarks, or has misapprehended their scope. The law to.he refers was not originally passed and is not now adhered to in any such spirit as is supposed by the gentleman.
Mr. KASSON. Will my friend state whether or not these condemnations have not occurred under that law?
Mr. THAYER. I wish to know whether the gentleman is in favor of or opposed to the humane practice which he has referred t;o whether he is in favor of that system of law which requires humane people to buy their friends, or whether he is opposed to it.
Mr. PHELPS. I will answer the gentleman. If he had done me the honor to attend to the remarks I have been making it would not have been necessary for him to ' that i.tory. I have already said I am unequivocally opposed to the system of penal servitude, as to other forms of human slavery, and if the occasion offered would, without a moment's hesitation, sanction any appropriate measure for its removal.
Mr. THAYER. I wish to say that my reason for asking the gentleman the question was because I understood him to eulogize the system, while in a few moments afterward he pronounced himself unconditionally opposed to it.
Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman misunderstood me entirely. if I had been the judge of the court I should have refused to accede to the request of the prisoners' counsel, and in stead of ordering them into the custody of their friends for a limited period, under the nominal title of slaves, to range at liberty and commit other crimes, I would have consigned these negroes I beg the gentleman's pardon; I do not know if it is in order now to call such persons negroes I would have consigned these colored convicts to the penitentiary for such term of imprisonment at hard labor, within the limits prescribed by law, as their offenses deserved. But I can at the same time make allowance for the judge who presided, when appeals of the kind I have referred to, founded on motives of humanity, were made to him, for giving that construction to the law if his judgment approved it. I have said all I desire to say upon this question.
Mr. KASSON. I will yield for a moment to my colleague, [Mr. GRINNELL, I who desires to ask the Gentfrom Maryland a question.
Mr. GRINNELL. I understood the Gentfrom Maryland to eulogize the spirit and temper of the Maryland judiciary. I wish to inquire whether the statement is true, made by Judge Bond, that 12 churches and school houses belonging to the colored people were burnt in that vicinity during a recent period?
Mr. PHELPS. We have had in our State unfortunately, as in every other State of the Union, cases of arson. There are vicious, tur bulent, and lawless men in the State of Maryland as well as in every other State. I do not claim that all the people, I represent are without exception, either cherubim or scraphim or angels or the descendants of angels. I have heard that there have been such outrages as the gentleman has referred to. It was to be expected in the abrupt transition from a state of slavery to one of freedom that individual cases of aggression should occasionally occur on the part of thoughtless or reckless men.
Mr. GRINNELL. I would ask the gentleman whether any attempt has been made, to his knowledge, to arrest and punish those who committed these outrages? The assertion is made by the friends of the colored race in Maryland that there has been no attempt at a conviction of those who have driven these people from the temples of God and burnt their school houses and churches. I state that against the spirit which he commends in Maryland and which I proclaim barbarism, and therefore I thank my colleague for the introduction of this resolution and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER) for his amendment, which would punish by fine and imprisonment these outrages of the law.
Mr. KASSON. I was about to say, in response to the Gentfrom Maryland, [Mr. PHELPs, that if all his people are not cherubim and seraphim there ought to be a sufficient approximation to that condition even if only 2 or 3 can be gathered together there should be enough of the spirit of liberty and regard for individual rights among his to condemn these outrages as against umanity and civilization. The di is that no action of that community condemns them. This occasions the necessity for the Congress of the U.S. not only to condemn them but to legislate for their punishment. But for that no man more cheerfully than myself would leave the entire legislation to the people of the State, the majority of whom ought to have some regard for human rights.
Mr. PHELPS. I do not wish to intrude on the time or attention of the House, but I would simply say that there is no State within the limits of this Union the people of which exercise toward the unfortunate race to which the gentleman refers a kinder or more liberal and humane spirit than the State of Maryland. I venture to say for the district which I represent, comprehending the larger portion of the city of Baltimore, and for the whole city, that there has been at all times, and is now, as liberal, just, and friendly a spirit exhibited toward this colored race, and that the relations between that race and the white race have been as satisfactory and creditable to both as in any other city in this great country. And I will tell the gentleman further, in reply.to the charges of arson in remote and thinly settled portions of the State, that in the great city of NewYork, in one, two, and 3 days’ of riot, at the very height and crisis of the war, when men were needed to suppress the rebellion and when the people of that city were called upon to furnish them, more colored men, women, and children were assaulted, outraged, and massacred, and more of their houses burned and sacked in that short period of time than have been done in the whole State of Maryland during the whole period since the War.
Mr. KASSON. But in the city of NewYork, if I remember rightly, the ringleaders of the riot were arrested, true bills were found against them, and they were tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the penitentiary of the State within 30 days from the commission of the offense. Can the gentleman point me to such action in the State of Maryland?
Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir; many of such offenders there have been similarly punished.
Mr. KASSON. And has the " destroyed been paid for, as in NewYork? That is the distinction between a community organ ically opposed to such outrages and the community that tolerates them. Mr. Speaker, I desire to obtain the action of this House upon this bill this morning. I think the measure has been sufficiently explained to meet the sentiments of the entire House, if their sentiments are in favor of the honest construction of the antislavery amendment to the constitution. There is but one man that I know of in the U.S. today who has dared to propose a restoration of slavery, and he, I apprehend, must be some lunatic, found in the district of my friendfrom the Chicago district of Illinois, [Mr. WENTwo RTH,) who has sent a memorial for that purpose to the Congress of the U.S. Now, sir, I wish by the passage of this resolution, so far as it may, to put the question completely at rest in relation to the proper construction of this amendment to the Constitution. Before I call the previous question, I ask unanimous consent to change the enacting clause from “Be it resolved, ” &c., to “Be it enacted, ” &c.; and to change the title so that it will read, “A bill to enforce the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. ” No objection was made.
Mr. KASSON. I now call the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nd ed, and the main question was ordered. The bill 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 bill. Mr. KASSON. I call the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Messrs. KAssoN, SHANKLIN, NIBLAck, and TRIMBLE called for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was then taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeas 121, nays 25, not voting, 45; So the bill was passed.Mr. KASSQN mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. BURNING OF THE NEW IRONSIDES.
Mr. BRANDEGEE. I rise to what I suppose to be a privileged question. Prior to the late recess of Congress the ComNavAffrs, of which I am a member, was charged by the House with the duty of investigating the facts connected with the destruction by fire of the U.S. steamer NewIronsides in the Delaware river. It is necessary for a proper and thorough investigation of those facts that the committee should go to Philadelphia and be absent for a few days. I therefore ask the leave of this House for the members of the ComNavAffrs to be absent, say from Thursday norning until the beginning of next week.
Mr. of Illinois. I wish to ask if it is desired that the whole of the committee shall go.
Mr. BoogFE. That is to be optional with the members of the committee. There being no objection, leave was accordingly granted. PURCHIASES BY Ofri)NANCE OFFICE.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in o comwith the acts of April 21, 1808, and arch 3, 1809, a statement of the purchases made by the Ordnance office during the year ending December 31, 1866; which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed. QUARTERMGEN’s contRACTs.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in compliance with the acts of April 21, 1808, and July 17, 1862, the contracts made by the QuarterMGen from July 1, 1866, to December 31, 1864; which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed. PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN NewYork City.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyInterior and Acting PostMGenl, transmitting the report of the commission appointed under a resolution of Congress, approved May 16, 1866, to inquire concerning a suitable site for buildings for courts and postoffice in NewYork city; which was referred to the comPostOffice, and ordered to be pr inted. ROCK AND H, LINE IS RIVERS.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication of the SecyWar, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of Jan uary 3, 1867, the report of the chief of engi neers on the subject of the surveys of the Rock and Illinois rivers; which was, on motion of Mr. WENTwo RTH, referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE WEST.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, transmit ting a preliminary report by Mr. J. Ross Browne upon the mineral resources of the States and erritories west of the Rocky mountains; which was referred to the ComMining, and ordered to be printed. PRINTING REVENUE DOCUMENTS.
Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio, reported from the ComPrintg the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Prsolred, That there be printed for the use of the House 20,000 copies of the report of the special comrRev, and 10,000 copies of the form of bill accompanying the same; and for the use of the Treasury Dept coonpeies 1,000 copies of the report, and 500 of the form of bill. BREAKWATER AT CRESCENT CITY, CALIFortNIA.
Mr. BIDWELL, I desire, by unanimous consent, to move the printing of the memorial presented this morning relative to a break water at the port of Crescent City, California.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object. I see no necessity for printing things of this Sort.
Mr. BIDWELL. There is great necessity for it. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I call for the reg. ular order of business.
The SPEAKER. The 1stbusiness in order is the consideration of House bill No. 543, to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights, on which the Gentfrom . [Mr. BINGHAM] is entitled to the floor. The pending question is on the motion to refer the bill and amendments to the JtComReconstruction.
Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to my friendfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRoom ALL. J
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. MAYNARD. I will detain the gentleman but a moment. I wish to make a suggestion at this point to see how he will meet it. As I understand his remarks, he estimates that of the southern people, supposed to be 8 millions in all, the loyal portion numbers about 5 millions and the disloyal about 3 millions. He proposes to put governmental control into the hands of the whole of them, supposing that the loyal 5 millions will more than counterbalance the disloyal 3 millions. This undoubtedly would be the fact if the loyal and disloyal were distributed in the same proportion throughout the entire South. The suggestion to which I wish to call the at tention of the gentleman is, that the 2 classes of population are not distributed everywhere in the same proportion; that in some localities the loyal sentiment is largely predominant, while in many other localities the rebel spirit has the decided preponderance. To leave the loyal men, white and black, in any community subject to the domination of the rebel element would place them in an attitude which the gentleman can well understand from the part which he took in an investigation in my own State. Take, for example, my own State, some portions of which are very largely loyal, while in others the predominant temper, is of that malignantly disloyal type of which the gentleman himself saw the evidences. I would ask him how he would meet that state of things, if he proposes to place the government in the hands of the whole population, without discrimination as to loyalty or disloyalty?
Mr. BROOMALL. I see the difficulty presented by the Gentfrom Tennessee, and I can only say in answer to him that the bill to some extent provides against it by disfranchis:ing a portion, probably too small a portion, of the rebel element; certainly the most malignant portion. If the gentleman will propose such an alteration as will remedy the difficulty, he will have my assistance.
Mr. MAYNARD. I will call the gentleman's attention to a principle we enunciated in this ". this morning in the District suffrage ill, for that bill is based on the principle of loyal suffrage, irrespective of race or color.
Mr. BROOMALL. If the loyal men of the South ask the disfranchisement of every rebel, they have the right to require it at our hands, and I for one will grant it to them as far as my vote goes. No loyal man, of any race or color, should be subjected to the rule of the disloyal without his consent. A thorough remedy for the evil in all localities by general law is probably impracticable at the present time. If there is any significance in the late verdict of the people the tribunal of final resort upon all political questions itis, that the civil authorities shall not surrender to the rebels all that was gained by arms at so much cost of blood and treasure, and upon so many battle fields; that our Government dare not, in the face of the nations of the world, desert its allies in the South, of whatever caste or lineage, nor make peace with the enemy, except o terms satisfactory to them; and finally, that treason is odious, and though it may be pardoned by a faithless Executive, it is still treason, and as such shall never he allowed to disgrace any official position, State or national; and the moan w:ho undertakes to stay execution of the upon this verdict had better ask the history of his country in mercy to omit his name from its pages.
Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the House will not take out of my time what has been consumed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will understand that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania was ready to proceed while the Gentfrom Ohio was not, and that the latter will be entitled to the floor for one hour on next Tues day, to which time the subject has been post poned. MRS. SALLIE GRIDEr.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I ask unan imous consent to introduce the following resolution: he Rreebsyo, lved. That the Sergeant at Arms be, and is Henry Gdriirdeecrt, eddetcoeapsaeydM, rs. Sallie Grider, widow of late a member of this House, HtheenraymGourindtoor, facsoammpeenmsabteioronfutnhpisaiHdoaunsde dautethteo tsiamide of his death, on the 7th of September, 1866.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I suggest to the gentleman to amend the resolution by making it include the extra compensation, so as to save all further question.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I accept that modification. The resolution, as modified, was adopted. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. BOUTWELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill concerning judicial proceed.ings; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. ASSAY OFFICE IN StLouis.
Mr. HOGAN, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to establish an office in the cit of StLouis for the assay of gold and sif. ver; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. INCREASED PAY OF CLERKS.
Mr. GARFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that House JtResolution No. 224, relating to the increased pay of clerks, may now be taken up and put on its passage. It is the special order, and will take but a few moments.
Mr. GARFIELD. I move to postpone all previous orders.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and thereupon E. ten minutes to 4 o'clock p. m.) the house adjourned. I move
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. WEDNESDAY, January 9, 1867. Prayer by Rev. WILLIAM PAToN, D.D., NewHaven Connecticut. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That order will be entered if there be no objection.
Mr. GRIMES. Does not the motion to print necessarily go to the ComPrintg?
The PRESIDENT protempore. It does unless by unanimous consent that rule be disensed with..Iinsist on the rule.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The petition will be roof". o&mo on Claims, and the motion to print to the ComPrintg. Reports FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. WADE, from the ComDistCol, to whom was referred the bill (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, reported it with amendments.
Mr. LANE, from the ComPensions, to whom was referred the memorial of William Blake, a soldier in the war of 1812, praying to . be allowed back pension from the of his discharge from the service, reported adversely thereon. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Henry M. Buell, o: to be allowed a land warrant for 160 acres of land for services rendered to the Government during the late rebellion, reported adversely thereon. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.465) for the relief of Mary Stanley, reported adversely thereon. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 206) in relation to the pensions of widows of revolutionary soldiers, reported it without amendment.
Mr. MORRILL, from the ComDistCol, to whom was referred a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to continue, alter, and amend the charter of the city of Washington, ” approved May 17, 1848, reported it with an amendment. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (S.No.15) to repeal certain laws and ordinances in the DistCol, and for other purposes, reported adversely thereon. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (S.No.372) supplemental to an act relating to the admission of patients to the Hospital for the Insane in the DistCol, approved January 28, 1864, reported adversely thereon, the subject having been already acted on by the Senate in a bifi from the HoRep, and moved the indefinite postponement of the bill; which was agreed to. WIDOWS OF TENNESSEE SOLDIERS.
Mr. LANE. I am directed by the ComPensions, to whom were referred the bill (S.No.454) for the relief of the widow of Jacob Harmon, the bill (S.No.455) for the relief of the widow of Henry Fry, and the bill (S.No.476) for the relief of William A. Hin shaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased, to report them back without amendment, and to ask that they may now be put on their passage. These are bills that will excite no debate and no opposition. They have been examined by the committee, and the facts are sufficiently clear and are known to a Senator on this floor. There being no objection, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.454) for the relief of the widow of Jacob Harmon. It directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Mrs. Jacob Harmon, of Greene county, Tennessee, on the pension roll at the rate of 8 dollars per month, to commenee on the 15th of December, 1861, and to continue during her widowhood.
Mr. LANE. These 3 bills all depend upon the same statement of facts, and I will state in a few words what they all are. In 1861 these 3 soldiers of East Tennessee were mustered into service. They were ordered by their commanding officer to burn a bridge. They were captured, after having burned the bridge, and hung up without trial and mur dered in the streets of Knoxville and Green ville. We propose now to put their widows on the pension roll by special act, simply because their muster in and all the papers were destroyed when their commanding officer was captured. That is the whole case. he bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.455) for the relief of the widow of Henry Fry. It proposes to authorize the SecyInterior to place the name of Mrs. Henry Fry, of Greene county, Tennessee, on the pension roll, at the rate of 8 dollars per month, to commence on the 27th of December, 1891, and to continue during her widowhood. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.476) for the relief of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased. The bill authorizes the SecyInterior to place the names of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, of Greene county, Tennessee, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased, on the pension roll at the rate of 8 dollars per month, to commence on the 27th of December, 1861.
Mr. LANE. I move to amend that bill so as to provide that this pension shall continue until the children arrive at the age of 16. The general law provides for it, but I think it is better, perhaps, in a special law like this to insert it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. No objection being iod, the bill will be so amended, by adding “this pension to continue until they severally attain the age of 16 years.” 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. Prension AGENTS.
Mr. CRAGIN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 69, which was under consideration during the morning hour yesterday. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the amendment of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions, the pending question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Howe to the 1st amendment reported by the ComJudiciary to the House amendment, by striking out the word “October” and inserting “July.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. In the imression of the Chair, the Senfrom Indiana is entitled to the floor on this bill, his remarks having been cut short on the expiration of the morning hour yesterday.
Mr. HOWE. I beg leave to say, for the satisfaction of my friendfrom Indiana that the object is rather to save friends appointed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. To save them l I am not able to see exactly how this proposition will save anybody. I understand the amendment to be to strike out October and insert July of 1865 to go back a few months; in other words, to legislate all agents out of office who were appointed between July and October. That is his proposition. I think, sir, that we ought just to say in general terms that agents to be appointed hereafter shall be confirmed by the Senate treat these officers just as congress has always been in the habit of treating the public officers, and not descend to the business of legislating one set of men out of office to put another set of men in.
Mr. LANE. In reference to the number of agencies in particular States, I will say that as the bill was reported by myself at the last session from the ComPensions, and as it passed the Senate, there was no limit as to the number. I thought at that time it was improper to limit the number, although the SecyInterior thought 3 agencies quite enough for anyone State; but the limitation as to the number of agents to be appointed in a State has been put on in the HoRep. If the matter were left to myself, I would prefer no limitation as to the number, but to leave it to the discretion of the President to appoint one wherever he supposed it might be necessary. I do know that in my State 4 agencies would be much more convenient to the people than 3, the number contemplated by this bill. The increased expense would be something, to be sure, because, in addition to the commissions which pension agents are allowed, there must be added the expense of office rent and clerk hire; that would be the only additional expense for an additional agent. I should have preferred no limitation as to number, but the limitation was put on in the HoRep.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. In relation to the amend.ment, I regret that my colleague has thought proper to introduce it, or at all events to give the reason for the amendment which he has just avowed. There are but 2 pension agents, I believe, in Wisconsin; one is colonel Reynolds, located at Madison, and the other is Colonel Fitch, at Milwaukee. Why there should be a disposition to make an amendment that might affect one and not affect the other I certainly am at a loss to know. I do not see the reason why one should be stricken at and the other not. Both were appointed by Mr. Harlan, the late SecyInterior, I believe.
Mr. HOWE. I have only to say that the amendment I have moved does not strike anybody in Wisconsin. It is a saving measure, not a destroying measure; it saves all alike.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understood my colleague to state that it was to save a pension agent to save his being sent into the Senate for confirmation. That is the only saving there is about it.. I do not know why one should be saved and the other not. The question being taken on Mr. Howe's amendment to the amendment of the commit.tee, there were 14 ayes, and 7 noes; no quo rum voting.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to hear a statement of what the amendment is. I do not know what it is.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The division discloses the fact that no quorum is present; business cannot proceed until it is ascertained that there is a quorum.
Mr. CONNESS. Let us have the yeas&nays. Yi. LANE. I move a call of the Senate.
Mr. ANTHONY. I think there is a quo rum present if Senators will vote. The yeas&nays having been called, were ordered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have a statement of what the question is. I do not understand it, and that was the reason I did not vote. I did not know what the question before the Senate was. The proposed amendment was read.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The ComJudiciary reported for the month of October.. 6Mtyr f.ivFeESSENDEN. 1800 and or 1866?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not understand the reason of my colleague's amendment. He says he proposes to go back to July for the purpose of saving somebody. I only referred to my own State; I know there are but 2 agents there, both colonels who served in the Army; both appointed under
Mr. Harlan when SecyInterior. I do not know any reason for applying this law to one and not to the other. one must come in and be confirmed by the Senate, I think it fair that the other should also. I have no particular feeling about the question; but it seems to me that if one pension agent is to be confirmed by the Senate all ought to be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FESSENDEN, (when his name was called.) I wish to state, if I may be allowed to do so, that I desire to fix a later day; but the call began so quick that it was impossible for me to make a suggestion to my friendfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. Howe] The call of the roll having been concluded, the result was an nounced yeas 16, nays 17; 19. So the amendment of Mr. Howe was rejected.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until tomorrow. I wish to look at it. I do not know that I have any objection to it; but I should like time to look at it further. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER. With the consent of the Senate, I send to the Chair an amendment to that bill, which I should like to have printed, so that it may be before us tomorrow. The proposed amendment was received informally and ordered to be printed. ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour has not fully expired, but as no motion is made, the Chair will call up the unfinished business of yesterday, which is the bill (S.No.456) for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union, the question pending being on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Vermont [Mr..] to the amendment offered by the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. BRowN] Upon this question the Senfrom Maryland [. Johnson] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will not say that we could make such a provision as that, because the Constitution of if: U.S. expressly declares that no State without her consent shall be deprived of her equal representation in the Senate., That is a subject, therefore, in respect to which we are bound by the Constitution. It does not say when it gives that equality that we may not declare fo there shall be no slavery in the new State, and that we may not declare that there shall be equal suffrage in the State.
Mr. JOHNSON. That, if my friend will pardon me for saying it, is altogether an unsat isfactory answer.
Mr. JOHNSON. I mean unsatisfactory logically, not to me individually. It is nothing to me more than it is to the honorable member. if I am right in saying that there is nothing in the Constitution of the U.S. which interferes with the power of the State to regulate its suffrage, iS if I am right in saying that the reserved clause to be found in the amendment places the States over that subject in the condition in which they were before the constitution was adopted, then it follows that they have precisely the same right over the question of suffrage that they have over the question as to their right to be represented in the Senate by 2 Senators. But the Senator says that he would not for a moment contend that a State could be deprived of her right to be represented upon this floor by 2 Senators, because the Constitution provides against that by saying that such a power shall not be exerted o the consent of the State. What has been his argument; what has been the argument before in support of the proposition which is now before us? That the State, if she comes in after we have adopted his amendment, is considered as assenting. If she can consent to divest herself of every other right which she possesses under the Constitution except the right to be represented by 2 Sen: ators, why cannot she assent to divest herself of that right?
Mr. EDMUNDS. If the Senator will allow me, the reason is this: my proposition was, not that the State, as a State, after being created, assents to these fundamental conditions which we impose, but that the people, who ask us to give them this charter of liberty to work upon in the very act of adopting that charter an proceeding to work upon it, assent to the foundations which we have laid down. But the idea of my friendfrom Maryland presupposes that there must be a State to assent to this dismem. berment of her senatorial representation when she must have assented to that proposition in the act of becoming a State; and my friend will see there is in point of law a distinction between the 2 propositions.
Mr. EDMUNDS. But taxation is a sover eig n.power.
Mr. WADE. The amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, of course, defeats the great object of the bill, because it requires the people throughout this vast Territory to assemble together and hold another election. That is equivalent, in my judgment, to a total rejection of the constitution and a defeat of the very purpose I had in view in urging the bill now. hat amendment will put the people to the trouble and expense oelection, and put the whole matter at large again. So nothing will be gained by fastening this amendment on the bill. Therefore I take it that the friends of this bill who think it is best that the State of Nebraska should be admitted at once will vote against that amendment. As to the amendment offered by the Senfrom Vermont, I find that there is some disa greement in regard to the law and Constitution on the subject; but the amendment is certainly a very harmless one, and it lies in the direction that we almost all approve. I want such a provision affixed in this case as much as the Senfrom Massachusetts, if it can be done; and that will not prevent the imme diate admission of the State. I hope, therefore, the friends of the bill who think that amendment is right and proper will vote for it, as I shall myself. I make these observations only because I desire it may be perfectly understood what we are doing. If you adopt the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri you defeat the immediate purpose of the bill, and send the people back to take the whole subject under consideration again, really defeating the measure. If you adopt the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont you simply conform to the opinions of those who are in favor of universal suffrage. I believe that is calculated and designed to harmonize all the friends of that principle. I hope, therefore, the Senate will reject the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, and adopt that of the Senfrom Vermont.
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, now I want to add a word. I want to say that if we adopt the amendment offered by the Senfrom Missouri, we impose upon no inhabitant of Nebraska any other sacrifice in the world than that of attending an election, which at the most will occupy one day of his time. No man who lives in Nebraska will have to attend to an election that costs him any more time than that, and the vast majority of them can attend the election without spending an hour; and the question is whether this matter of suffrage or no suffrage for colored men in Nebraska is of sufficient importance, is of sufficient moment, to ask that amount of sacrifice of the different citizens of Nebraska. That is all there is of that; and if you adopt the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Missouri, and the people of Nebraska acquiesce in it, then that will be the law of Nebraska, and you know it, and no man denies it; but, if on the other hand, you adopt in lieu of that the amendment of fered by the Senfrom Vermont it will not be the law of Nebraska, and the Senfrom Vermont admits that it will not be.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not admit anythin of the kind. I say, on the contrary, that it wi be the law of Nebraska, just as every other act of Congress regularly passed is the law over the people of every State in the Union.
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I do not understand that we pass a law if we adopt the senator's amendment, declaring that colored men shall have the right of suffrage in Nebraska, but we simply say that Nebraska may come into the Union as a State if she will allow colored men to vote in that State. But I did understand him to say, and I have his remarks before me now, I have looked them over, and I do still understand him to have said yesterday in reply to the Senfrom Maine, [Mr. FESSENDEN,) that the colored suffrage would not be decreed in Nebraska if we adopted his amendment; that it would still be optional with the State of Nebraska to give them suffrage or to withhold suffrage from them.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Will my friend read the remarks?
Mr. HOWE. The question is, if by adopting this amendment we make it a part of the organic law of Nebraska that colored men shall vote; or rather, if we make it a law which supersedes, which is paramount to the organio law of Nebraska that colored men shall vote, colored men can then vote, whether we take in the representatives of Nebraska here or not. What I want to know is, will it be the law of Nebraska, in spite of anything that she may say herself, that colored men can vote?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I say it will be the law of Nebraska, provided she exists as a State at all, irrespective of Mr. HoWE. her State will. If we put, this amendment upon the pending bill and then pass the bill, 2 things will certainly happen: 1st, that 2 men will come upon this floor to represent Nebraska in making laws for the U.S., and one will come upon the floor of the other House to perform the same functions. That is one thing which will happen certainly., An; other thing is that there is a Governor elected for the State of Nebraska, a Legislature an courts provided, and they will take upon themselves the functions of that State, and there will be these 2 machines in full motion certainly. But will co?ored men vote in Nebraska or not?
Mr. HOWE. Then what was the meaning of the Senator when he said they may choose to dissolve themselves?
Mr. EDMUNDS. It is because in the case othey do not choose to dissolve themselves, but choose to go on.
Mr. HOWE. But who choose to go on? A couple of gentlemen choose to take seats here and draw their salaries and their mileage, and another gentleman chooses to take his seat in the HoRep and draw his salary and mileage. That is what they choose; but they were not selected by the State of Nebraska or the people of the State of Nebraska for the purpose of committing her on this question of accepting or rejecting the proposition of colored suffrage. There is a Governor chosen in Nebraska, and he may choose for himself to take upon himself the functions of Governor. But do these acts commit the people of Nebraska to the law of negro suffrage?
Mr. EDMUNDS. They commit the people of Nebraska just as long as they choose to submit to that Governor and to that representation. If they do not choose to submit to that governor and to that representation, and do not continue that organization on the ground that it has exceeded its powers, or on any other ground that seems to be suitable to the people, then there will not be any State government there. The Governor derives his power to act at all from the act of Congress which gives the State vitality; and if he does act, we must take it, as long as he acts by the sufferance of the people, that there is a State governmentin Nebraska. If he does not choose to act, or the people do not choose to permit him to act, then there will not be any such organized government in Nebraska.
Mr. HOWE. Now, Mr. President, let us look at.it. So long as he acts by the sufferance of the people of Nebraska we are to understand that the people of Nebraska assent to colored suffrage. But he does not act a day by the sufferance of the people of Nebraska, simply because the people of Nebraska have no power to touch him in his official character. By the constitution of that State which we have sanctioned an election is to take place for some other Governor at a future day, I do not know when; and the people cannot touch him until that day comes round; and can the people of Nebraska touch their Senators who are here?. Nay, Mr. President, there is a government, for Nebraska existing today by vir. tue of a law of Congress, with a Governor and judicial officers, and legislative officers; and when you pass this act you withdraw from that Territory that government, the members of which are the only tribunals that can dispute the action of the State government created by the people of Nebraska. Now, I want to speak with entire respect of every proposition to amend a law here, and therefore I will not say that it is a snap game, but it looks the most like it of anything I ever saw in my life. Still I do not feel myself at liberty to call it so.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope my friend will not restrain himself on my account.
Mr. HOWE. Not at all. I know my friendfrom Vermont will not take offense; but it is a proposition pending here and I feel bound to treat it with the utmost respect. I do not see however, yet what opportunity the people of Nebraska have to determine this question of suffrage for themselves.
Mr. CONNESS. I am interested to the ox tent of having a vote on this subject, and by the kindness of the Senfrom Wisconsin hope he will permit me to make a suggestion on this point.
Mr. CONNESS. As I understand the Senfrom Vermont, he holds that the act of admission with this amendment which he proposes has the full force of a national statute, and subordinates to it the constitution under which Nebraska is to be a State if admitted by this act; and therefore it follows according to his proposition, as I understand it, that it will not be in the power of the people of Nebraska, whether they consent to it or not, to prevent colored persons from voting, because the national statute obligates them to submit to it, and confers the power. That is my understanding of the proposition of the Senfrom Ver mont and his arguments in its favor; and it is in view of that understanding that I propose to vote on the subject when the question comes to a vote. I make this suggestion to the Senfrom Wisconsin rather for my own benefit.
Mr. HOWE. Now, my friend will allow me to say that I am interested in bringing this question to a vote, and therefore I take the liberty of saying to him that I do not understand the Senator. Vermont to assert any such thing thing as that the adoption of this amendment will make a law which is paramount to the constitution of Nebraska.
Mr. CONNESS. He declares that he does saw SO.
Mr. HOWE. If that is what he says, I do not find it in his language here; he does not reply that to me; but on the contrary he does argue that there is reserved to the State of Nebraska somewhere the power to exclude !". men from suffrage, and he says that if she does exclude them from suffrage it works a dissolution of the State.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Allow me to correct the Senator?
Mr. EDMUNDS. What I say, Mr. President, is that the only power which is reserved to the people of .to exclude colored men from suffrage is the same power that is reserved to them and the people of every other State to exclude themselves from suffrage by not having any government in which suffrage can be required. They have the power to do nothing at all and become dissolved.
Mr. HOWE. No, Mr. President; there must be a power in Nebraska independent of that of dissolution. As I said before, when we pass this bill a new government goes into operation, and there will be municipal elections held under the protection of that government; colored men will come to the polls and offer their votes; they will be received or rejected by municipal officers responsible to fo. that local and not responsible to us. If they have under this law the right to vote, excluding their votes would be a wrong which that local government there should redress. Will they redress it? The Senator says if they do not redress it they will be no body; but if the court should happen to decide, on suit brought by a negro who complained that his right to vote had been abridged, that the negro had no right to vote, I take it that would not abolish the court at once. That judgment would stand, the court would go on and try the remainin cases on the calendar; and yet what j become of the right of the negro 7
Mr. EDMUNDS. I trust my friendfrom Wisconsin will excuse me when I remind him that the colored man claiming the right to vote under an act of Congress would be entitled to take the opinion of the national tribunals as to what his rights were. I admit, certainly, as we must all admit in every case of passing a law, that if it turns out in the end by the judgment of the last tribunal that that law has not any force, nobody has o rights under it. That is clear enough, and so far as private rights are concerned those decisions must be binding; but when those decisions go so far to trench on legislative and political power as to interfore with the just prerogative of other branches of the Government, I trust we shall find means to set them right.
Mr. HOWE. So do I. Now, Mr. President, if that is what the Senator means, if it is a right conferred by a national statute, and therefore to be enforced in a national court, this talk which he indulged in yesterday in reply to the Senfrom Maine, and which I have read here, about dissolving themselves by refusing this right to vote, is out of place, because refusing the right to vote does not have any tend ency to dissolve the Government.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I did not say yesterday that refusing the colored man the right to vote dissolved the Government. I said that if the people did not choose to exercise the functions which we authorized them to exercise by setting up that government, they would be dissolved just as the government of Wisconsin would be if her people did not exercise the rights of a State.
Mr. HOWE. I understood the Senfrom Maine yesterday to ask the Senfrom Vermont substantially these 2 questions: 1st, whether adopting his amendment and then passing the bill would confer the right to vote on these negroes beyond the power of Nebraska to deny it; and if it did not, what remedy would be employed in case Nebraska should refuse to grant them the right to vote.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If my friend will recur to the remarks of the Senfrom Maine he will perceive that he does not precisely understand the interrogatory that was put. It related to the question of evidence as to whether we were to treat this State as set up in respect of being a State itself, irrespective of what should be done with colored men afterward, on this condition; and I was endeavoring to show that the action of these Sens&Reps in going on with the government we should treat as primafacie evidence of the existence of that government. That was the point to which the remarks of the Senfrom Maine were directed.
Mr. HOWE. I think on the contrary that my own understanding of the question put by the Senfrom Maine is the nearest right, and so I thought I could not be mistaken in the answer given by the Senfrom Ver mont; but now I understand him to say that if we put this amendment into the bill we shall put the people of Nebraska under the government of a State, and put them into the Union in that shape, but with the elective franchise in the hands of a different body of people from what they have ever agreed to.
Mr. HOWE. Subject to no condition in the world. That is the law; there is no condition about it. They become a State; and then that government has just the same authority that the government of NewYork has in NewYork and the government of Wisconsin has there. They can die, as we are told now; they can have no government whatever. The territorial government is withdrawn; they have a State government set up; they must submit to that, with the elective .in the hands of a different body of people from what they have adopted. The only alternative to them is dissolution, death, the death of the State. Now, I do not think that is giving the people of Nebraska, as I said the other day, a fair chance. Putting an alternative to them which they are bound to accept or die, seems to me driving them into rather a sharp corner.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Allow me to suggest that if we pass the bill with the amendment of the iorfrom Missouri we do exactly the same thing. HOWE. Not at all. d Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, we say take that or 10.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Most certainly we do for this reason: we say we admit you upon a condition which you must agree t;o if you do agree to it, you are in; if you do not agree to it you are a Territory still; you are nothing as respects a State. Therefore we compel the o:of the Territory, or rather that part of the people who come here, to accede to this condition fore they shall exercise the functions of a State.
Mr. HOWE. We leave them with the oro tection of the government they have, the government of a Territory, until they have delib.erately passed upon the question of suffrage or no suffrage for colored men; but we do not breathe the breath of life into their body one moment and then require them to submit to this fundamental law upon peril of dying the next moment. We leave them the protection of a territorial government; we leave them as they are till they have passed upon it and made up their minds. There is no work of dissolution about it; there is simply a withholding of the work of creation; that is all.
Skip Skip The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHoNY.) The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont to the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri. Mr. JOHNSON called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered. Mr. HOWARD. The question, I understand, is on the substitution of the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont for the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri. [“Yes.”] The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 15, nays 17; 20. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. BRowN]
Mr. WADE. I hone all the friends of the bill will vote against this amendment.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope all the friends of the bill will vote for it, and all the friends of human freedom.
Mr. JOHNSON. I ask that the amendment be reported. l
The Secretary read the amendment, as fol ows: At the end of the 2nd section of the bill insert the following proviso: oProvi That this act shall not take effectexcept the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska there shall be no denial of the elective franchise, or of any other rights, to any person by reason of race or color; and upon the further condition that this fundamental, condition shall be, submitted to the voters of the Territory of Nebraska at an election to be held on the 1st Tuesday of next. And at such election said voters shall declare their assent to or dissent from the gondition afore said in such form as shall be, prescribed by the governor of said Territory. And all votes given at such election shall be returned to such Governor within days from the day of the election, who shall forthwith canvass the same. And if a majority of such votes shall be for this condition, the Governor shall certify that fact to the POTUS, who shall by proclamation announce the fact; whereupon, without further proceedings on the part of Congress, this act shall take effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are blanks in the amendment.
Mr. SUMNER. I think those can be filled up afterward, at the next stage. The vote on the amendment in its present form will try the principle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, upon which the yeas&nays have been ordered.
Mr. SUMNER. I have received this morning at my desk a telegraphic dispatch from the Senfrom Missouri now absent, which I will read: “Detained in Kentucky by illness of my father Will leave tomorrow. “B. GRATZ BROWN.” And this is dated January 9. The 2 being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 8, nays 24; 20. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I now move to amend the bill by proposing an additional section in the words of the amendment which I offered as a substitute for the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri before: Abife: That this act shall take effect with the fundamental andocondition that within said State of Nebraska there shall be no abridgment or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.
Mr. JOHNSON. Is that precisely in the language of the previous amendment?
Mr. JOHNSON. Then I wish to make the suggestion to my friendfrom Vermont that I made yesterday, but perhaps he did not hear me or did not understand me. I do it with no view of defeating the amendment; but if it passes in the terms in which it is written it places the Indians in the absolute disposal of the people of the Territory. The language of the amendment is, that the State shall be admitted upon the fundamental and perpetual condition “that within said State of Nebraska there shall be no abridgment or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.” Do you mean to leave it to the State to dispose of any of the rights of the Indians other than the mere right of suffrage?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not mean to leave the Indians to the States at all; they never are left to the States.
Mr. EDMUNDS. No; they would not. They are foreign nations; the States have no jurisdiction over them at all.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is a question of law on which I differ from the honorable member. If that is his view and the view of the Senate, it would be a different thing; but supposing that Indians may now, those who are not taxed, be made subject to the legislation of the State, then according to this provision the State could do with the Indians just as it might think proper. They are not only denied the right of franchise, but they are denied any other right; or at least the State is authorized to deny them any other right which the State may think proper. If the honorable member thinks there is no necessity for modification on this point, I shall not press the matter.:
Mr. WADE. I hope all those who want the bill to pass now will vote for this amendment; it is pure and simple and I hope they will vote for it.
Mr. HOWARD. I call for the yeas and navs on the amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HOWARD. if I understand the amendment presented by the Senfrom Vermont, it is exactly the same question as that upon which we have just passed, on the substitution of this precise language now before us for the amendment offered by the Senfrom missouri. I hope it will not pass.
Mr. wo. Let us have the vote.. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 18, nays 18; 16. So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CRAGIN. Mr. President, before recording my vote on the passage of this bill, I desire to say just a word or two. At the last session I supported and voted for the admission of Colorado under circumstances similar to those now connected with this bill proposing the admission of Nebraska. I then supposed, and now believe, that under the enabling acts which Congress had passed heretofore these Territories coming here in good faith were entitled to admission as States. I believed the enabling act was a continuing invitation to the people of these Territories, and notwithstanding they may have been irregular in their proceed.ings and not have adopted a State constitution at the 1st trial, I still believe that Congress is bound in good faith to receive them into the Union. The objection then urged to the constitution of Colorado, that it excluded blacks from the right of suffrage, is now urged to the constitution of Nebraska. I felt fully the force of that objection before, and feel it now; but I believed then and believe now that this right will sooner be guarantied to these few individ uals by admitting these States into the Union than by rejecting them. I shall therefore vote cheerfully for the admission of this State whether the bill be amended or not. I voted for the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Ver mont, not because I am fully persuaded that that amendment has any force whatever; I am inclined to doubt it; but I believed that it might harmonize the friends of the measure here so that we should be able to carry it. I shall now vote most cheerfully under the circumstances for the bill as it comes from the committee.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish to renew the last proposition on which the Senate voted, that moved by the Senfrom Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That can be done when the bill shall have been reported to the Senate, but it is not now in order.
Mr. SUMNER. I see that the Senfrom Vermont is here now, and I call his attention to it. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I now move the same amendment which I offered in committee, to add the following as an additional section: Abife:, That this act shall take effectwith the fundamental and perpetual condition that within said State of Nebraska there shall be no abridgement or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not intend to prolong the debate; but I was absent when the vote was taken on this same proposition a while ago, and I wish now simply to state that I am in favor of admitting Nebraska without any amendment, without any qualification, without any condition, and I think it is an unwise policy to impose conditions on the admission of Nebraska; but still, as the friends of the measure think that the declaration drafted by the Senfrom Vermont will strengthen the bill, I am rather disposed to vote for it. I believe it will be entirely nugatory. I do not think that we have the power by an act of con. to restrain the people of Nebraska from raming such a constitution, republican inform, as they choose. I have no doubt they can amend this constitution, or they can disregard this condition; it does not operate on them; it is not really in the nature of a condition. I vote for it simply because I believe its adoption will strengthen the main measure and enable us to admit the State of Nebraska into the Union with her Sens&Reps.
Skip Skip The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 20, nays 18; 14. So The amendment was agreed to. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, and was read the 3rd time. Mr. BUCKALEW. I call for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill. he yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 24, nays 15; 13. So the bill was passed. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a communication from the SecyNavy, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 5th ultimo, calling for copies of orders, instructions, and directions issued from the Navy Dept in relation to the employment of officers and others at the navy yards of the U.S.; which was referred to the ComNavAffrs.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, its Chief Clerk, an nounced that the House had passed the bill (S.No.177) to incorporate the National Safe Deposit Company of Washington, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested. ADMISSION OF COLORADO.
Mr. WADE. I move to take up Senate bill No. 462, for the admission of Colorado.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I think the unfinished business which was laid aside for the Nebraska bill now comes up regularly.
Several SENATORs. Do not call that up. We can act on Colorado without discussion.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I have no objection to. friendfrom Ohio taking up his bill inform ally without displacing the business to which I allude. The motion of Mr. WADE was agreed to: and the bill (S.No.462) to admit the State of Colorado into the Union was considered as in ComWhole. It recites that on the 21st day of March, 1864, Congress passed an act to enable the people of Colorado to form a constitution and State government, and offered to admit: the State, when so formed, into the Union upon compliance with certain conditions therein specified; and that it apears by a message of the POTUS, dated January, 1866, that the people of Colorado have adopted a constitution, which upon due examination is found to conform to the provisions and comply with the conditions of said act, and to be republican in its form of government, and that they now ask for admission into the Union. It is therefore proposed to declare that the constitution Aid State government which the people of Colorado have for themselves shall be, and is hereby, accepted; ratified, and confirmed: and the State of Colorado is declared to be one of the U.S.A., and admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects what SOever.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amend the bill by adding a section which I will read, as follows: Abife: That effect with the fundamaenetal ptehripseatucatlshcoanlldittaiokne that within said State of Colorado there shall be no abridgment or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.
Mr. WADE. I oof the Senator if that is the same amendment we have just fixed on the other bill.
Skip Skip Mr. HOWARD. call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 21, nays 18; 13. So The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred ln.
Mr. STEWART. If the Senator will allow me, I think there is a precedent here of very nearly the same character in the admission of the State of California. The 3rd section of that act is “That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the expresscondition that the people of said State, through their Legislature or otherwise, sphuablllicnever interfere with the primary disposalof the lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the U.S. to and right to disposeof the same shall beimpaired or questioned; and that they shall never lay any tax or assessmentof any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the U.S.; and in no caseshall non-resident proprietors who are citizens of the U.S. be taxed higher than residents.”
Mr. HENDRICKS. I think that the answer made by the Senfrom Michigan
Mr. STEWART. Allow me to call attention to the point. The question of State taxation is admitted by all to be especially within the jurisdiction of a State; but here Congress provided that non-resident proprietors should not be taxed higher than resident proprietors in a State. The subject of taxation is certainly within State jurisdiction, and yet here oimposes a condition that a State shall not do a thing clearly within State jurisdiction. It seems to me it is an analogous power to the one proposed to be.o.this case.
Mr. STEWART. Allow me to ask, is the question of suffrage any more within exclusive State jurisdiction than the question of State taxation?
Mr. HENDRICKS. In my judgment they Is that all you wish both belong to the State so far as her own revenue is concerned; but the question of the Senator simply calls upon me to repeat what I have said. Congress controls the disposal of the public lands. In order to secure that disposal it may do whatever is necessary to protect its interests; and to protect its interests as the owner of the lands, with a view to their disposal, upon advantageous terms, it provides that non-residents of the State who may buy them shall not be exposed to unequal taxation.
Mr. STEWART. But how does the interest of Congress in that question give it the right to interfere with the State power of taxation? May we not say upon the same principle that it is the interest of Congress, in order to guarantee republican government and enforce republican principles, to see that all men shall have a voice in the Government? But how does the fact of either provision, being for the interest of this Government, affect the power of Congress to interfere with the action of the State? If the question of taxation is exclusively within State jurisdiction, it does not make any difference for what reason Congress exercises the power to impose a condition on the exercise of that juris diction of the State. It is a question of power and not of the reason for using the power. If the question of taxation is entirely with the State, and it is partially taken away by the act of admission, Congress exercises a power which the State would otherwise have under our system. That matter is no more a question of State jurisdiction than the matter of suffrage is claimed to be entirely within State jurisdiction. In either case, admitting that the power is with the State, Congress imposes upon the State a condition that she shall not exercise that power in a certain way. I cannot see that the cases are not entirely analogous.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, it is disagreeable for me at any time to repeat an argument which has been made more ably than I can make it myself; and as I thought the argument upon this very question, made by the Senfrom Michigan the other day, was exhaustive in its character, I very reluctantly answered the question of the Senfrom Nevada. Without reference to, precedents, none of which I think do bear upon the question now before the Senate, I cannot vote for a bill which proposes to change a constitution which it is claimed has been adopted by the people of a new State. What is the force of this amendment? If the State be admitted, she is a State, having the control, after her admission, of her own constitution. Can she amend that constitution? It has always been conceded that the States, by proper proceedings, had the power to amend their constitutions; but if Congress has the power to impose a per petual condition upon d: State in joto anyone matter, then in regard, to that matter the power of amendment is taken away from the and from the people. Mr. President, I have said all that I feel it my duty to say upon this question, and shall be satisfied now to give my vote. I think the people of Colorado have not sufficient population to justify a representation in the Senate and a representation in the other House. I think that the adoption of this constitution was so irregular as to give it no moral force before this body. It was not pursuant to the enabling act; it was not in accordance with the requirements of the enabling act; but it was a party political movement in the Territory. not regulated by law and the polls not guarded by the provisions of law. In every respect I consider the bill objectionable.
Mr. WILLEY. I desire, sir, to explain the vote which I propose to cast on this bill. I voted against the amendment offered by the Senfrom Vermont, but I shall vote for the bill now that the amendment has been made a part of the bill. I am anxious that Colorado shall be admitted as a State into the Union. I do not think that the amendment offered by the Senfrom Vermont and which has been attached to the bill amounts to anything. As I understand the Constitution, the right to regulate suffrage belongs exclusively to the States themselves. That is the law paramount; and any bill which Congress may pass proposing to regulate for a State the right of suffrage or to require a State to regulate the right of suffrage in any particular manner, is in my opinion nu: gatory, unavailing. amounts, to noting; and therefore the bill, if it pass with this amendment to it, will simply result in the admission of colorado into the Union as a member of the Union, and the amendment attached to it will have no effect upon the State of Colorado in reference to suffrage. Being desirous that Colorado should be admitted now, and believing that the amendment is nugatory, I shall vote for the bill with the amendment to it, notwithstanding I voted against the amendment itself.
Mr. GRIMES. For precisely the same reason assigned by the Senfrom WestVirginia why he shall vote for the bill, I shall vote against it.. He admits, as is admitted by everybody, I believe, on the floor of the senate, except the Senfrom Vermont, that the amendment which has been adopted to the colorado bill, as well as the one that was adopted to the Nebraska bill, is entirely nugatory. Even the chairman of the ComTerritor, the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. WADE, 1 spent an hour or 2 the other day in convincing us that it was of no effect, unconstitutional, and void. Now, sir, my conscience on this subject of impartial suffrage in the Territories cannot be quieted, as it seems some gentlemen's consciences can be, by the incorporation into this organic act of a provision which I know cannot be enforced, and which, according to the testimony of the opinion of almost every one who has spoken on the subject at all, merely consigns i. colored man who happens to reside within these Territories to a law suit rather than to the ballot box. Therefore, for the reason which the Senfrom WestVirginia has assigned why he will vote for the bill, that he believes that amendment to be entirely void and of no effect, I shall vote against this bill for the admission of Colorado.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, the Senfrom Wisconsin seems to assume that somebody has said that he was at liberty to disregard the Constitution of the U.S. i. long upon propositions pending in this Ody. ward Colorado and wi
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I did not refer to any. thing said by the Senfrom Ohio.
Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I do not presume now to go into the arguments which have been made on the bill over and over again on the other side of the Chamber as to the want of population in this Territory and a great many other things; but I have a letter here from the executive clerk of the Governor of Colorado, which reveals some facts that perhaps throw some light on the opinions contained in the Governor's message, which gentlemen have handed around here. The Governor feels, I believe, a little interest in keeping the position that he has got; but let us i.the etter, which I have sent up, from his executive clerk, as regards the vote in Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHoNY in the chair.) The letter will be read, no objection being interposed.
The Secretary read as follows: DENVER, CoLoRADo TERRITORY, ovember10, 1866. SIR: I desire to inform you that my certificate af fixed to the false table of the different votes cast in Colorado, which was laid before Congress at session, the last was obtained from me by fraud, as follows: I made a table of the votes from the retained copy on file in the office of the SecyTerritory for the NewYork Tribune Almanac, by order of governor Cummings, and one of his household, writing at the same table, made a duplicate, or professed to odroigsion.alThe copy made by mewas comparedwith the and sent to the room of the Governor. After some hours, a paper represented to me as the duplicate was returned to my table by the party who had made it, mings with the request from Governor Cum that I would officially certify to it, and with the remark that it had been compared and was correct. I complied with the request, without accurate examination and without suspicion of treachery, and it was mailed, as I then believed, to the NewYork Tribune Almanac. The table of votes thus certified to by me is the one that was laid before the last session of Congress, and is false and grossly unjust to this Territory. I was not aware of the imposition practiced upon me until, too late to correct the false impression it created; but I avail myself of the 1st opportunit to do so and to vindicate my own character, and confidently trust that you will lay this letter before o as an act of justice to this Territory and to Inyself. have the honor to be, your obedient servant, D. A. CHEEVER, Late Erecutive Clerk Colorado Territory. Hon. BENJAMIN F. WADE, U.S. Senate, chair man ComTerritories, Washington, D. C.
Mr. WADE. I have another letter from the SecyTerritory which throws some light upon the question of the population of the Territory, which I should like to have read in this connection.
Mr. WADE. I do not propose now to make any comments on those 2 papers unless some other gentleman should see fit to do so. I am anxious for a vote, although under other circumstances I should think it well enough to reply to somethings that the Senfrom Wisconsin has said; but I will take some other occasion for that.
Mr. WILLEY. Mr. President, I'do not know how far the moral criticism of the Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] was designed to be applicable to me. I have only to say, however, in reference to the vote which I gave, that I cast it in accordance with my convictions of what I conceived to be right and proper under the circumstances; and further to say that in casting that vote, as in castin any vote which I may see proper to do, I hol myself responsible to my own conscience, and not to the Senfrom Wisconsin. I imagine that honorable Senator will have quite as much as he will find himself able to do if he takes care of matters that affect himself, and allows his brother Senators to be the judges of what is proper in the discharge of their own duty. f have now nothing to take back in regard to the remarks which I made. I simply voted in the 1st place against the amendment of the Senfrom Vermont because I was opposed to it. I shall vote for the bill with that amendment attached to it because I am in favor of the principle of the bill and of the admission of Colorado as a State into the Union. I be. lieve that the amendment is simply nugatory and no more; that it can have no effect upon the people of Colorado. if I believed that it could have, I would be the last man to attempt to impose upon them a law which I believed to be unconstitutional so as to affect in anywise their interests contrary to the Constitution of the U.S.; but I say now, as I said then, that I consider the amendment simply and only as nugatory, having no effect whatever to affect the interests or the rights of the people of Colorado; and desiring the admission of that Territory into the Union as a State, and desiring it now, I propose, being responsibleto my own sense of what is right and to my own conscience, not to the Senfrom Wisconsin, to cast my vote in favor of the bill.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The honorable Senfrom WestVirginia certainly misunderstood all that I said if he understood me to question at all the sincerity of his views or his conscientious convictions in voting upon this or another bill. I never have entertained any such idea of the Senfrom WestVirginia. For his high moral sense and convictions of duty I have an exceedingly high respect, and always have entertained it. What I did say, substantially, was this: that I could not see how I could reconcile it, in my view of my duty, to the oath which I had taken, to vote for a proposition which I saw was unconstitutional, and then justify my vote upon the ground that by bein unconstitutional it was simply nugatory and no effect. I cannot reconcile that for myself. Other gentlemen, perhaps, may do so. not question the sincerity of their convictions, nor have I assumed to do so; but so far as my judgment is concerned, as it seems to me, in the line of my duty, having sworn to support the Constitution of the U.S., I cannot vote for a proposition which I conceive to be in violation of the Constitution of the U.S., although, because it is in violation of the Constitution, it is null and void, and amounts to nothing.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not propose to go into any further argument on this subject with my friendfrom Oregon or with any other gentleman who is disposed to disagree with the views which I have advanced. Posterity will decide between them and me. The principles of liberty which the amendment contains, I think, will have some little growth out of this bill. It is now, having been adopted, as they suppose, the body of Moses to us all. I am not disposed to bring against them any railing accusation, but to. another tribunal to administer the necessary rebuke.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, and was read the 3rd time. Mr. GRIMES and Mr. JOHNSON called for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 23, nays 11; 18. So the bill was passed, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.
Mr. WADE. I move now to take up House bill No. 508. It relates to this same subject and I want to get through with it as quick afs Can.
Mr. WADE. It is a bill to prevent here after any distinction on account of color in any of the Territories belonging to the U.S.
Mr. SUMNER. Oh no, I think not. Let us pass it through now., Letus crown what we have done today with that. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 508) to amend the organic acts of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and NewMex 1CO.
Mr. WADE. I move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill and to insert what I send to the Chair.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There is an amendment pending to the bill, which will be read.
Mr. WADE. Would it not be in order to amend by striking out the whole bill and the pending amendment and inserting this substitute 7
The PRESIDENT protempore. While the present amendment is pending, the motion of the Senfrom Ohio would not be in order. It will be in order immediately after disposing of the amendment now pending, which is to strike out the [ 9th ] 3rd section of the bill, as follows: Srg.[9]3. Abife: That within the Territories aforesaid there shall be no denial of elective franchise the to citizens of the U.S. because of race or color, and all persons shall be equal before the law. Andall acts or parts of acts, either I do of Congress or of the Legislative Assemblies of the Territories aforesaid, inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby declared null and void.
Mr. WADE. Wery well; let it be struck out, then.
Mr. WADE. Now I move to strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause, and to insert the following: That in all the Territories of the U.S. there shall be no denial to citizens of States of the elective franchise by reason of rUancieteodr color, and all persons shall be equal before the law. And all acts or parts of acts, either of Congress or of the Legislative Assembly of any Territory; inconsistent with the Moons of this act, are hereby declared null and void.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I object to hurrying this bill through without any consideration. It seems to be a new proposition, and there is some phraseology employed that may be more comprehensive than Senators suppose. In all the Territories, according to this proposed amendment, all persons are to be equal before the law. I should like to know what that means before I vote to incorporate into the organic acts of the Territories such phraseol: ogy as that. What is the precise meaning and of it? Suppose an Indian should insist upon the right to sit upon a jury. He is authorized to do so, and his right cannot be denied by that amendment. All persons are to be equal before the law, without distinction of race or color or sex, according to that amendment. I wish Senators to remember that in the Territories there is a very large population of wild, untamed Indians, and in attempting to provide for the black race within the States I think Senators ought not to use language that will put those Indians in the Territories who are wholly unfit to perform any of the duties of a citizen, who are wholly unable to perform any of the duties of a citizen, on an equal footing, and entitle them to all the rights and privileges which the white people of the Territories enjoy.
Mr. WADE. That is not the intention. Does not the amendment use the word “citizen?” I believe it does.
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; it says “all persons shall be equal before the law;” and I think that such phraseology as that in legislation is F.exceedingly dangerous. Specify what rights you intend the people of the erritories should possess. If you will say that the citizens of the Territories shall have the right to vote, then I will agree to the proposition.
Mr. WADE. I am willing to restrict it in that way. That is what it means.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Or if you desire that they shall have any other rights, and you specify them, then I can understand for what I vote; but to use that sort of phraseology, that “all persons shall be equal E. the law, ” when there are so many ramifications of government and society to which the language applies, seems to me to be a dangerous mode.lation. I, hope, this amendment will not be o in this hasty manner.
Mr. LANE. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WELNESDAY, January 9, 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. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE, Mr. CHANLER. I rise to a question of privilege, but as several gentlemen wish to submit a few matters by unanimous consent I will yield for that purpose. PAY OF A MEMBER.
Mr. DAWES, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution; which was read, sidered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Hon. D. W. Gooch the amount of increased pay of a member of this House provided by law, from the commencement of the39th Congress to the date of his resignation.
Mr. DAWES mtRtv the resolution was agreed to; upon the table. agreed to. TOWN OF SHASTA.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill respecting the town of Shasta, California; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComPubLands, and, together with the accompanying papers, ordered to be printed. INDIAN AFFAIRS.
Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to restore the jurisdiction of Indian affairs to the Dept of War; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed. Free school, S. In Tiibo DISTRICT.
Mr. WELKER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to provide a system of education for the public schools of the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the committee on free schools in the DistCol, and ordered to be printed. COMPENSATION OF LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS.
Mr. SPALDING, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That the Committee on. Commerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency of giving increased compensation to keepers of lighthouses and light vessels in the U.S., and that said committee report by bill or otherwise. HARBOR OF NEWYORK. Mr. DODGE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved.That the SecyWar be requested to inform this House if any and what steps have been taken for removing the wreck of land, recently the steamer Scot: sunk in the entrance of the channel of the harbor of NewYork, and what is necessary in order to secure the early removal of the wreck, which is endangering the navigation of the channel. homesteads FOIR COLORED Men.
Mr. GRINNELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which, being a call for executive information, was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyInterior be reto inquire whether any modification of 3rd article of the treaty with the Chocktaw atnhde Chickealsaow Indians, ratified June 28, 1866, can be the 8,000 persons of now without homesteads may have their statucsoloars citizens defined, and they be allowed at an early day to select homesteads from the unoccupied lands. TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANK SHARES.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution; which, being a call for executive information, was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComJudiciary be instructed to inquire whether so much of the 40 1st section of the act concerning banking associations as limits the right of State authority to shares of such associations tax at the place where the bank is located, ought not to be so amended as to permit the taxation of the shares in any town where owned in the State wherethe bank is located instead of at the place of said bank, and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise. MICHAEL M’CANN.
Mr. BROOMALL, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyWar be, and is hereby, directed to furnish to the HoRep all written agreements, contracts, and apers, or copies thereof, relating to the claim of ichael McCann against the Government for the services of the barge Charles Warner, with a statement of the amount of money paid and the amount yet due according to the contract, and of whatever action may have been had upon the account by proper the auditor. LAND OFFICE REPORT.
Mr. LATHAM, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read and referred, under the law, to the ComPrintg: Resolved.That there be printed for the use of the membersof this House 30,000 extra copies of the last report of the ComrGLO. CLAIMS OF LOYAL TENNESSEEANS.
Mr. MAYNARD. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That a resolution passedby the House on the 18th of January, 1866, in the substancefollowing: “That until otherwise ordered, the ComClaims be instructed to reject, all claims referred to them for examination by citizens of any of States, lately the in rebellion, ” &c., be, and the same is so modified as not to by loyal citizens of teenmnbersasceee.any claims presented Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object, and call for the regular order of business. NAVAL BOUNTIES.
Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComNavAffrs be instructed to inquire into the expediency ofing an act making appropriations for sunsodarymecnivdil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 1308, 6168, 67, and for other purposes, approved, July 28, as will allow seamen and marines of the Navy, ubnoduenrtythe same limitations and restrictions, the allowed by said act to soldiers, and to report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Has the morning hour commenced?
The SPEAKER. It has not. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CHANLER) is upon the floor on a question of privilege.
Mr. WAS HBURNE, of Illinois. Then I i.we shall dispose of his question of privilege. THE INCOME TAX.
Mr. CULLOM, 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 othe revenue laws that incomes to the extent of $1,000shall be exemptfrom taxation, and that all incomes above that amount shall be taxed 5% and no more.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. insist on the regular order. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE, Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Speaker, I hold that a vote given in this House by a member of this body is one of the most important acts that a member can possibly perform; and the record of that vote f hold to be a matter of the 1st importance. And I rise to ascertain from The SPEAKer the position held upon this floor, by the reporters of the Associated Press; if they are officers of this House under the resolution which admitted them to this floor, or whether they are not. If they be officers of this House, I hold that the Journal, the record of the proceedings of this House, is the only standard whereby they can publish to the press of the country the votes given upon this floor. Have the reporters of the Associated Press the right, by changing the record of this House and interpolating their opinion relative to a vote here given, thereby to change the position of a mem: ber of this body, so far as their act can do it? That is the question. Now, sir, the special instance in regard to which I rise is the record of the vote taken on the resolution of impeachment.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call the gentleman to order. I want to know whether this is a question of privilege or not.
Mr. CHANLER. I wish to know whether it is or is not.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewYork is stating his question of privilege.
Mr. CHANIER. I wish to know if the privilege of a member of this House includes the record of his vote as published by the reporters of the Associated Press, who are upon this floor by the permission of the House. I now
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If it is in the nature of a personal explanation then I do not object.
Mr. CHANLER. It is in the nature of a personal explanation, but involves a question of privilege.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then it is not in the nature of a question of privilege?
Mr. CHANLER. It includes a question of privilege also in my opinion, and I wish to have my full privileges here upon a matter of personal explofion;
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman asks for that I shall not object.
Mr. CHANLER. I have put the question, and I believe the Chair understands it. Now I wish to leave the question there. If it be within the privileges of this House, I will now go on with the personal explanation. The o. The Chair will state that if the question involved was a correction of the Journal of the House, then it would be a question of privilege. The Chair has examined the Journal of the House and finds the gentleman's name recorded in the affirmative, upon the passage of the resolution of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. As HLEY] in regard to impeachment. The Journal, therefore, is correct. The Chair will answer the other question of the gentleman, in regard to the position of the reporters of this House. The reporters of the Globe have been regarded as officers of this House. They have been so recognized in various ways, in appropriation bills, &c. The reporters of the 2 associated presses, by a vote of this House, have been granted seats upon the floor instead of in the reporters' gallery, that they may be able to give more elaborate reports, by means of access to the records of the House and to documents they may have occasion to copy. In the opinion of the Chair, the report.ers of the associated presses are not officers of the House. As to any statement in reference to the action of the gentleman not being correctly stated by the reporters, that is a question for the gentleman and the House to determine. If the gentleman claims that he has been intention ally misrepresented, then it is a question which he can bring before the House for their action.
Mr. CHANLER. Does the Chair rule that a misrepresentation of a vote given on this floor by a member is a question of privilege, or does he decide that it is not?
The SPEAKER. The Chair would not regard it.as a question of privilege, which the would have a right to present to this House for its action, overruling all other questions, as questions of privilege always do, unless he presents it for the action of the House as the Chair has just indicated. A question of F.;generally refers to the right of a memer to his seat, and questions arising therefrom. A correction of the Journal, being a record of the votes and action of members here, is always regarded as a question of privilege. Corrections of reports in the Globe have not been regarded as questions of privilege, but have always been entertained by Speakers who have preceded the present occupant of the chair that these may be as correct as possible. n regard to any misstatements which may have been made by other reporters, they have not been regarded as questions of privilege unless the member interested states that he has been intentionally defamed by the reporter, and therefore desires action of the House to protect himself.
The SPEAKER. The Chair could not have been as clear as he supposed he was in his statement; for certainly the gentleman has misunderstood that statement. The Chair has stated that the gentleman has the right to ask the action of the House against any reporter who he thinks has intentionally misrepresented him.
Mr. CHANLER. I do not put it on that round. I put it on the ground of an error. do not yish to enter into any controversy whether the reporter on this floor meant or did not mean to misrepresent me. I wish to hold the reporter strictly to the record of the Journal of this House. He has no option in the matter. He cannot at his own option go outside of the record and state as a fact that which is not a fact. I am not going into an examination of his intentions, nor do E. to do so. I believe that this misrepresentation arose from an error; I am willing to admit it. I make no charges against him on the question of intention.
The SPEAKER. What action does the gentleman desire from the Chair?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has exressed himself as not satisfied with the decision of the Chair. What action does he desire from the Chair?
Mr. CHANLER. I wish to offer a resolution to the effect that the reporters for the press on this floor shall be subject to the same rules as the reporters of the Globe.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the newspaper extract which the gentleman has sent up.
The Clerk read as follows: “The questionthen recurred on the adoption of the resolution. The vote was taken by yeas&naysand resulted yeas 107, nays.39. It was announced as 108to 38; but as the official list showed Mr. CHANLER voting in the affirmative, and as that was evidently a mistake, the transfer of his vote to the negative makes the 1st figures the correct ones.” [Laughter]
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will send it up in writing and the Clerk will read it.
Mr. CHANLER. I move that Whe resolution be referred to the ComRules.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: Resolved, That the reporters of the Associated Press be under the same rules and regulations as reporters of the Globe.
The SPEAKER. If the Gentfrom NewYork will turn to page 157 of Barclay's Digest he will see, in corroboration of what the Chair decided, that it is declared to be a question of privilege if a false and scandalous report of proceedings in the House be made by any of its reporters. If a gentleman alleges a reporter has intentionally and falsely misrepresented him, it will be a question of privilege. If an error has been made unintentionally, as in this case, the Chair doubts whether it would be a question of privilege.
Mr. of. I do not charge it was intentional.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask that the resolution be again read. The resolution was again read.
Mr. CHANLER. I modify it so as to say, “reporters and reports made by them.”
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not othe gentleman charges that the official reporters of the Globe have made any intentional mistake.
Mr. CHANLER. I have specially denied making any such charge. My object in rising was to bring in this resolution. The resolution was referred to the ComRules. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF CLERKS.
The SPEAKER stated the regular order of business to be a motion to postpone previous orders to take up House JtResolution No. 224, giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service of the Government at Washington.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask whether the resolution as it is intended to be presented has been printed?
Mr. GARFIELD. The committee have only one or 2 amendments to propose to the printed bill.
Mr. BLAINE. I rise to a point of order. I wish to inquire of the Chair whether it is competent for the House to assign the consideration of this JtResolution immediately after the morning hour? I want the House to have a morning hour this morning.
The SPEAKER. It can by unanimous consent only, as there are special orders anterior to this one in date which came in after the morning hour. But, if taken up, the House can then, by aovote, postpone it till any other hour of the o:.
Mr. COBB. Is this the same JtResolution introduced by the Gentfrom Ohio and referred to the ComWays&Means?
Mr. GARFIELD. It is the JtResolution which I reported from the ComWays&Means a few days ago. It was set for yesterday. I hope it will be taken up and passed as it will take but a few moments.
Mr. ALLEY. When the proposition was made I asked whether it would interfere with the morning hour, and I was told it would not, otherwise 1 should have objected.
Mr. GARFIELD. If taken up yesterday it so not have interfered with the morning Out.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will the gentleman consent, if the JtResolution be taken up, to have it postponed until after the morning hour?
Mr. GARFIELD. I do not want to interfere with the morning hour. The JtResolution was taken up and then postponed till after the morning hour. CALIFORNIA MAILS. The 1st business in order during the morning hour was the call of committees for reports.
Mr. ALLEY. I am directed by the comPostOffice to report a JtResolution directing the PostMGenl to adjust and settle the claim of the oceansteamshiplinerunningbetween NewYork and SanFrancisco, via Panama, and to allow such sum as in his judgment shall be equitable and just for extra mail service performed by said steamship company during the interruption of the overland service by Indian hostilities in 1864 and 1865, provided the allowance shall not exceed $10, 300; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. repMorr.t WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let the be read. he SPEAKER. The Chair is informed there is no report.
Mr. ALLEY. There is no report. I will state the circumstances of the case. This service was performed by the Pacific Mail Steam ship Company during the interruption of the overland service, occasioned by Indian hostili ties; in 1864. The claim which the company made on the Government was $50,000. The then PostMGenl recommended to Congress to pay the sum of $22,000, I think. The committee, feeling that that was too much, based their estimate of the amount of pay for the service upon the price which was charged for 1st class.inasmuch as the company were not required to do anything extra, and in. asmuch as the company would have been willing to have performed the same service for any individual or corporation at that rate. The committee were of the opinion that the government should be called upon to pay no more for service rendered than for the same service rendered to individuals, and upon that basis it was found that the sum should be $10, 300. Upon conference with the PostMGenl he concurred with the committee in the opinion that that was the right basis on which to settle the claim. I am not advised whether the company will accept the proposition or not, but the committee are clearly of the opinion after a full investigation of the case that the sum proposed is sufficient, and they areobelieve in reporting that this sum at least should be paid. Some of the committee were of the opinion that a larger sum should be paid for the service, but the majority thought otherwise, and all thought that this sum was the smallest that.be allowed. Therefore, I suppose there can be no objection to it, and I will call the previous question if no further explanation is desired.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think there will be some little objection to this bill as it now stands. I do not know much about this matter. It involves an appropriation of $10,000, but from the statement of the gentleman, if I understood it, there is no just claim whatever. The Pacific Mail Steamship Company are obliged under their contract to perform the mail service, and the complaint is now that they were compelled to do a little more than they were willing to do, and so they come back here and ask the modest sum of $50,000 to do what they were obliged to do for nothing, and they have finally cut down their claim to $10,000; and now the gentleman proposes to pay this sum and to gag the bill through under the previous question.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would ask the Gentfrom Illinois whether it will not be cheaper to pay this $10,000 than to be called upon to pay this claim several years hence.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am not responsible for the future, only for the present.
Mr. ALLEY. The Gentfrom Illinois is famous for talking about gagging in this House under the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I stated only the facts in the case; and allow me to say fo the Gentfrom Illinois has shown by his remarks that he knows nothing whatever of the merits of the case or the contract under which the company were acting. I will only say further that I stated to the House most distinctly that if any further questions were asked of the chairman of the committee I would cheerfully answer them, and that I would give any gentleman an opportunity to make any remarks he chose; but if no.questions were to be asked, and no further remarks to be made, I should call the previous question. Under those circumstances I thought it rather ungenerous that the Gentfrom Illinois should make the remarks he did. I will now yield to the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAsson]
Mr. KASSON. I ask to have the JtResolution read. I have a suggestion to make, unless I find it unnecessary after hearing the JtResolution read. The JtResolution was accordingly read.
Mr. KASSON. I will say that upon the facts as I understood the provisions of this JtResolution, the limitation which I feared was not in it will probably tend to accomplish the object sought. I recollect that in the contract that was made this company for a certain sum, I think $160,000, were obliged to carry the printed mail matter, and that they made the contract for about $10,000 less, or about $150,000. The company, however, were obliged also to carry such letters as should be marked to go by that route. That did not contemplate the transfer of the entire letter mail by that route to California. Owing to the interruption by the Indians of the overland service they were obliged to take the entire letter mail, including all those letters, a majority of which were not directed to go by the steamer route to California. From an examination which I made of this matter some days ago, I admit that we ought to limit the appropriation substantially to the amount originally authorized by Congress to be paid for the transpor.tation of printed matter to California, and this JtResolution, so limits it: it provides that they shall be paid in accordance with an equitable adjustment made by the Dept, against the remonstrance of the company carrying the mails.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is one consideration which I think is worthy of the attention of this House. This JtResolution for the appropriation of this $10,000 is not accompanied by any written report whatever. We have only the statement of the chairman of the comPostOffice, the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. ALLEY,) who reported the JtResolution. It is simply his statement. There is nothing to go upon the records or files of the House to show upon what grounds we voted this money. And the gentleman did ask the previous question, but he afterward gave way. In regard to that, let me say that perhaps I spoke a little hastily, but I did not forget that at the last session of Congress the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. ALLEY] brought for ward a proposition here which inflicted the greatest injury on my constituents and the 8 million people of the Northwest in the interest of a railroad company to dam up the Mississippi river, and he called the previous question on that measure and endeavored to shut off all discussion.
Mr. ALLEY. I rise to a question of order. My point of order is that the gentleman is not discussing the question now before the House.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Was the Gentfrom Massachusetts discussing the guestion before the House when he administered his rebuke to me?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Illinois did not raise the question of order on the Gentfrom Massachusetts, or the Chair would have ruled as he now does. The Gentfrom Illinois must confine himself to the JtResolution before the House.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssox] state to the House what fire the terms of the contract, whether or not this steamship company were not bound by the very terms of the contract to carry all the mail matter that the Dept may choose to send by them?
Mr. KASSON. I have not the contract here, but will state my recollection of its provisions. This steamship company agreed to carry all the printed m.ail matter that should be sent by the by the sea route; they also agreed to carry all letters that should have written upon the envelopes a direction for them to be carried by the sea route instead of by the over land route. In point of fact it was expected that the most of the letters would go by the overland route, as being the shorter and quicker route; but the doubts which were raised about the safety of the overland route induced many merchants and others to desire to have their letters go by the sea route, although it would require more days in their transmission. When the overland route was entirely interrupted, in consequence of Indian troubles, the Dept sent all the letters by the sea route. In consequence of that the company claims a large sum, several times the amount proposed here. The Dept insist that if any sum is paid it should be only in proportion to the weight of the letters as compared with the weight of the printed matter carried by the company. If such an adjustment can be adhered to, I Hink it would be a very favorable one for the Dept. I would call the attention of the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. ALLEY] to the only defect in his bill, if I understood it correctly when it was read. I think it does not provide that this sum, if paid, shall be in full satisfaction of the claim of this steamship company for this service.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would like to ask the gentleman, as he was formerly connected with the postoffice Dept, whether the terms of the contract do not require that this company shall perform such occasional additional service as the exigencies of the Dept might require? I was connected with the Committee on Private Claims in former Congresses, and I remember that we had a great many claims brought before us by mail contractors for some extra service they had performed, occasioned by reason of low water or some other temporary cause; but, as I recollect, the Dept had in their contracts guarded against any such demands for extra compensa.tion in such cases.
Mr. KASSON. The general practice of the Dept has been as the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] has stated. But this was an exceptional contract. Originally the overland mail was to take all matter printed and written; but it was discovered that often the drivers of the mail stages, when the got into any very bad place, were in the habit of taking the printed mail matter and use it to fill up the holes and sloughs over which they had to pass, so as to furnish a means for their teams to transport the stages across. In consequence of that the Dept made provision for relieving the overland route from this great amount of printed mail matter, consisting mostly of public documents, &c., which lum bered the coaches exceedingly. I do not speak now of the policy of thus relieving them from that portion of the contract, but it was so done. They arranged to have the entire printed mail matter, except such as was to be distributed along the route, sent by sea; and in that case an exceptional contract was made in reference to printed mail matter.
Mr. ALLEY. If it is in order, to meet the suggestion of the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN, ] I will move to amend by adding the following: And provided further, That this shall be accepted by said company as against full satisfaction for all claims the Government for this service. The facts have been stated correctly by the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. o is no report, and the contract is nothere. But the House will bear me witness that it has been the custom of committees frequently to report bills and JtResolutions without written reports to accompany them. This JtResolution was considered one where it was not necessary to have a report accompanying it. The facts are as stated; and the company would, by a prorata estimate, be entitled to $50,000 or more for the services rendered; and it is the opinion, as I know, of some of the best lawyers in the country that they can claim and recover that sum. But upon the principles of equity and justice I believed, as did the PostMGenl, as well as nearly all the members of the committee, that the company were not entitled to more than $10, 300. The company regard this as a mere bagatelle, and feel great dissatisfaction with the award of the committee and of the Dept. But be that as it may, we all felt, without a dissenting voice, after a full investigation of all the facts, that the company were entitled to at least $10, 300. Nobody disputed that; but there was a difference of opinion in the committee, and there is a difference of opinion in other quarters, with regard to the amount, the company believing themselves entitled (as well as many others) to a much greater amount than the one awarded by the committee. Certainly it seems to me that no honest person can, in view of the facts of the case, deny the justice of awarding the company at least $10, 300. With this explanation I call for the previous question.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I move that the bill and pending amendments be laid on the table.
Mr. SCOFIELD. Would it be in order now, Mr. Speaker, to move to refer the bill to the ComClaims?
Skip Skip The SPEAKER. It would not be. undebatable motions are now pending. The question being taken on the motion of Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, there were ayes 45, noes 46; no quorum voting. The SPEAKER, under the rule, ordered tellers, and appointed Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, and Mr. ALLEY. The House divided, and the tellers reported ayes 63, noes 34. So the motion to lay the bill and pending amendments on the table was agreed to. Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, mtRtv taken, on the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDonALD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested: n act (S.No.454) for the relief of the widow of Jacob Harmon; An act (S.No.455) for the relief of the widow of Henry Fry; and An act (S.No.476) for the relief of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased. PUBLIC BUILDING IN NEWYORK CITY.
Mr. ALLEY, from the comPostOffice, reported a JtResolution to procure a site for a building to accommodate the postoffice and U.S. courts in NewYork city; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. 2 The JtResolution, which was read at length, provides that the mayor and postmaster of the city of NewYork, the district attorney for the U.S. at NewYork city, the president of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of NewYork, and Jackson S. Schultz, Charles H. Russell, and Moses Taylor, of NewYork city, shall be appointed a commission to purchase the site for a building to accommodate the postoffice and U.S. courts in the city of NewYork, in accordance with their report submitted to the SecyInte rior and the PostMGenl, and by them approved, namely: the lower portion of the City Hall park, containing land equal to 26 city lots, or over 96,000 square feet; and that they be authorized to purchase the same for the sum of $500,000, subject to the condition that the Government of the U.S shall stipulate that it shall be used for public purposes only; and that the commission procure plans and estimates for a suitable building upon the site, to be submitted to the PostMGenl and SecyInterior, who, if the plans and estimates meet their approval, are to communicate them to Congress with such additional suggestions as they may think proper; and the SecyTreas. ury is authorized to pay, out of money here after to be appropriated, such sum as may be necessary to carry this resolution into effect.
Mr. RAYMOND. I desire merely to inquire whether the report of this commission, called for by the resolution under, which they were appointed, accompanies the JtResolution.
Mr. ALLEY. The report was sent to the House yesterday and ordered to be printed, and was placed in my hands.
Mr. RAYMOND. I ask that the papers be read
Mr. CHANLER. The Gentfrom Massachusetts will yield to me for a moment. I find nomention in this report in regard to the premises now occupied as a postoffice in the city of NewYork. I should like to have a plain understanding of this question. What is proposed to be done with that property?. It is very valuable, and before acting on this JtResolution it should be known what we propose to do with that property.
Mr. ALLEY. I will say, for the information of the Gentfrom NewYork, that the matter was before the committee, and it was thought best to recommend no action at the present time inasmuch as the property will have to be occupied until the new building is erected. It is supposed that that site will bring $350,000, which will go far toward the purchase of the other site. It was not thought advisable to dispose of it at the present time.
Mr. CHANLER. I ask whether in this transfer of property any contract, direct or implied, has been made to convey at any time the title to the property now occupied as a postoffice in the city of NewYork?, I can well understand that this matter should not be delayed, but I should like to know before we take final action whether there is any understanding of any character whatever for a transfer or sale of the postoffice property in the city of Mr. NewYork. o I will answer the gentleman. There is no understanding, actual or implied, in reference to that whatever, I think the committee were unanimous that no action should be taken upon the subject whatever at present. It was stated insidentally that the property would bring $350,000.
Mr. CHANIER. I will state why I asked the question. It is currently understood the property now held as a postoffice is to be transferred to certain corporations, known as the Chamber of Commerce and Merchants' Exchange, for the erection of a suitable building for their convenience. Instead of this property being sold to the highest bidder and transferred, as it should be, to the advantage of this government, it is likely to be passed over to certain parties who may or may not be directly interested in the present sale. I do not make any charge; I only say that I heard this directly from good authority.
Mr. ALLEY. foil say to the gentleman that I have got no information whatever from any source in regard to that fact except from the gentleman himself. He will recollect that he told me yesterday he had heard of such a rumor. I told him then that I had heard nothing of the kind, neither did I believe there was any such understanding. If there was, it certainly would not be carried into effect without a special act of Congress. Inasmuch as the Government owns the property, it cannot be transferred to any party except by special act of Congress, and in such manner as Congress shall direct. And it is not proposed by the committee or anybody else to take any action at present in reference to that matter.
Mr. DODGE. Mr. Speaker, this matter of a postoffice in the city of NewYork is one of national interest. It is not merely a postoffice for the accommodation of citizens of NewYork, but for the benefit of the entire country. The building now occupied is the old Dutch church transformed into a postoffice, and is one of the most inconvenient places for such a purpose that can possibly be conceived in a city. magnitude of NewYork. The vast increase of business in that city demands that there should be a postoffice of a magni tude sufficient to do the business rapidly, conveniently, and economically in the city of NewYork. Only a few years ago we had our mails from Europe once a month by steamers. When they came trimonthly we felt that it was a great increase. We now have our steamers almost daily from various parts of Europe, and I noticed that on Saturday last there were 12 large steamships cleared from the city of NewYork, each of them carrying the mail. The mail matter within the last ten years in the city of NewYork has increased from 30 to 100 tons daily. The property now offered by the corporation of NewYork to the U.S. Government for a postoffice and for the U.S. courts, at the nominal sum of $500,000, would sell at public auction tomorrow for from 3 to 5 million dollars. It is an opportunity such as the Government can seldom obtain. It is the most feasible, the most eligible spot in the city of NewYork for a postoffice, and although there is great objection to using a portion of our public park for a postoffice, yet such is the necessity and such the desire to accommodate the U.S. Government that the corporation has yielded a plot of ground at the lower end of the public park equal to 26 lots for that purpose. It is such a favor. able opportunity that I trust the House will see the importance of embracing it so as to secure a postoffice in the most convenient and eligible position at a mere nominal price.
Mr. ALLEY. If no other gentleman desires to say anything
Mr. BOUTWELL. I wish to ask a question. I see by the resolution that the purpose is to make the mayor of the city of NewYork, the postmaster, and the district attorney mem. bers of this commission. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks it is a wise provision to appoint on this commission men wholly irresponsible except in the most indi. rect way.
Mr. ALLEY. I will say that a majority of the commission occupy official position, and the outsiders are well known to be of the very highest standing. This was the original com. mission, and it is but just to say that they have performed the duties gratuitously with entire satisfaction to all parties, and that upon this commission are certainly some as ardent republicans as my colleague himself.
Mr. BOUTWELL. I must inform my colleague that when he names certain persons officially the designation does not necessarily indicate their politics. To leave a public interest in the hands of the mayor of the city of NewYork without knowing who he may be I dare say the present mayor is a responsible man is, in my opinion, very unwise. And if my colleague will allow me I will suggest still further, that if it is the intention to put the courts in this building, from what I know of NewYork I can conceive of no worse place than this. It may be well for the postoffice, but not for the U.S. court. It is the very worst place in the city of NewYork.
Mr. McRUER. I merely wish to say that this committee is authorized only to prepare and receive specifications and estimates and submit the matter to the approval of Congress.
Mr. ALLEY. In answer to my colleague [Mr. Boutwell] I will repeat the remark of my colleague on the committee, [Mr. McRUER,) that this resolution merely provides that this commission, which serves gratuitiously and is composed of some of the best men in the country, shall }.a site and report to the SecyInterior and the PostMGenl, who are to communicate the report, with such suggestions as they may deem proper, to Congress. That seems to me to be clothing them with very little power; not enough, certainly, to excite anybody's fears.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would like to have the names of the commission read.
The Clerk read the names, as follows: The mayor, the district attorney, the postmaster, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Jackson S. Schultz, Charles H. Russell, and Moses Taylor.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I wish to add another name a man I know to be an honest man in NewYork. I move to add the name of Charles H. Rogers.
Skip Skip Mr. oy. I now call the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered, being 1st upon Mr. WAshburtNE's amendment. Mr. WENTWORTH called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. LeBloxo, and WASHBURNE of Illinois, were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 56, noes 49. So The amendment was agreed to. The JtResolution, as amended, was then orderengross and read a 3rd time: and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. ALLEY mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. Several messages in writing, from the POTUS, were communicated to the House by Mr. Robert Johnson, his private Secretary. WIDOW OF JACOB HARMON.
Mr. MAYNARD moved that Senate bill No. 454, for the relief of the widow of Jacob Har mon, be taken from The SPEAKer's table and referred. No objection was made; and the bill was accordingly read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. WIDOW OF HENRY FRY.
Mr. MAYNARD also moved that Senate bill No. 455, for the relief of the widow of Henry Fry, be taken from The SPEAKer's table and referred. No objection was made; and the bill was accordingly read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. WILLIAM. A. AND JACOb M. Hinshaw.
Mr. MAYNARD also moved that Senate bill No. 476, for the relief of William A. Hin shaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased, be taken from The SPEAKer's table and referred. No objection was made; and the bill was accordingly read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. NATIONAL SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, reported back with amendments, from the ComBanking&Currency, Senate bill No. 177, to incorporate the National Safe Deposit Company, of Washington, DistCol, with a recommendation that the same do pass. The amendments were as follows: Insert the word “special” before the word “de posit” in the 3rd line of section 5; so that the same posit, ” read “to receive and keep on special de&c. In line 18 of the same section strike out the words “funds of" and insert in lieu thereof the words “other funds belonging to;” so as to real “and also to invest the capital or other funds be longing to In the said company, ” &c. lines 19 and 20 of the same section strike out the words or such money or funds as may be oil. with said company for that purpose. Add to section 8 the following: “nor be deemed to authorize the said corporation to pay interest on deposits of money, securities, or any other property with it; and this corporation 3. be confined to the DistCol.”
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. For the information of the House, I would state that the object of all these amendments is to prevent this corporation from becoming by any possibility a trust or banking company, and to confine its operations to the simple business of safe keeping of articles of value that may be intrusted to it.
Skip Skip The amendments were agreed to. The bill, as amended, was then read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, mtRtv the bill was passed, upon the table. agreed to. MOTHER OF CHARLES O. ROWOHL.
Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution for the relief of the mother of Charles O. Rowohl; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. CHARLES T. M.ARTIN.
Mr. STOKES, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Charles T. Martin, of Tennessee; which was read a 1st and sec o, ond time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens.: CONTRACTS FOR FIREARMS.
Mr. PATTERSON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was … read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That the SecyWar be requested t to o communicateto this House what contractsfor fire arms, rifles, carbines, and pistols have been made sinceApril 5, 1864;with whom contracted, and the price paid for each arm; whether any contract for r” armshas been extended or renewed, and if so, with. whom, for what length of time, and for what number; whether there has been an increase of price uponanyoriginal contract for arms, or upon any extension or renewal, and if so, for what amount and to whomgiven; whether any contract for arms has a.o. beensub let by the contractor, and if so, upon what 3 conditions. of BOUNTIES AND LOST DISCHARGES.
Mr. SCHENCK. I desire to make a statement to and a request of the House. The ComMilAffrs are prepared to report at a very early day a bill upon the subject of bounties and the lost discharges of soldiers, providing for the admission of testimony in. relation to the loss. It will probably be a long ". time before the committee is regularly called, and I therefore ask the House to grant leave. to the committee to report that bill at any time; o not now, but at any time hereafter, after the to expiration of the morning hour., No objection was made, and leave was accordinglygranted. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 12
Mr. LONGYEAR. I ask leave for the with rawal of the memorial of John H. Hamlin, Wesented at the last session and referred to the ComMilAffrs. There being no objection, leave was granted. MURDER OF FEDERAL SOLDIERs.
The Speaker laid before the House the "ing message from the POTUS: To the HoRep: herewith a report from the SecyWar, and the accompanying papers, in the resolution of the HoRep of the 18th ultimo, requesting copies documents, orders, letters, and every description relative to to the trial 2. Y commission, and conviction o oand others, for the murder of the and others, and to the of oro, in the case of said Crawford Keys go.". liociates, their transfer to [.ouent Fort release upon a corp t3. writ ANDREWJOHNSON. Washisotos, January 8, 1867. The message, with the accompanying papers, was ordered to be printed, and on motion of Mr. FARNsworth, was referred to the select committee on the murder of Federal soldiers in SCarolina. NAVAL SERVICE FOR STATE DEPT.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep: I transmit here with a communication of the SecyNavy, in answer to a resolution of the House of the 19th ultimo, requesting a statement of the amounts charged the State Dept since May 1, 1865, for services rendered by naval vessels. ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGToN, January 9, 1867. The message, with the accompanying documents, was referred to the ComAppropriat, and ordered to be printed. PARDONs. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep: I transmit the accompanying report from the AttyGen, as a partial reply to the resolution of the HoRep of the 10th ultimo, requesting “a list of names of all persons engaged in the late rebellion against the U.S. Government who have been pardoned by him from April 15, 1865, to this date; that said list shall i. state the rank of each person who has been so pardoned, if he has been engaged in the military service of the socalled confederate government, and the position if he shall have held any civil office under said, socalled confederate government, and shall also further state whether such person has at any time prior to April 14, 1861, held any office under the U.S. Government, and if so, what office, together with the reasons for. such pardons; and also the names of the person or persons at whose solicitation such pardon was granted.” ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGTON, January 8, 1867. The message and accompanying documents were, on motion of Mr. WILson, of Iowa, referred to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed. INCREASED PAY of civil EMPLOYees.
The House, agreeably to order, proceeded to the consideration of the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service at Washington. The JtResolution provides that there shall be allowed and paid, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the following described persons employed in the civil service at Washington, namely: to clerks, messengers, watchmen, and laborers, and all the civil employees whose pay or salaries do not exceed the sum of $3, 500 each, as fixed by law prior to June 30, 1864, and including tem porary clerks and female clerks in the Dept of State, and in the Treasury, War, Navy, interior, postoffice, and Agricultural Depts; in the office of the AttyGen, Coast Survey, Naval Observatory, navy yard, PayMGen; Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands; city postoffice; enlisted men serving as clerks in the Adjutant Generafs office, and detectives of the Metro politan police, an additional compensation of 20%. on their respective salaries or pay for one year from and after the 30th day of June, 1866. It is provided that the additional compensation to the employees of the Patent Office shall be paid out of the funds of that office, and that where the salary or pay of any person entitled to receive additional compensation under this resolution has been increased by law since the date of June 30 1864, or where such person may have receive additional compensation through the action of any head of any Dept from funds placed by law in his hands for distribution, such person shall be cntitled to receive only so much as will make the whole sum received as additional compensation equal to 20%. on his salary or pay as aforesaid. It is further provided that this resolution shall apply only to such persons as may be in service at the time of its passage, and who were in the civil service at Washington during the whole of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866.
Mr. KASSON. I ask why the gentleman confines his last amendment to the Treasury Dept?
Mr. GARFIELD. There is an exceptional class in the Treasury Dept. The JtResolution reaches every other case of female clerks.
Mr. KASSON. If there is equality in the female clerks of all the Depts, I have no objection; but we have legislated once to establish that equality, and I do not want we shall be compelled to do so again.
Mr. GARFIELD. I demand the previous question on the substitute.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Let me suggest an amendment in reference to the clerks in the quartermaster's dept here.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Not the clerks I refer to. We have in Washington a large office which is not a part of the War Dept at all. I desire to incorporate an amendment that the clerks employed in the quartermaster's dept of the Army here shall have a like increase. They are graded like other clerks.
Mr. GARFIELD. That question belongs to the Military Committee, and I cannot allow it to come in upon a bill for the civil service.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I cannot see why it should not be allowed to come in as well as others.
Mr. BANKS. Does the substitute extend the increase to soldiers acting as clerks since the 30th of June, 1865?
The SPEAKER. It will facilitate action if he House will consider the substitute as the original bill. If the substitute be now adopted no amendment will be in order.
The SPEAKER. It will be so considered, then.
Mr. ALLISON. In line 26 of the substitute I move to strike out the word “preceding, ” so it will read “the current fiscal rear.”
Mr. GARFIELD. I will now make a statement of what the committee proposes, and when I have concluded I.". to any gentleman who may wish to make any suggestion.
Mr. MAYNARD. The gentleman will allow me to inquire if his bill does not contemplate an increase of salaries of 20%. to all persons in the civil service whose salaries are under $3, 500.
Mr. GARFIELD. The increase extends to all in the civil service at Washington whose salaries are less than $3, 500.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would ask the gentleman whether it is just to make an exception in favor of those in the civil service to the exclu fsion of those in the military and naval ser. vice?
Mr. PAINE. I would suggest to the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] to insert the words “and Marine corps” after the words “Army and Navy.” It may be that there are no enlisted men of that corps in the Depts now; but there is no reason why there shouldnot be, and this bill should cover those cases.
Mr. GARFIELD. I will modify my amendmentso as to include the Marine corps, and now I will yield for a few moments to the chairman of the ComWays&Means, [Mr. MoRRILL.J
Mr. MORRILL. I desire to call the attention of the House to that portion of the printed bill, at the end, which is stricken out in the substitute. I think there is something good in the lines thus stricken out, and if the reasons offeredby the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] are the only reasons which can be given for striking out those lines, then I will propose an amendment reincorporating the original lines as 1st reported in the bill, with a modification to meet the objection the gentleman has named. I move to insert the following after the word “resolution” in line 34: And who were in the civil service at Washington duringthe whole of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865 or who prior to such appointment in the civil servicehave been in the military or naval service of the U.S. between the 12thday of April, 1861, and ytdhiese 19th day of April, 1865 and have beenhonor therefrom. One cogent reason for reporting any bill upon this subject is that these clerks and employes have suffered from inadequate salaries through the years 1864, 1865, and 1866. Now, is it reasonable to provide that men who have received appointments here, say on the 1st of January of this year, or during the last 6 months, should come in and reap the benefits of this bill? I think the House will reach the conclusion that this billought to apply to those who have been in service for some considerable length of time, and ought to exclude all recent appointments, save those who have been in the military or naval service of the country. That is the scope of the amendment I have offered, and I hope it will be received without any objection.
Mr. GARFIELD. I am always sorry to differ with the distinguished chairman of my committee, [Mr. MoRRILL:] but it seems to me that if we put on this bill the limitation which he proposes we will wrong a very large class of persons. For instance, we would let in those who were in the military or naval service, no matter how long or how short a time; while a good man who was not physically able to go into the Army or Navy, although he may have served in a civil capacity within 2 days of the limitation proposed by the amendment of the gentleman, would be entirely excluded from the benefits of this resolution. It seems to me that in thus saving a little money we shall give a very large number of persons good reason to be dissatisfied. Now, one word more. I will go as far as any reasonable man ought to go in asserting. the rights and protecting the interests of those who have been soldiers and sailors of our Army and Navy. For the soldier or sailor who was disabled in the service of his country I will make special demands for the protection and patronage of the Government. But for the able bodied man, who has come out of the Army with person uninjured and health unim paired, I do not demand any higher salary than for any other man who was as patriotic as he, but for some worthy reason did not go into the Army. For a wounded soldier I make specialdemands; but I have no right, as a soldier, to demand anything more from the government in payment for civil service than any otherman whose services are equally valuable. As the resolution now stands it treats all alike. The gentleman's amendment makes an unjust discrimination, not in favor of soldiers but against civilians. I hope the amendment will not prevail. I. call for the previous question. On 2nding the previous question, there were ayes 34, noes not counted. So
Skip Skip The previous question was not 2nded.Mr. FAIRNSWORTH obtained the floor. Mr. GARFIELD. I am entitled to the floor, I believe.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD) cannot retain the floor. The previous question, which he demanded, has been voted down, and therefore, according to the usage, the floor reverts to some gentleman who opposed the demand for the previous question.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Ioffer as a substitute for the whole bill the amendment which I send to the desk.
The SPEAKER. A substitute must be re. served until the original bill has been perfected. It may be reported, however, for information. Several MEMBERs. Let it be read.
The Clerk read as follows: Reit resolved, doc., That the provisions of the cight eenth section of the act entitled “An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1857, and for other purposes, ” be, and the same are hereby, extended so as to include the clerks, messengers, watchmen, labor ers, and other civil employees whose pay or salaries do not exceed the sumof $3, 500cach, and including tem orary clerks, female clerks, and employees in all the 2xecutive Depts and their respectivebureaus, and in the CoastSurvey office, Naval Observatory, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, city postoffice, and in the quartermaster's dept of the Ho! Washington, enlisted men serving as clerks in the Adjutant Generafs office and in the officeof the Superintendent of Public Printing at Washington: and the amount necessary to pay this allowance is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That this additional compensation to the omployes of the Patent Office be paid out of of said office. the funds
Mr. GARFIELD. I beg the gentleman's pardon; I did not say so. I said so far as the question of the Government paying them compensation in civil offices I regarded them as on the same basis as others of equal merit.
Mr. SCHENCR. Yes, sir; paid to the pets of the Dept. I speak of that of which I have knowledge. I went to the SecyTreasury and remonstrated with him upon this construction of the law and this application of the fund, and it was explained to me that there were in the Dept a great man gentlemen of high intelligence and commanding ability who were receiving already the highest o, and who could get higher sala ries elsewhere, and to prevent their going elsewhere for employment it was necessary to distribute this fund; but as to these little fellows, the 12 or 1400 dollar chaps, he could get upon the ringing of the bell as many as he pleased any day. Well, that may be so, but I hold that the intention of the government as represented in Congress was to help those who most needed help, and not squander the fund on favorites of the Dept, nor give it to those that had most. There may be scriptural authority for that taking away from him that hath nothing that which he hath, paradoxical as it may seem to be but I do not think it was intended by Congress to make any such misapplication of Scripture in this case. It may be argued that these men who have comein from the military service or from civil life into these Depts, displacing other men, are as much entitled to an increase of compensation as any other, and that there should be no common law which would exclude any portion of them. They came in, Mr. Speaker, during high prices. They came in recently, accepting what they knew was the position, and how comparatively inadequate was the compensation for the service. So there is no particular hardship to them. Civilians who came to Washington and sought this employment, displacing other men, during the years 1865 and 1866, are not entitled to very much sympathy when we take into account the fact that they knew what they were seeking and what compensation they were to get for the service they were to perform.
Mr. GRINNELL. I desire to state that I had prepared an amendment, which I propose to send up at the proper time, providing for those who were dismissed from the service on the 31st, of December, 1866. Now, sir, it is manifestly unjust to those who have come into these places during a period of low prices, and are now removed for political opinions, that they should be cut off altogether. I propose that those who were dismissed prior to the 1st of January, 1867, without being charged with fraud or malfeasance shall be regarded as well as the other class. I also propose that no person who has been in the civil service or in the army or navy in the socalled confederate States shall be included. Sir, my constituents have been turned out of these offices to give place to rebels who shot bullets at their hearts, and I am called upon to vote that these same rebels shall receive extra compensation while my friends have been proscribed. I never can be a party to the wrong of cutting off altogether from this compensation those who went out with the departure of the year 1866. I therefore profose at the proper time to offer the amendment have indicated.
Mr. SCHENCK. I was about to say, before I yielded to the Gentfrom Iowa, in refer.ence to those who accepted these places recently, that they are on a different footing from the older employees; that those who were formerly in the service entered it a time when, by our legislation and by the exigencies of the country, there had not been this enormous inflation of prices, and it is proper that they should have the increase of pay; but not those who came in within the last year or two, who are alone excluded by the provisions of the bill as origi nally reported. They came in after this inflation and after this legislation of Congress, and there can be no pretense on their part that by our legislation and by the consequent condition of the country the terms of their engagement have been in any respect virtually altered, or their salaries practically lowered by reason of the lowering of the standard of the currency of the country. Now, sir, I felt impelled to make these remarks from a feeling that the honorable member from Vermont, [Mr. MoRRILL,) was not presenting his amendment in such a manner as that the could distinctly understand it, he assuming that they all did so without any further explanation of what he was aiming at..]". to leave this bill as originally reported, cutting off the persons who have accepted office within the last year or 2 from the benefit of its provisions, but adding to it a further clause to extend its benefits to every man who has been in the military service of the country in any capacity during the war.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I have prepared an amendment which I think will meet the views of so the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. I desire to have it read.
Mr. MYERS. I yield to the gentleman for a moment for that purpose.
The Clerk read as follows: Provided, That this resolution shall not apply to any member of the Johnson Deptal Club. [Laughter.l
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I think that will cover the whole ground.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that is not in order as an amendment to the pending amendment.
Mr. MYERS. Iintend, Mr. Speaker, after a very few words, to offer an amendment to come in on the 19th and 20th lines on the 2nd page of the bill as reported. My objection to the JtResolution and to the several amendments is only this: that the resolution does not go far enough. The resolution only proposes to give additional compensation to these several employees for 6 months up to the 1st of January of this year.
Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman is mistaken; it extends to a whole year.
Mr. MYERS. It applies to 6 months from now, but it only dates back 6 months. Now this Congress has voted to increase the pay of its members; it has voted to do some little justice to our soldiers, and will probably do the same for the sailors who were accidentally omitted in the bounty bill, without regard to any lapse of time. The country has sanctioned both measures. I believe that a i. like meed of should be accorded to this clerical orce and these employees of the Government, whose salaries have not been increased since the commencement of the war, while prices have been continually advancing and stilf seem to keep up. Sir, I am in favor of economy as much as any gentleman here; not that economy which turns men out of a navy yard at this season of the year, and for want of proper precautions allows millions of dollars to be lost by the burning of a noble vessel; not that economy which appoints dishonest revenue officers, diminishing our receipts from that source and adding to the burdens of the honest tax payers. But the true political theory I declare, is that all men have a right to a living and that the laborer is worthy of his hire. I believe that this bill does not go far enough back in paying these men what they deserve. Now, I concur in many of the suggestions which fell from the lips of the gentleman who preceded me, and all I have to say is that I shall not press my amendment if it appears to be objectionable to the House. I believe that these men would rather have their salaries increased back to the commencement of the year 1866, when they were suffering from high prices, than to have it run for 6 months from this date and 6 months for the last year. That is all I have to say, and I hope the gentleman who offered this bill will embody my amendment in it.
Mr. GARFIELD. I suggest to the gentleman that his amendment is not in order at this and that it belongs to another part of the 111. I wish to say a word or 2 and then to close the debate on the pending amendments. I perfectly agree with my colleague who addressed the House a momentago [Mr. Schenck] on the point that those appointments that have been made during the last 8 months have many of them been made on the most shameful principle of political favoritism. I would have been glad, if we could have done it, to reach all such persons; but I am in favor of doing whatever I do directly, and if the gentleman wants to do it, let him bring forward a proposition that no person appointed for political reasons shall receive any of this extra compensation. Now, he proposes to do it in an indirect way, and at the expense of our true friends. And I desire to show that that is so. If any gentleman desires to make a political argument, purely as such, I would like him to state in the 1st place at what time President Johnson and his administration began to make appointments in the Depts of our political enemies. He will probably say that it was begun about the month of March, 1866, after the 22d of February, and from March to May last. Then I would ask, what about all those persons who were appointed from the day President Lincoln died to May last, say a year or more? Everybody appointed within that pe. riod, long before political appointments were made, of our friends thus appointed the gentleman proposes to cut off, every man of them, for the sake of punishing a few appointed since that time. And what else does he propose to do? He says he wants to let the soldiers in. He desires to open the door to any soldier or sailor who prostituted himself to
Mr. JOHNson, and bowed before him for the sake of getting an appointment. If a soldier disgraced himself to obtain an appointment, my colleague says we should pay him. But he proposes to cut off at a single all the appointments made one whole year before these political appointments were made, and in regard to whom there is not the least taint of political favoritism. Now, I would be willing to drown a fly or to kill a gnat; but I do not propose to set the ocean in motion and kill the children for the sake of killing a gnat. Now, it seems to me that the the proposition of my colleague on the committee, [Mr. MoRRILL] for the sake of accomplishing a purpose indirectly, does ten times the injustice he proposes to remedy. I now call the pending question on the amendment of the Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. MoRRILL]
Mr. MAYNARD. Would a motion to recommit be in order at this time?
The SPEAKER. It would not, pending the order for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered, which was upon the following amendment by Mr. MoRRILL: In line 34, after the word “resolution, ” insert the following: And who were in the civil service at Washington during the whole of 1866, the fiscal year ending June: or who, prior to such appointment in the civil service, had been in the military or naval service of the U.S. between the 12th day of April, 1hSoGnIo, raanbdly the 19th day of April, 1865 and had been discharged therefrom.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon the amendment; and upon a division there were ayes 48, noes 69. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. MORRILL called for the yeas&nays upon agreeing to the amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative–yeas 50, nays 88, not voting 53;. So the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. GARFIELD. I. now call the previous question upon the bill and pending amendments.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I desire permission to make a few remarks upon the substitute which I have offered.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] will be entitled to one hour after the previous question shall have been 2nded .
Mr. GARFIELD. I will give the gentleman some of my time after the previous question is 2nd ed.
Mr. PIKE. I call the attention of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] to the terms of the bill as contained in line 8, and I would inquire of him whether, in view of that provision, this increase of pay will apply to the officers of the internalrevenue dept as reorganized under the act of July last.
Mr. GARFIELD. The bill is intended to apply except in those cases where the salary has already been increased.
Mr. FARQUHAR. I desire to put an inquiry to the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD] He has stated that this bill is intended to apply to clerks in this city. I wish to ask him whether it will include railway messengers and clerk
Mr. FARQUHAR. Is it not proper that they should be included?
Mr. GARFIELD. No, sir; because they are scattered all over the country. The special reason for the passage of this bill is the extremelyhigh price of living in the city of Washington.
Mr. ALLISON. Will my colleague on the committee[Mr. GARFIELD] permitome to move an amendment, to strike out from line 32 down to and including the word “resolution” in line 34? The words I propose to strike out are the following: And providedfurther, That this resolution shall only to such persons as may be in service at the e of the passageof this resolution.
Skip Skip Mr. GARFIELD. I cannot yield for that amendment. I demand the previous question. On 2nding the call for the previous question there were ayes 57, noes 42. Mr. LOAN. I call for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. Loan and ALLIsox were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 65, noes 53. So The previous question was 2nded.The main question was ordered. The R. The Gentfrom Ohio Mr. GARFIELD] is entitled to the floor to close the debate.
Mr. GARFIELD. I yield ten minutes to the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. FARNsworth]
Mr. GRINNELL. I ask the Gentfrom Ohio to yield to me.
Mr. GARFIELD. It will not require any person to refund any money. That has been carefully guarded against.
Mr. BANKS. It authorizes them to receive the increased compensation they now receive.
Mr. There is $100,000 in the hands of the SecyTreasury under a former law which he can distribute according to his discretion. It is intended for mere tem porary clerks.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. The gentleman who has charge of the bill will yield to me for a moment. I thought there were great defects in the original bill, but I have become ersuaded that those defects have been cured. the substitute. The 1st object of the American Congress is to do right, and the 2nd to give the public satisfaction. It is impossible, in passing such ameasure of relief, to make the discriminations which our friends think ought to be made without great injustice and creating great public dissatisfaction. If there are men in office who have taken part with the socalled confederacy they ought to be turned out; and if they cannot be turned out in any other way the power that placed them there ought to be overthrown. We cannot make discriminations without doing injustice and without creating public dissatis faction. I believe this bill is as broad as we can make it, and I prefer it as it now stands before the House., Mr. MAYNARD. I see it is proposed to add 20%. to the pay of all those whose salaries do not exceed the sum of $3, 500. I ask the gentleman whether by that provision the $3, 500 officers are not in a better condition than those who now get $4,000. Will they not get $4, 200, or $200 more than the other class?
Mr. GARFIELD. The surplus funds are in the hands of the SecyTreasury, and he can regulate the matter. But we want to make a limit somewhere: we do not want to pay this increase to all the high class clerks. f there should be half a dozen such as the gentleman speaks of there would have to be some remedy provided for them hereafter.
Mr. MAYNARD. Could not the gentleman have remedied that difficulty by saying that no pay should exceed a certain amount as a max imum?
Mr. GARFIELD. Perhaps it might be done. I now yield a few moments to the Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. MoRRILL.I]
Mr. MORRILL. I should have much preferred the bill with my amendment added. I still prefer it as it stands to the substitute proosed by the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. ARNsworth] It is more carefully guarded throughout. But in regard to the substitute, according to the gentleman's own confession, he does not know how it will be construed or how long it is to continue to operate. The present bill will probably take from the Treas: ury not less than a million and a quarter of money. If my amendment had been adopted it would have saved a quarter of a million. If the proposition of the Gentfrom Illinois prevails I shall be compelled to vote against the whole bill, and move to lay it on the table.
Mr. GARFIELD. I now yield to the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. ALLIson]
Mr. ALLISON. I presume the object of this bill is o.the clerks and employees of the various Depts of the Government what they earn and are fairly entitled to. Now, the proposition of the Gentfrom Illinois is to have the increased compensation date back to the 4th of March, 1865, and the reason he gives for it is that we have allowed our own clerks and employees 20%. additional compensation, beginning with the present Congress. The salaries of these various clerks begin and end with the fiscal year, while the salaries of employees in the 2 Houses begin and end with the Congress. Therefore the reason for the adoption of the provision in the 18th section in the appropriation bill of last year does not apply to that class of clerks. JBut the proposition of the Gentfrom Illinois ogo still further. It will allow the employees in the Treasury Dept, who for the fiscal year ending in 1866 have received additional compensation in the aggregate to the amount of $200,000, to still receive the additional 20%.; and it fails to meet the proposition of Ohio, the Gentfrom which discloses the fact that this sum was disbursed among a higher class of clerks, and not that class who are presumed to be the most needy.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I propose, with the permission of the House, to amend the substitute in that particular by adding to it the same proviso that is in the original bill, cutting off those who have already received additional compensation from the benefits of the bill. If the House will permit me I will amend the bill in that particular; if not, it may be done in the Senate.
Mr. ALLISON. I shall, of course, object to that amendment unless we go back and amend the original bill, so as to include a proposition which is just and ought to be inserted in it, which will allow all clerks, whether they are in the employment of the Government today or were so yesterday, to come in and receive the additional compensation. The Government of the U.S. is not an eleemosynary corporation, dealing out char ities to clerks. We are paying these men be: cause we believe they are entitled to compensation for service rendered, and there is no reason why a clerk who may be employed tomorrow should not receive additional compensation if he earns it, nor that a clerk who was discharged yesterday for political or other rea: sons should not receive that compensation if he has earned it during the fiscal year 1866. Now, I am opposed to this discrimination. We should not discriminate against any class of clerks and that proposition is clearly com: prehended in the original bill but if we are to appropriate from one to 2 million dollars, that will be the effect of the proposition of the Gentfrom Illinois. It will be simply a gratuity to this class after the 4th of March, 1866. I do not feel called, upon to give them such gratuity, and I shall vote against this whole proposition, unless it is confined to the current fiscal year and includes every class of clerks in the Executive Depts.
Mr. GARFIELD. I will now yield ten minutes to my colleague, [Mr. SchENCK,) and then I shall occupy 5 minutes of the time of the House before I call the previous question.
Mr. LATHAM. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if he will yield for that purpose.
Mr. LATHAM. Can the gentleman inform the House whether these parties of whom he isoappointed in the Depts prior to the 30th day of June, 1866, or since that time?.
Mr. SCHENCK. I cannot tell. I only refer to them as a sample of the lot; I only refer to them to show by what means and professions men retain office, but still more as an exemplifi.cation of the kind of miserable, base subser viency and abuse of everything but the President by which they obtained office. I want some discrimination which shall draw a distinction betweenmen animated by such principles only, if that can be called principle at all, and other classes of men who might reasonably be presurned to be more honest.
Mr. LATHAM. Can the gentleman give us any information by whom they were appointed?
Mr. LATHAM. Or whether they are not honest now?
Mr. ROSS. I would suggest to the gentleman, in order to obviate the difficulty, that he should provide that those who sustain Congress should be paid. He might obviate the difficulty in that way.
Mr. LeBLOND. I ask my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD] to yield to me for about 2 minutes.
Mr. GARFIELD. As no member on the other side has been heard, I will yield the gentleman 3 minutes, if that will satisfy him.
Mr. LeBLOND. Mr. Speaker, I supposed when this bill came up that it was a bill for the purpose of increasing the pay of clerks in the Depts. I am in favor of such an increase. I believe it is demanded by considerations of propriety and justice. I cannot see how members here who voted to increase their own pay can consistently refuse to increase the compensation of these clerks, who receive salaries far below those of members of Congress. But, sir, I have finally come to the conclusion, after hearing the remarks of my colleague from the Dayton district, [Mr. SciFNck] that this is a bill for a very different purpose; that I was entirely mistaken in my view of its character. The gentleman has manifested a great deal of bitterness; why, I cannot tell.; is possible that theo vote received by him at the last election has had something to do with the vindictive manner in which he has presented this case, and accounts for the evident animus of his remarks.
Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman is mis. taken about that.
Mr. LeBLOND. It is possible some of the appointees of AndrewJohnson have o a wound, upon my colleague, not seriously hope. I hope he will survive. From the manner he treats the whole question one would suppose some of AndrewJohnson's appointees had given him a deadly wound and he is struggling to live. I was trying to rise to a question of order that he had progressed 5 or 6 minutes and had not said a word against AndrewJohnson and his appointees, but very soon I was relieved from that trouble, for he fell back upon his old scheme of opposing AndrewJohnson. And for what? For doing what every President has done since the organization of the Government down to the present time: appointed men of his own choice, men to carry out his own policy. But that does not suit the views of my friend who received at the last election a diminished majority, and he is to avenge himself against the President because he was not so popular at the last election as he seemed at the 1st. I thank my colleague for the courtesy he has extended to me.
Mr. GARFIELD. I do not propose to say more than a few words. I am right in saying there has been no change in the bill except those recommended by the ComWays&Means. The amendments of the committee are embodied in the substitute. I trust gentlemen will not be confused when they come to vote. The bill as amended by the ComWays&Means is the substitute now before the House. It confines this to the present fiscal year, while the substitute of the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. FARNsworth] runs back and makes the additional pay continuous. This is all in the judgment of the ComWays&Means that can justly be given. I would be glad as well as my colleague from the Day ton district, if I knew how to do it properly, to reward those who have been turtled out and punish those who have been put in their places. of no other way than to let the rainfall upon the just and unjust alike. I call for a vote.
Mr. HILL. I move to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered.
Mr. GARFIELD. I move that the motion be laid upon the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message was received from the Senate by Mr. MCDoxALD, Chief Clerk, notifying the House that that body had passed Senate bill No. 456, for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union; in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. AGAIN. The question recurred on Mr. FARNsworth's substitute.
Skip Skip The House divided; and there were ayes 46, noes 63. So the substitute was defeated. The ioint resolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and '; engrossed, it was accordingly read the thir time. Mr. GARFIELD. I demand the previous question on the passage of the JtResolution. Mr. BENJAMIN moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and thereupon E. 25 minutes past 4 o'clock) the house adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. THURSDAY, January 10, 1867. Prayer by Rev. A. D. GILLETTE, D. D., of Washington city. The Secretary proceeded to read the Journal of yesterday.
Mr. SHERMAN. I move to dispense with the further reading of the Journal. It is very long, consisting mainly of yeas&nays.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It can be dispensed with only by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Is there any objection? No objection being made, the further reading of the Journal is dispensed with.
Mr. ANTHONY. I move that leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the senate the papers in the case of Benjamin Tilley, praying for rent of land occupied by the War dept in Washington city, as the site of a portion of the barracks constituting Camp Fry, and that they be referred to the ComClaims. There has been an adverse report, but additional evidence is presented. The motion was agreed to. On motion of Mr. MORRILL, it was Ordered, That the memorial of of the surviving heirs William B. Foster, praying for the adoption of measures to secure to Government to William themB.thFeosatmeroautntth, deuteimfreomofthhies death, be withdrawn from the files of referred the Senate and to the ComRevClaims. RePORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. CHANDLER, from the ComCommerce, to whom was referred the petition of O. E. Dreutzer, praying for compensation for services rendered as consul of the U.S. at Bergen, Norway, from the 5th of November, 1865, to the 26th of May, 1866, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComClaims; which was agreed to.
Mr. LANE, from the ComPensions, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Adeline M. Gould, praying for a pension, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.497) granting a pension to Mrs. Adeline M. Gould. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading, and the report was ordered to be printed. '. also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Josephine Slocum, praying for a pension, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.498) granting a pension to or Josephine Slocum. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading, and the report was ordered to be printed. s.Are deposit COMPANY.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate the amendments of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.177) to in corporate the National Safe Deposit Company of Washington.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senfrom Maine chairman of the ComDistCol, is not present. I move that these amendments be referred to that committee. The motion was agreed to. WINE NA AND StPetERS RAILROAD.
Mr. SHERMAN. I move to postpone all prior orders and take up the bill reported by the ComFinance for the relief of the Wine na and StPeters Railroad Company.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to ask my friend from Ohio whether that bill will lead to any discussion.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think none at all. I presume the reading of the report will satisfy every Senator.
Mr. EDMUNDS. With that understanding I have no objection. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S.No.494) for the relief of the Wine na and StPeters Railroad Company was read the 2nd time and considered as in ComWhole. It provides for refunding to the Wi nona and StPeters Railroad Company, gold, in the sum of $3, 424 28, being the additional duties paid by them on railrond iron under the JtResolution entitled “A JtResolution to increase temporarily the duties on imports, ” approved April 29, 1864.
Mr. POLAND, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill R. 830, to fix the times for the regular meetings of Congress. The motion was agreed to; and the bill was considered as in ComWhole. The 1st section of the bill provides that in addition to the present regular times of meeting of Congress, there shall be a meeting of the 40th Congress of the U.S., and of each succeeding Congress thereafter, at 12 o'clock meridian, on the 4th day of March, the day on which the term begins for which the Congress is elected, except that when the 4th of March occurs on Sunday, then the meeting shall take place at the same hour on the next succeeding day. The 2nd section declares that section 17 of the act approved July 28, 1866, entitled “An act o: appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes, ” shall be so amended that no Senator or Representative in Congress who has been a member of the Congress next immediately preceding shall receive any allowance for mileage for traveling to the place of meeting to attendsuch additional session provided for in the preceding section. The ComJudiciary proposed to amend the bill by striking out all.P. 2nd sectionafter the enacting clause and inserting the following: That no person who was a member of Congress shall receive any compensatiotnhaespmreilveiaogues for going to or returning from the additional session provided for by the foregoing section.
Mr. WILLIAMS., I should like to inquire of the Senator who has charge of this bill if the persons elected to the 40th Congress will be entitled, under this bill, to mileage for more than one session during that Congress?
Mr. POLAND. Certainly; for each session.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Each new member, then, as I understand it, will be entitled to mileage for the session contemplated by this bill on the 4th of March, and then entitled to another mileage when that session may adjourn, and also another mileage for attending the next succeeding session of Congress, and so on. It seems to me that the bill ought to be so amended as to provide that no. Senator or Representative shall receive mileage for more than 2 sessions of the 40th Congress.
Mr. POLAND. This amendment that is proposed by the committee to the 2nd section of the bill, as it passed the HoRep, is no change in substance; it is merely putting it in shorter and, as we thought, in better language. The provision is, that no Senator or Representative who is a member of this Congress shall be entitled to mileage for the session that is to commence immediately on the expiration of this session. What objection there can be to new members, those who are actually obliged to travel in order to get here to attend that session and to return from it, being entitled to mileage for attending that session, is more than I am able to discover. Why, if there be 3 distinct, separate sessions of Congress in a term, members should not be. '. mileage for attending each is more than I am able to see. The object of this provision is, that persons who are members of the present Congress and who actually are not obliged to travel in order to reach here or to go home from here, whose actual travel is not increased in consequence of the additional session, shall not receive mileage for that session. The justice of that is apparent; but beyond that I see no force in the objection of the Senfrom Oregon.
Mr. WILLIAMS. According to that construction of this bill it will add immensely to the expenses of the 40th Congress; and the general understanding is, I think, that the session which is to take place on the 4th of March is to be a session simply for organization. I do not understand that it is contemplated that Congress is to proceed with the transaction of its usual business; but the argument made for the passage of this bill is, that it is desirable to have the 40th Congress organized at all times during its term of existence, and the main object of passing this law and providing for a session on the 4th of March is to enable the 40th Congress to organize at that time, so, that it may be prepared for any emergency that may arise during its existence. I do not know whether the addition of such an immense sum to the ordinary expenses of Congress simply for that purpose will be quite satisfactory to our constituents. I know heretofore Senators have been required to at tend the called executive sessions of the senate without any compensation. On the 4th of March, 1865, I was here to attend an executive session called by a proclamation of the President. I came here from the State of Oregon; I attended that session; but I received no mileage at all; the law does not provide for mileage in such cases; and if that is a just rule which has heretofore existed, I do not see why it should not apply to the For tieth Congress when it simply convenes, as I understand, more for the purpose of organization than for any other purpose. I am not very particular on the subject; I have no more interest in the question than anyone else; but I make the suggestion, and the Senate can do as they please about it.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as lanm. ended, and the amendment was concurred
Mr. HENDRICKS. Before the Senator takes his seat I wish to inquire of him, as he has investigated the subject, whether the President of the Senate continues after the close of the Congress. Supposing the President of the Senate to be a member of the next Congress, does that President protempore continue to be the President of the Senate, under existing laws, during the recess?
Mr. POLAND. That is a question that I have not examined with any care, but my understanding is that he does continue, if he continues to be a member of the Senate, to hold the office of President protempore until another shall be elected, and {j it during the vacation as much as he does during the session of Congress. That is my understanding of it.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The country has been twice that I now think of placed in its present position. General Harrison died at an early period of his term; General Taylor also died at rather an early period of his term; and yet the Congress did not think it necessary to have a session such as is provided for in this bill. The Government went on as before. This extraordinary fear from the death of the incum bent of the presidential chair was not felt as it seems now to be felt. But if the Senator be right in his answer to my question, then, sir, there is no difficulty at this session of Congress in providing for the contingency whicu he sug fo. as the reason for the passage of this bill. f during the present session of Congress a presiding officer should be elected, he will be the President protempore of the Senate during the coming recess; and should there be a vacancy in the presidential office, as Kounderstand from the Senfrom Vermont, he would be the person to occupy that high office. Then, sir, there is no difficulty in the Senate providing o: the contingency without the passage of this ow. But I did not intend to debate it. We now know the reason which is suggested by the gentleman having the bill in charge; the country knows it. Unquestionably that is the reason that governs him. I think, in view of the fact that the Senate, without the passage of a law, can place the Government in a very secure position so far as the presidential office is concerned, there is no great force in the reason given by the Senator, and I shall not be able to vote for this bill.
Mr. POLAND. I hope we shall be permitted to proceed with this bill. I apprehend it will not take very much time.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senator move to postpone the order of day?
Mr. WADE. If the Senator will withdraw that motion and allow the unfinished business of yesterday to lie over informally, I shall not object. I have a bill that I want to come up after this.
Mr GRIMES. Let us get through with this.
Mr. WADE. I am willing, provided the order of the day is allowed to go over inform ally.
Mr. JOHNSON. The vote will be taken in a moment. I am not about to discuss the bill; I merely rose to ask a question of the Chair. I wanted to know, for I am ashamed to say I do not know, whether the President protem pore chosen by the Senate holds over? To apply it to a case which occurs, suppose we elect as President protempore, on the last day of the present session, or at any other time, one who is a member of the next Senate, will he not be President protempore of the Senate? If so, there will then be 2 lives which will secure against an interregnum of the presidency the life of the actual incum bent and the life of the President protempore of the Senate. I ask the Chair information, being better acquainted with Iit, am sure, than I am.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The imW. of the Chair is, as the Senfrom fermont answered, that the President protempore of the body, elected before the close of a session, although that is the close of a Congress, continues, being a member of the body, to be the President protempore of the Senate during the vacation. Of course, however, the Chair does not undertake to decide a matter of that sort, except so far as to give his own opinion.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I take it for granted that that is so, although I am not certain. Then the contingency of there being a vacancy in the executive dept, in the office of POTUS, will depend on the death of the present incumbent and the death of the President protempore of the Senate during the interval that may elapse between the adjournment of this Congress and the assembling of the next Congress in Decem ber, provided we do not pass this bill.
The PRESIDENT tempore. The Chair will proceed with this bill unless some one calls for the order of the day.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I propose to make an addition to the amendment which the Senate has already adopted to the 2nd section of the bill. The amendment as adopted by the Senate is That no person who was a member of the previous Qongress shall receive any compensation as mileage for going to or returning from the additional session provided for by the foregoing section. I propose to add to that these words: Unless there be a recess in such sessionfor more than 30 days, in which case the members of former Congress shall receive mileage. the That is to provide for the travel in case there should be that extended recess. The amendment which the Senate has adopted is based upon the idea that the Senators of thisoongress who shall be members of the next Congress will be here at the adjournment, and they will in fact do no traveling, and that any mileage paid to them would be what has been hereto fore known as constructive mileage. I do not think that mileage should be paid. The provision of the section is well enough; but suppose there be a recess during the next session of Congress of more than 30 days, then in fact the members will have to travel to their homes and return again to meet the Congress, or else remain here all the time, which the probably would not do. I offer this amendment because I believe this bill is to result in a continuous session of Congress after the 4th of March, with recesses. That is my opinion of it. I look for recesses in the next session of Congress, and that members will have to travel back and forward to their homes; and if they do travel in fact, and that travel is made necessary by this law and by the action of Congress in taking recesses, it is right that they should have the mileage.
Mr. POLAND. I do not see any necessity or any propriety in having this provision in relation to the session of Congress provided for by this bill any more than in relation to any other session of Congress; nor do I see any reason why that amendment should apply to this additional session of Congress that we create by this bill any more than it should apply to the recess we i. had over the Christ mas holidays, the ordinary recess which is usually had at the sessions of Congress that are now provided for. As to this fear that is intimated by the Senfrom Indiana, that the ordinary vacation from the 4th of March to December is to be filled up by a continuous number of recesses, that that is the object of this bill, that it is a mere entering wedge to bring that about, I think nothing w.i be wanting to make that so but the adoption of the Senator's amendment. If the members of Congress are to be paid a mileage for as many recesses as they can take from the 4th of March up to Decem ber, I apprehend it may turn out, as the Senfrom Indiana fears, that the time will be filled up in that way. I think that the way to prevent what he fears is to keep off his amendment; not adopt it; leave the bill to stand as it is.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him, I wish to say that the purpose I have in offering this amendment is to prevent such recesses. I believe it will become a vicious practice, and if the members of congress know that it is to throw upon the Treasury additional cost they will be likely to go on and complete their business and adjourn as Congresses have heretofore done.
Mr. POLAND. Mr. President, the effect of this amendment seems to be different in the mind of the Senator to what it is in my own. I think the very danger that he. of recesses will be promoted by providing that the members of both Houses of Congress shall be aid for them provided they have them. This ear that will be entertained, as the Senator says, by members of getting money out of the Treasury is one that I have usually noticed does not prevail to any. extent when the money that comes out of the Treasury is going into their own pockets. The amendment was rejected. The amendment made as in ComWhole was orderengross, and the bill to be read a 3rd time. It was read the 3rd time.
Mr. BUCKALEW and Mr. RIDDLE called for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 26, nays 7; 10. So the fill was passed. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The unfinished business of yesterday, the bill (H.R.No. 508) to amend the organic acts of the Territo ries of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and NewMexico is now before the Senate as in ComWhole, the question pending being on the amendment offered yesterday by the Senfrom Ohio.
Mr. WADE. If it is in order I desire to present a substitute for that amendment. I offered an amendment yesterday upon which no vote was taken, and I presume, therefore, I am at liberty now to withdraw it.
Mr. WADE. Then, instead of that amendment, I move to amond the bili by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the following: That from and after, the passage of this act ther shall be no denial of the elective franchise in any o the Territories of the U.S. to any citizen thereof on account of rage, color, or previous condition of servitude; and all acts or part of acts, either of Congress or of the Legislative Assemblies of Territories, inconsistent with the provisions of sthaiisd act, are hereby declared null and void.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should now like to hear the whole bill read.
Mr. WADE. The whole of the House bill was stricken out, and the amendment I have just offered inserted. That is all there is in the bill now.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Then I am content. The amendment made as in ComWhole was concurred in.
Mr. HOWARD. I believe that there is but one section in the bill now. I wish to hear it read.
Mr. HOWAIRD. I wish to ask the chairman of the ComTerritor whether that will cover any case of future legislation by the Territories; whether that is his understanding: Suppose some.hereafter to be created should enact a law prohibiting colored persons from voting, would the prohibition of the present bill apply?
Mr. WADE. I. do not know but that it would. It certainly refers to all the Territo ries now in existence, and it can be readily amended to cover all others that there may be hereafter.
Mr. HOWARD. I think it had better be amended so as to apply to all future Territories.
Mr. HOWE. I think there is no doubt that it covers all the Territories.
Mr. HOWARD. Perhaps it may cover every future case; but that may not be the interpretation given to it, and I wish to make it certain.
Mr. GRIMES. All the country we have got is included in some Territory or other.
Mr. WADE. I thought when I drew the provision it i. would cover all the Territories we and I think the provision is well enough as it is; but if the Senfrom Michigan wants to amend iIt have no objection.
Mr. HOWARD. I suggest that it be amended so as to be applicable to any future Territory that may be erected by Congress.
Mr. HOWARD. Then.]". to amend the bill by inserting at the end of it this clause: And the provisions of this act shall be. to abi Territories which are now or may hereafter be organized.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that the end proosed by the Senator can be accomplished by inserting a word or 2 in the 1st line of the amendment instead of by the addition which he proposes.
Mr. HOWARD. If it can be accomplished in Mthra.tWwIaLyLtIhAaMt Sw.ill bTehjuesbt ilalsawseiltl. now stands reads: That from and after the passageof this act there shall be no denial of the elective franchise in any of the Territories of the U.S. to any citizen ttuhdeere;of on account of race, color, or previous servitude and all acts or parts of acts, either of Congress or the Legislative Assemblies of said Territories, in consistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby declared null and void. I think that provision applies to all Territo ries that may be hereafter organized; but by inserting after the words “Territories of the U.S. ” the words “now or hereafter to be organized ” the point will be made a positive certainty.
Mr. HOWARD. Does not the amendment wIhich I suggested cover every possible case? think so.
Mr. WILLIAMS. That provision will cover all 1.cases; but it would add very much to the symmetry of the bill to insert the words I have suggested at the place named, instead of attaching a provision of such length to the end of the bill, reciting, in fact, a considerable portion of the preceding provision.
Mr. WADE. I think it would read better if it said simply “Territories now or hereafter to be organized.”
Mr. HOWARD. That is the idea I have, and I will modify my amendment in the way suggested by the Senator. from Oregon, by inserting the words “now or hereafter to be organized” after the words “Territories of the U.S. ”
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The amendment was orderengross and the bill to be read a 3rd time. The bill was read the 3rd time. Mr. WADE. I ask for the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 24, nays 7; a So the bill was passed.
Mr. WADE. I move to amend the title of the bill so as to read: “A bill to regulate the elective franchise in the Territories of the U.S. ” The motion was agreed to.
Mr. RAMSEY subsequently said: I hap pened accidentally to be out of the Chamber when the vote was taken on the bill regulating suffrage in the Territories. I should like to hoave my vote recorded in the affirmative on the of the bill if it is allowable under the rules.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHoNy in the chair.) It is not allowable, under the rule, under any circumstances."
Mr. RAMSEY. Then I merely wish to state that if I had been present I should have voted in the affirmative.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE House. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the JtResolution of the Senate No. 151, appropriating money to defray the expenses of the joint select comRetrenchment. The message further 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. 956) to enforce the 13th amendment of the Constitution of the U.S.; A bill (H.R.No. 964) in regard to. the comof route agents in the postoffice dept; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 229) to procure a site for a building to accommodate the ost office and U.S. courts in NewYork city. TENURE OF OFFICE.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amend the 2nd section of the amendment of the com: mittee by inserting after the word “become, ” in the 6th line of the section, the words “in capable or, ” and by striking out in the 7th line the words “or incapable.” This is a mere verbal transposition to make the sections more precisely clear.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That correction will be made as a clerical correction, no objection being interposed.
Mr. HOWE. Is the question now on adopting the amendment reported by the committee?
Mr. HOWE. I have a single suggestion to make to the Senate, and that is as to the proriety of excepting from the operations of this law, or .law, the heads of Depts. I know of no reason in the world why they should be made an exception. if I am not mistaken, each one of those offices is cre ated by statute, and created not for the personal benefit of the Executive or the head of the executive government, but created for the benefit of the public service just as much as a deputy postmaster, just as much as an Indian agent, just as much as any other officer. The tenure of their several offices should be under the control of law, and they should be independent of any undue exercise of executive influence or other influence just as much as any other officer, it seems to me. I suppose the committee had some reason for making that exception, and I should really like to hear what it is.
Mr. BUCKALEW. The committee did not change this feature of the bill. The particular provision in the amendment now moved to be stricken out is similar to that contained in the bill which was referred to them. Now, sir, I should like to ask the Senator who last spoke whether in a case which I willmention to him he would be content that the President should not possess the power of changing his Cabinet. At one time during the presidency of General Jackson it is known that difficulties arose betweenhim and the VEEP, a political quarrel which went into the polities of the country. There were certain members of the President's Cabinet who adhered politically in that dispute to the VEEP, who presided in this Chamber, and who for a time was in accord with the political majority here. Under such a provision of law as the Senator W. it would have been possible for the VEEP, acting in concert with a majority of the Senate, to rule the President, and to contend with the President in his own Cabinet to have men there to distract his councils, and, so far as their voices could go, to dictate his policy. I refer back to a well known historical case by which to test the Senator's views of this particular provision in the amendment. And now, sir, seriously I ask him whether in that emergency in our public history, when the case jI have described was one of actual fact in this Government, he would have had the head of the executive dept hampered and annoyed and worried and opposed by political enemies in his Cabinet, held there by a political opposition in the Senate of the U.S.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, when I spoke of a feeling of accord between the president and any of his Secretaries, I was not speaking of political agreement. I can readily conceive, as is suggested by my friendfrom Wisconsin, that if the POTUS happened to be a Republican and my friendfrom Wisconsin was his principal SecyTreasury, happening to be a Dem ocrat and I do not mean to make any offen sive illustration
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, let me add one word. The very case which the Senfrom Vermont supposes is provided for in this 2nd section. He supposes the case of the head of a Dept who becomes not crim inal, but simply incapable to discharge the duties of his office. The 2nd section of this very amendment provides that in that case the President may suspend his functions and lay the fact of incapability before the Senate.
Mr. FOGG. If the Senfrom Oregon will permit me, I would ask him if he believes that the POTUS can be impeached for any act of any member of his Cabinet unless that act is directed personally by himself. For instance, supposing the SecyWar shall have given an order which shall be held to be unconstitutional and violative of the rights of the State authorities or of the people of a State, and he shall have given that order without consulting the President, cannot that Secretary, and would not that Sec. retary be impeached, and would it be possible to impeach the President for such an act?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not suppose that the POTUS could be impeached for an act performed by any officer when he was personally ignorant of the performance of that act. Of course it would be necessary to produce some evidence of complicity his in the commission of the crime. But let me put a case to the Senator: take the condition of the country during the late war; suppose the orders of the POTUS, upon whom devolved the responsibility of the prosecution of that war, who is made by the Constitution Commander in Chief of the armies, and is therefore responsible to the country, had been disobeyed by the SecyWar; and suppose the SecyWar had set up an independent government, if I may so express inyself, and undertaken to manage the armies of the U.S. without any respect to the wishes of the President; then there would have been a difficulty at once; the efficiency of the Administration would have been practi cally destroyed.
Mr. HOWE. The President could suspend him under the 2nd section.
Mr. WILLIAMS. That suggestion is sufficient, it seems to me, to answer the argument made by the Senfrom Wisconsin, for under this amendment if any member of the Cabinet becomes incapable or incompetent or corrupt he may be suspended by the POTUS Now, if he may be suspended, if he may be temporarily removed and another man put in his place to discharge the duties of the?o, until the next session of the Senate, why not let the President remove him?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I claim that this power on the part of the President is one that he ought to be allowed to exercise out of some respect to his office to the office which he occupies because these men occupy positions in reference to the President which no other officers of the Government do occupy. Their relations with the President are more intimate and confidential than the relations of any other officers in the Government. This may be an argument entitled to no consideration in the judgment, perhaps, of the Senate; but I think, notwithstanding the office may not be administered as it ought to be, it is well enough for the American people to maintain some little respect for the office of POTUS, to attach to it some little consequence, to suppose that it is possessed of some little dignity, and that the man who is made Chief Magistrate of the U.S. by the people can be in trusted with some little share of power, enough, at any rate, to make the office respectable. It was upon that ground chiefly that this exception was made. I am not very particular about it, but it appears that it should be made in view of the practice of the Government and the practice of the Senate. I am not as well advised in regard to the practice of the Senate as others here, but I understand that as a matter of courtesy the Senate generally confirms any man whom the President may designate as the head of a Dept. There may have been exceptions, but the Senate has generally acquiesced in the right of the POTUS to choose the members of his own Cabinet; and as that has been the prac tice, and as it has been acquiesced in by the Senate, it did not occur to me that there were any very good or substantial reasons for changing it as we have provided in the other portions of the amendment of the committee for the other officers under the Government.
Mr. FESSENDEN. And he ought not to be there at all.
Mr. CONNESS. There have not been any such for some time.
Mr. JOHNson] expressed his entire assent, tIthought action would be required on our part if the President should go so far as to disregard the power of the Senate; that is to say, if he sent a nomination to the Senate and that nomination should be rejected or not confirmed, and then after the Senate adjourned he should appoint the same man again, and that should be recognized as the practice, the result would be that the Senate would lose entirely the power conferred upon it by the Constitution to have a voice in the appointment of officers, because it is very easy to omit sending a man's name to the Senate until the close of the session, and then when he is rejected to appoint him the next day after the adjournment of Congress, and so on from time to time, and in that way the Senate becomes nothing, is merely nullified. I stated at that time that if there should be an attempt to do anything of that sort I would be in favor of limiting the power of the President so far as we could limit it by law in reference to that matter, because in my judgment such a course, if not a direct violation of the Constitution, was a disregard of that respect which was due to the Senate and the constitutional power of the Senate to act upon the appointments of officers; and if I am not very much mistaken the honorable Senfrom Maryland said that that would be a decided outrage upon the constitution.
Mr. FESSENDEN. And he says so now. Well, sir, I think it cannot be denied that there is occasion to exercise our own discretion in this regard. I believe there have been several instances, I know there have been some in my own State, in which men sent to this body for confirmation for particular offices and rejected by the body were reappointed immediately after the adjournment.8. to the offices to which they had been before appointed and rejected.
Mr. HOWARD. There are a great number of cases of that kind.
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, if it were the fact that leaving this much of patronage in the hands of the President would have the effect to increase the respect of the American people for the office, I do not know but that I should be induced to assent to the exception here proposed; but I have not found that the respect of the American people for that high office was very much affected by the way he handled the patronage in his hands. My observation has been that just as soon as the President turned aside from the discharge of the great public duties devolved upon him i. the Constitution and laws, and devoted himself to the work of peddling offices, just that moment the respect of the American people for the office began to abate, and it continued to abate as long as he continued in those employments.
Mr. o?. Not for the office, but for the officer.
Mr. HOWE. “For the officer, ” says my friendfrom Vermont, and for the office, which is inevitably affected by the character of the incumbent; and no high office, I do not care how exalted it may be can be filled by an unworthy incumbent without suffering some what in public estimation;
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask the Senator if he supposes the present incumbent is to remain there always?
Mr. HOWE. I am not debating this bill, Mr. President, with the slightest reference to the person of the present incumbent.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will excuse me; he is just putting it precisely upon that ground, speaking of this President, as an argument, peddling offices. r; HOWE. I beg, the Senator's pardon. I made no allusion to the present POTUS in the world. I do not undertake to say that the present POTUS has not indulged some what in that habit which I call peddling offices; but I am very far from saying that he is the 1st one or the worst one who has done it. It is long since that became rather too much the habit of American Executives. Mr. President, if I am not mistaken, the historical fact is that this question of the power of the President over appointments to and removals from office arose in the course of a debate in one of the earliest Congresses during the 1st or 2nd, I do not remember which.
Mr. HOWE. I think very likely the Senfrom Pennsylvania is correct; and it arose upon the propriety of giving the President the power to remove the SecyState, a Cab inet officer. General Washington was then President. Mr. Madison, for whom I have that respect, in whose opinions I have that confidence, that I cherish for but very few of the public men this country has produced, then, as I think, animated to a great extent by the confidence he had in the then incumbent of the office, by the anticipation with which he flattered himself that men of less of character or less of probity never would be intrusted with influence, then insisted that it was more convenient that this power of removal should be left in the hands of the President.. It was, if I remember the course of that debate, not then suggested by anyone that there were reasons for giving him control over the person or over the term of the SecyState that he should not have over a postmaster or over any other officer; but it was contemplated by those who advocated that power then that the President should have the right to remove at any time all officers appointed by himself and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Madison said, however, in the course of that debate and repeated it, that if the presidential office did fall into the hands of a man who would remove an officer faithfully devoted to the discharge of his duties because he did not like his political opinions, that would be just ground of impeachment; and he undoubtedly believed that the representatives of the American people would always be prepared to present such an act of power by enforcing the remedy which he thought plain. I think we have already learned that impeachment cannot be relied upon to redress such a wrong as that.
Mr. EDMUNDS. My friendfrom Wisconsin is a little mistaken in defining the position of Mr. Madison in the debate to which he has alluded; and it is due to justice and to the respect we owe to history that he should be corrected I think on that point. Mr. Madison at the end of the debate had reasoned himself or excited himself to the conclusion that Congress had no power over the subject of removals; that the Constitution invested in the POTUS the power to remove, independent of the will of the Senate. At the opening of the debate Mr. Madison seemed to treat it as a question of expediency whether the law orepose that trust in the president or not; but truth compels us to admit that at the close of the debate Mr. Madison had reached a point where he contended that the subject of removing the SecyState for Foreign Affairs,i. was then called, was one over which the Constitution had given the Executive entire control, and therefore that the clause introduced into the law was merely declaratory of what the Constitution was be fore. It is right also to say in this connection that Mr. Madison in the closet, Mr. Madison the philosopher and the student and the states. man, out of debate, seems by his writings contemporaneous with the formation of the constitution, and in view of its adoption, to have considered the opposite to be the correct construction of the Constitution.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Senator if that clause of the Constitution does not assume that the Presidentis responsible for the act; but he may ask the written advice of these heads of Depts as to how he shall perform the act; so that the Constitution does make the heads of these Depts his constitutional advisers, and contemplates that he shall be responsible for the act.
Mr. HOWE. The Senator will allow me to ask for information. Did not the Senate concur in that change?
Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator indulge me in another inquiry” I ask if the statute creating the office of SecyTreasury does not make the term dependent upon the pleasure of the President.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Is not “misdemeanor” qualified by the word “high?”
Mr. HENDERSON and Mr. SHERMAN. And he may reappoint again.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is all wrong. I am not for making ciphers of any Dept of the Government, and for the reasons which I stated just now, as far as F. concerns the reap of rejected officers, I am against it, because that is a practice which makes ciphers of us, and I am for claiming the whole of the power which the Constitution confers upon the Senate or upon the Congress of the U.S. All that I mean to say, in conclusion, is that it is all important that the Executive shall be a unit. If he fails to perform his duty criminally, the remedy is in our own hands. If we unfortunately elect a man who is incompetent, not from willfulness, but from incapa city, the remedy which the Constitution confers is in the succeeding election, and in no other way.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not rise to prolong the debate upon this amendment proposed by the Senfrom Wisconsin, but merely to state in reply to the observations of the Senfrom Maryland, on the general question of the power of removal under the Constitution, that there are considerations which will be submitted to the Senate, when that question arises, which induce me to believe that it is just as necessary that the Senate should concur in removals from office, in order to have any voice in the appointment, as in the other case that he supposes; but as that question is not now ending, I rise merely to express the hope that .may, as far as they think it fit, refrain from going into that general question until we reach it, and that we may proceed to dispose of the amendment proposed by my friendfrom Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Anthony in the chair.) The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Wisconsin, striking out the words in the 1st section of the committee's amendment indicated by him. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SHERMAN. There are 2 amendments that I desire to offer to this bill; the 1st to correct what I think is an inadvertence: it is in the 1st section, line ten, after the word “office” to insert the words “during the term limited by law.” I will read the section: StTahtea, t every person (excepting the Secretaries of of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the interior, the PostMGenl and the Attor ney General) holding any civil office to which he has been go by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter bdeulyapqpuoailniftieedd to any such office, and shall become to act therein, is, and shall be, entitled to hold such office until a successorshall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided. Take the case of a postmaster, where he is appointed by the law for 4 years, or for a fixed term. If it is the intention of the senator, by the 1st section, to extend the duration of his term of office.
Mr. SHERMAN. But still the 1st section expressly provides that he “shall be entitled tojsuch office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed.”
Mr. WILLIAMS. s, herein otherwise provided.”
Mr. SHERMAN. Perhaps that 4th section might cover it, but I do not think so.
Mr. Ef MUNDS. If my friendfrom ohio will allow me, I will give him the explanation of that. I think it indispensable to the scheme on which the bill goes that that language should stand just as it does. It is in tended to meet a case of this description: a good officer, a postmaster for instance, continues during the 4 years prescribed by law. A successor to him is nominated in due season by the President. It appears to us that the successor is a very improper person to fill the office. Now, the object of this provision is, that in cases of that description the old officer shall hold over beyond the duration of the 4 ears until the President and the Senate shall able to concur in selecting his successor; and that, with the provision of the 4th section, that the general duration of the office shall still be limited by law, I think puts it upon precisely the ground that it should be put upon, provided we are to pass the bill at all.
Mr. SHERMAN. It seems then that I was correct in the construction which I gave to the 2 sections together: that it was intended by the 1st section to extend the duration of the term of office in case the President and the Senate should not agree upon the successors. I am not in favor of that by general legislation extending the term of office. The term of a vast number of offices is fixed by law. I think when the office expires by iffion or by death, or by a removal made for good cause, there ought to be power in the President to fill the vacancy at once; that we ought not by legislation to continue the officer to the term for which he was appointed by law.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If it be improper, as is supposed by my friendfrom Ohio, to allow an officer who has held an office for 4 years to continue to exercise the duties of the office after that term of 4 years until the president and the Senate shall be able to agree upon his successor, then it would be simply o;either that the office must go vacant, or else that in the meantime the President may selectsome person without regard to our wishes, treating it as a vacancy lawfully happening and selecting his own appointee for a temporary commission, whose name he need never send to us at all to fill up the place. The consequence would then be that if we failed to concur in that, the party who held the office tem might continue, as has been said, during the long recess, and hold the office for a very considerable length of time. It appeared to the committee that if an officer against whom no charge of impropriety had been made, who was fitly and honestly performing the duties of the office, should come to the expiration of the period limited by law, and the President and the Senate should fail to agree as to his successor, it would be best for the public service to allow that officer tem porarily, until we should agree, to continue to exercise the duties rather than to have him go out, and the mere appointee of the President alone, without consulting us at all, put in his place. If the Senfrom Ohio on reflection disagrees with me as to that, I shall very much regret it indeed.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not wish to press this matter. I simply desired to call attention to what several Senators supposed to be an inadvertence. But take the case of a bond. The term of office expires the 4 years expire; the bond is not obligatory after the expi. ration of the 4 years. The receipts and disbursements by an officer after the 4 years are not secured by his bond. Take the case of the expiration of the term of office. The Constitution provides how that vacancy shall be filled if it occurs. During the recess of the Senate the President fills it; and in case the vacancy occurs during the session of the senate it is filled in"the mode pointed out by the Constitution; so that there is practically no difficulty. The President will have at least until the close of the following session of congress in which to fill the vacancy. In case it cannot then be filled on account of a disagreement between the Senate and the President, then the deputy or whoever is legally provided by law can fill the vacancy as the bill declares; so that it seems to be the effect of the 1st section to continue the duration of the tenure of office beyond the term fixed by law, and without the security of the bond in the case of a disbursing officer.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to my friend that the bonds, as now prepared by the Treasury Dept, are so drawn as to cover the time which may elapse after the expiration of the term of office and before the appointment of a successor. They cover all the time during which an officer continues to exercise the duties of the office.
Mr. SHERMAN. Having called the attention of the Senate to this subject, I have no objection to letting this amendment pass over until we can look into it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I think this feature of the section will be found, on examination, to be a necessary element to reach the general scope that the idea of the bill was intended to provide for.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not think the object of the Senator will be accomplished by this bill. I will state to him beforehand that I have no doubt it will be treated just as our previous legislation on the subject i. been treated. It has been utterly disregarded and its constitutionality denied. There were no terms in it to enforce its provisions. There is nothing in this bill that is not already enacted with regard to other matters. Take the case I will put: we passed a law declaring that no money should be taken from the Treasury of the U.S. to pay an officer who had been once rejected by the Senate. That is utterly disregarded to my personal knowledge.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Is there any such law? I am not aware of it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh yes; I remember it now.
Mr. SHERMAN. The attention of the executive officers was called to the law, and the President submitted it to the AttyGen, and the AttyGen has given his opinion at least I have seen it in the news papers, not formally, but I presume the statement is correct that the law is unconstitutional, and that the President has the power.
Mr. SHERMAN. The present AttyGen. I get this from newspaper statements, and they may do him injustice, but it is published in the newspapers as his opinion, and I think it is acted upon, that an appointment once rejected by the Senate may be renewed the very day after our rejection.
Mr. SHERMAN. That is not the point here; but the opinion is, that consequently our attempt to prevent such a person being paid salary, &c., is unconstitutional and void; that the officer being legally o is entitled to the legal salary attached to the office; and therefore the provision which denies to accounting officers the authority to pay him is utterly disregarded. There is one case in the State of Ohio where an assessor was appointed by the President and rejected by the Senate after deliberation, and he was reappointed and is now holding the office. There is another case, I am informed, in the State of NewYork, where the same person is again sent to us.
Mr. HENDERSON. Sloanaker, in Philadelphia.
Mr. SHERMAN. And one case in Philadelphia, where the nomination was for a long time considered, and the action of the Senate was publicly known upon it, known to every one. Now, in regard to the knowledge, there is no doubt that the President knew of this rejection, because it is communicated to him. There is no doubt the Treasury Dept know, because it is communicated to them. All these papers go through a regular routine. We all know they have at least intelligence of them. My amendment is so framed that if the President should make such an appointment, and authorize the payment of money under those circumstances, he would be guilty of a declared offense, a high crime and misdemeanor. If he should violate that law once or twice, the Senfrom Maryland says that he would be will ling to impeach him. I think it is important for us to declare this offense beforehand in a law fully considered, that we'omay punish him for its violation. It is perfectly idle for us to pass a bill which simply declares the law without having any penalty attached. I think, with due deference to my friendfrom Vermont who has examined this question, that he ought to attach to this bill I am not wedded to my own particular form of words some penal clause that will punish a violation of the law and will also punish the payment of money where it is already prohibited by law. But if he will take the subject in charge and make such a section, with the views we have in common, I am perfectly willing to withdraw my amendment. I do not wish to embarrass this bill at all, or delay it by discussing it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I willmention to my friend that that is precisely what the whole JtCommee on full consultation thought it desirable should be done.
Mr. SHERMAN. It ought to be done in this bill.
Mr. EDMUNDS. It is merely a question of convenience as to how we shall get at it. We desire to pass just such a law in substance as the Senfrom Ohio desires, and we desire to have it so comprehensive and so specific that no man, even an AttyGen, can pretend to misunderstand its provisions or es: cape if he violates it. That is what we want. But, as I said before, inasmuch as the chief subject of this bill that is, the fundamental idea of it with respect to which all this machinery and all these penalties are to attach, if we pass it at all, was a new one which would undergo debate and dispute, and all that, we thought it more desirable, as a matter of Fo exand convenience, to bring forward rst the main measure as a separate proposition, and if the main measure should meet the approval of the Senate we would then imme diately bring forward those additional measures which should completely protect it. That was our idea. We may be wrong about it.
Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to have it attached to this bill. If the Senator says he will take the subject under consideration before the bill passes from the Senate and attach a penal clause to what is declared to be the law, I have no objection to withdrawing my amendment; but I wish it attached to this bill.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If that meets the views of Senators preferably to that which the committee thought it was best to do, we shall acquiesce. It is a mere question of convenience.
Mr. SHERMAN. think it ought to be placed on this bill. I. withdraw my amendment in order to allow the Senator to look over the subject.
Mr. HOWARD. I wish to offer an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. EDMUNDS. As the hour is getting late, with the assent of the Senate, I was about to move that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Let the Senfrom Michigan offer his amendment so that we may know what it is.
Mr. HOWARD. It is to come in after the word “Senate” on page 3, section two, line eleyen. There does not appear to be any provision in the amendment which we are discussing requiring persons who are to receive the necessary appointments at the hands of the President on the suspension of an incumbent, to give bonds or any security for the performance of their duty. I think the Senfrom Vermont, on looking at it, will see the necessity of it, and I propose after the word "sen. ate” to insert the following: And shall require of such person bond with sufficient surety or sureties for the faithful discharge of his official duties under such temporary appointment. if pesnudcehd.bond be required by law of the person susI think the Senfrom Vermont will see no objection to that.
Mr. EDMUNDS. That subject had not escaped the attention of the committee, but that also was one of the details of subsequent machinery in connection with many existing laws respecting the giving of bonds by all persons and respecting the penalties for the violation of the official duties for which the bonds are given in respect to which the law is exceed:ingly disjointed and loose, that we had intended to bring forward. I do not know that I have any objection, if the Senator desires to press it here, to the insertion of that amendment. I should like to hear it reported again, however.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will suggest to the Chair that there is a pending motion to amend already a different part of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senfrom Ohio withdrew his amendment.
Mr. EDMUNDS. But there is a pending amendment moved by the Senfrom Wisconsin to strike out certain words. Now, the Senfrom Michigan moves to insert different words in an entirely different place in the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin has been disposed of and rejected.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to look at the amentlment of the Senfrom Michigan, as I think its phraseology is not exactly what it otght to be. I. therefore move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. POLAND. Before the Senate adjourns I desire to give notice that on Monday morning next I shall ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of the bankrupt bill. The motion of Mr. EDMUNDs was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, January 10, 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. on. PHILIP Johnson, of Pennsylvania, appeared in his seat. HARBOR OF StJoSEPH, MICHIGAN.
Mr. UPSQN, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComCommerce be instructed to inquire into the expediency, of making appropriation to repair and complete the pier and improvements in the harbor of Michigan, StJoseph, on Lake and report by bill or otherwise. CANCELLATION OF REVENUE STAMPS.
Mr. MILLER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill supplementary to an act relating to the cancellation of revenue stamps; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. PAY of DETACHED officeks, ETC.
Mr. COOK, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComMilAffrs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law that commissionedofficersand enlisted men who have served in the Army or Navy of the U.S. in the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, who were separated from their commands, regiments, or companies, as prisoners of war, or in consequence of being placed on detached sseurpveircieorbyofpfircoepres, r detail, or on special duty by their or who were disabled by wounds or disease contracted while in the service and in the ine of their duty, shall, on muster out and settlement of their accounts with the Government, be entitled to receive full pay and allowance up to the time they received notice of their muster out or discharge or to the time they were permitted to go to their homes to await their discharge; and that in such case they shall be entitled to the usual commutation, for travel and rations when the same were not fufnished; so that such officers and enlisted men shall tbheeyallowed full pay and allowance for the full time were subject to the military authority of the U.S., and were thereby prohibited from en in other occupations. EXCUSED FROM COMMITTEE SERVICE.
Mr. BOYER. I ask to be excused from further service upon the Committee on the Militia.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HALE] also asks leave to be excused from service on the same committee. If there is no objection the gentlemen will be excused. No objection being made, both the gentlemen were excused from service. REPRESENTATION FROM ALABAMA AND TEXAS.
Mr. COOPER presented the credentials of Hon. Thomas J. Foster, claiming to be a representative elect to Congress from the 6th congressional district of the State of Alabama; which were referred to the ComReconstruction. Also, the credentials of Hon. A. M. Branch, claiming to be a..to conss from the 3rd congressional district of Texas. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. GARFIELD. I call for the regular order, the question pending at the adjournment last evening.
Mr. BLAINE. I would request that the gentleman make the motion he did yesterday and let the morning hour go on.
Mr. GARFIELD. Then for the sake of allowing the morning hour to go on I move to postpone the regular order until the expiration of the morning hour. The motion was agreed to. PAY OF POST ROUTE AGENTS.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has now commenced, and the 1st business in order is the call of the committees for reports, commencing with the comPostOffice, which is entitled to another morning hour.
Mr. ALLEY, from the comPostOffice, reported a bill in regard to the compensation of route agents of the postoffice Dept; which was read a 1st and 2nd time.: The bill, which was read in full, authorizes the PostMGenl to pay route agents in the service of the postoffice Dept any sum not less than $900 nor more than $1, 200 per annum.
Mr. FARQUHAR. Will my colleague on the committee yield and allow me to offer an amendment in relation to the pay of postal railway clerks, to allow them 20%. increased compensation? I would like to have
Mr. ALLEY. I think the gentleman had better not press that amendment. I am in formed by fo Gentfrom Iowa that there is no necessity for it that the Dept has the power already to pay such sum as they deem expedient.
Mr. FARQUHAR. I differ with the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have not had an opportunity of meeting the postoffice Committee this session, and I desire to inquire of the chairman of the committee why the PostMGenl should not be permitted to employ persons for less than $900 a year.
Mr. ALLEY. I will say to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, who was not present in the committee when this matter was discussed, that it was fully considered in the committee, and they were unanimously of the opinion that the amount of compensation had better be limited to $900 on the one side, and extended to at least $1, 200 on the other, as the nature of the service is of such a character that no portion of it should be required for a less sum than $900 a year; and it was thought that it was sufficient to leave a discretionary power to this extent in the hands of the PostMGenl, and to confine it there.
Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman will allow me to say that in the neighborhood of cities we sometimes get an extra mail by getting a car rier to carry the mail, whose compensation is much less than $900 a year. He is employed, perhaps, for 2 hours a day, and if the government is required to pay these men at least $900 a year we shall have to dispense with some of these extra mails within a short distance from cities.
Mr. ALLEY. I will say to the gentleman that such an agent of the postoffice Dept as that indicated, performing such service, would not be under the law properly a route agent, and is not so considered by the Dept. There is, therefore, no force in that objection, and I now demand the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. he question recurred on the passage of the lil.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. Idemand the yeas&nays on the passage of the bill. [Cries of “No, no.”] I think, as we are doing nothing but burdening the Treasury and increasing sala ries, that the country should know who does it. I insist on the demand for the yeas&nays.
Skip Skip Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I call for tellers on the yeas&nays. Tellers were not ordered. The yeas&nays were not ordered. The bill was passed. Mr. ALLEY mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MeSSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. MCDonALD, its Chief Clerk, informed the House that the Senate had passed a bill (S.No.462) to admit the State oft Colorado into the Union, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI.
Mr. ALLEY also, from the comPostOffice, reported a bill declaring the Clinton bridge across the Missis sippi river at Clinton, in the State of Iowa, a post route; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill was read through.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a question of order. I submit that this is the same proposition that was voted down by this House at the last session.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman state that it is identically the same proposition?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is substantially the same proposition.
Mr. DAVIS. It is a very different proposition.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is very nearly the same proposition that was introduced last session by the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Davis] and reported in another bill by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. ALLEY.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Has not a committee a right to report a joio bill that has once been
The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that at another session of Congress they could certainly report a bill of the same character, but this is not the same bill as was reported last session, as the Chair understands.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is substantially the same proposition to dam up the Mississippi river.
The SPEAKER. The Digest states that at the same session, on the same day even, a bill not differing in substance, though differing in terms somewhat from one already rejected, may be reported from a committee. Certainly the same thing could be done at another session. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I oppose, Mr. Speaker
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman rise to another point of order?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No, sir; I rise to take the floor in opposition to the bill.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom massachusetts, [Mr. ALLEY] as the chairman of the committee reporting the bill, is 1st entitled to the floor. [Laughter]
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would like to ask my colleague how long this bridge has been in existence.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois..A part of this bridge is in my congressional district. I am presumed to know something about that section, for I have lived there 25 years. It has been there 5 or 6 years, and it has been a constant source of annoyance and complaint all the time.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Has my colleague got any authentic case that he can present to the House of detention, delay, or injury to the navigation of the Mississippio Has any steamer been proved, by any document here, to have been detained or injured?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Yes, sir; testimony was presented to the committee, if I am not mistaken, showing in one case damage to the amount of $4,000.
Mr. DAVIS. Will the Gentfrom massachusetts allow me to reply to the Gentfrom Illinois?
Mr. DAVIS. This bridge was constructed, the Gentfrom Massachusetts states, in 1864, and was open to navigation in March, 1865; and yet the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] says that for the last 6 years this bridge has been a source of constant complaint and great damage to the navigation on the mississippi river. Now, sir, when I say that not one single suit has been brought against that company for any damage to any vessel or craft, when I say that no claim has ever been made against the company for damage, and when I say
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Does the gentleman say there is not a case now pending in the U.S. court in Iowa for a.
Mr. DAVIS. Not one. The attorney of the company swore before the committee that no suit had been commenced, except one by way of indictment against the company, in regard to which they asked the protection of Congress. That is all I have to say now; hereafter I may have occasion to speak further on the subject.
Mr. ALLEY. I will yield a few minutes to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Scofield]
Mr. SCOFIELD. I wish to say a very few words in reply to my friendfrom Illinois, [Mr. WAshburne;] not in reply to his denunciation of railroad corporations; he may pitch into them as much as he pleases for all me; not in reply to his allusions to the industry a economy of pains taking NewEngland, his native country; they always take care of themselves
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. They propose to take care of us. [Laughter]
Mr. SCOFIELD. Not in reply to his passion on the subject of gag i he can always protect himself in that line as well as any gen: tleman on this floor. But, sir, I see beyond the Mississippi a vast stretch of country out of which we are from time to time adding to the sisterhood of western States. There are I believe 4 of these organized now, and yesterday bills were passed in the Senate admit ting 2 more. We are donating lands for the purpose of building railroads to grasp the commerce of these new States and bring their products into the markets of. the East. We just learned that 3five miles of the Union Pacific railroad are completed. It is being rapidly pushed on, and very soon will be out of o in the deep shadows of the setting sun. e want to connect with the commerce of the States, and if every time waspropose to bridge the Mississippi we are to be told that that commerce does not rightfully belong to the East, that it must pass through the Mississippi river, and that you must not dam up that stream, it would have been a great deal better for the country if God had never given us the Mississippi. W. must conmect with this commerce, and it is impossible to do it without in some slight degree obstructing navigation.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I agree with a great deal that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania has said; but tell me why we.make a discrimination in favor by this bridge and make the draw 40 feet less than that of any other bridge on the Mississippi for the benefit of a railroad company?
Mr. SCOFIELD. Why we have required some companies to build bridges of 160 feet span I am not advised. I only say that there has been a bridge built at this point with 120 feet span which all practical men tell us obstructs: commerce of the river very slightly indeed; and the question is, whether we will tear it down because the expense will come upon a railroad company, and because some of the Lynn shoemakers may be stockholders in that company.
Mr. SCOFIELD. My friendfrom Massachusetts tells me they are not. I was rather surprised that a gentleman who is indebted to the school houses of NewEngland and to the economy of the home farm for all he is, and who has gone out into the West, should cast a reflection upon the capital acquired by industry, even upon the shoemaker's bench.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not understand the gentleman's allusion, particularly as I am pleading in behalf of the Lynn shoemakers. I want to give them cheapprovisions.
Mr. SCOFIELD. Let us bring provisions then from beyond the Mississippi, from the vast unoccupied prairies, that can grow millions of bushels of wheat every year; let us bring them across the Mississippi, and not force our western commerce when it comes to that stream either to run down to NewOrleans or up to Galena.
Mr. ALLEY. I propose to occupy a few minutes in reply to some of the points made by the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. WASH BURNE, ] and then I shall call the previous question, and if it be sustained I give notice to gentlemen that I shall occupy but a very small portion of the hour to which Y shall be entitled, and I will give them the privilege of speaking. Mr. Speaker, this case is all in a.i. The Gentfrom Illinois has said a great deal about the unfairness of the presentation of this bill. I will say upon that point that the committee yent into a very patient investigation, which lasted several weeks. We examined any number of witnesses on both sides and after hearing all that could be said by aii the parties in interest, and those also who are not interested, engineers and others, the committee, although not agreeing entirely as to the expediency of bridging the Mississippi at all, were unanimously of the opinion that, so far as this bridge is concerned, any bridge is to be built across the Mississippi river, this bridge is i.most certainly right and proper, and conhaving settled the question that it is in dispensably necessary to bridge the Mississippi, we felt that it was our duty to present this measure again to the consideration of the House. The Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WAsh BURNE] resides in and represents Galena, and that, I presume, with him is the whole point in the case; that, I suppose, is his whole ground of opposition. It is a sectional question. It is a question which he thinks bears immediately and adversely upon the interests of his constituents, and so he comes in here and opposes with all his might this bill upon that ground. I cannot think that any fair minded and impartial person who has examined this subject fully and candidly, and has investigated it as fully as this committee have done, can be opposed to this bill.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the gentleman inform the House whether the parties opposed to the bridge have been before the committee?
Mr. ALLEY. I cannot yield to the gentleman. I want to reply to one other point made by the gentleman.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. I submit whether it is in order for the gentleman to suggest that those who differ with him in opinion are dishonest.
The SPEAKER. That is clearly personal and out of order.
Mr. ALLEY. I meant no reflection upon any gentleman.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair rules upon the question of order, that it is not proper for the Gentfrom Massachusetts to suggest that gentlemen who differ with him are dishonest.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. The gentleman said that he could not conceive how any man could be honest in opposin this bill.
The SPEAKER. That language is not parliamentary under the rules.
Mr. ALLEY. It is sufficient for me to say to the gentleman that I meant no such thing. I respect the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] as much as any gentleman upon this floor. ‘I will only say that he is a very ardent advocate for anything that favors his constituents, and a fierce opponent of all measures adverse to their interests. I think he will concur with me in that opinion. If that is a charge of dishonesty I do not so understand it.
Mr. ALLISON. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. ALLEY. I cannot yield now. The Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] asks a question, which I admit is a very pertinent one. He asks why do we permit this bridge to have a span of only 120 feet? I will answer that question fairly and can didly. Congress, at j.session, enacted a bill allowing several bridges to be built across the Mississippi river, but requiring them to have a span of 160 feet. Now, I suppose that at some points a span of one hun and 60 feet is indispensable, if you are seeking to have the least possible obstruction to the free navigation of the river. There are other points at which a span of 120 feet is sufficiently ample. And I think the committee were unanimously of the opinion that this point was one where a span of 120 feet was all that was required, all that was necessary; for it appears by the sworn testimony, which was not contradicted, that this bridge crosses the river at the best point for a bridge between StLouis and StPaul. Now, this bridge has a span of 120 feet, a wider span than existed in the world 25 years ago; and we believe it is all that is necessary at that point. The bridge is now built; all acknowledge that it is the best structure of the kind that was ever erected on this continent. I believe there is no dispute about that among those who have examined it. This bridge was built in good faith, under the authority of acts of the Legislatures of Illinois and Iowa. The gentlemen say if they had had time they could have brought here direct instructions from their Legislature to vote against this bill. What I after the Legislature has granted the privilege of erecting this bridge they will come forward after the bridge has been built and instruct their Representatives to vote against it? I think that cannot be.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. ALLEY. I will yield by and by. I. think I have met that assertion satisfactorily as far as it goes. Now, the bridge having been built in good faith, of a requisite span for that point, built at an enormous expense, which span cannot now be changed without the demolition of the bridge, I think it is not unreasonable that the committee should have reported this bill as it is, although requiring, as the gentleman remarks, a larger span for other bridges hereafter to be erected, some of them at points where the current is more rapid, and where 200 feet even would not make the navigation as free and safe as it is through these draws of only 120 feet span. This bridge has been in operation 2 years, with an immense and constantly increasing traffic over it, and no accidents worthmentioning have occurred; and can it be possible that the Congress of the U.S. will subject it to the possibility of removal or destruction to gratify the whims or local prejudices of interested parties. if I had time I would like to give the statistics showing how immensely important it is to the interests of that section that transportation be allowed by continuous rail across that river, and also how small the steamboat interest is in comparison, and how little the boat interest suffers from any detention in consequence of that bridge. The river is blocked with ice 4 months in the year, and this impediment alone furnishes an unanswerable argument in favor of the bridge, for the additional expense and delay in the transportation of merchandise across the river at that season amounts to many times more than the whole amount of expense and delay occasioned to the boat navigation the year through. I now call for the previous question, and if it is sustained I promise to give to gentlemen all the time they may desire.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the previous question will be voted down. Let us see if the people cannot be heard here.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon 2nding the previous question; and upon a division, there were ayes 69, noes 31. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for tellers.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and upon a division, there were ayes ten; noes not counted. So, one 5th of a quorum not voting in the affirmative, tellers were not ordered.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded accord ivo and the main question ordered. bill e question was upon the passage of the l
Mr. ALLEY. I believe I am entitled to one hour to close the debate before the vote is taken upon the passage of the bill. I now. to my colleague upon the committee, Mr. FARQUHAR.
Mr. HENDERSON. Before the gentleman yields I would like to ask him a single question.
Mr. HENDERSON., Has any legal proceeding been commenced to have this bridge taken down?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Yes, there has been.
Mr. HENDERSON. My questionis, whether there have been any legal proceedings com; menced to have this bridge torn down and removed.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I can answer the Gentfrom Oregon, [Mr. HEN DERson] There is a case now pending before the U.S. district court of Iowa.
Mr. ALLEY. There was no testimony before the committee to that effect. It was alleged that such was the fact, but it was denied before the committee.
Mr. HOGAN. The difficulty has been to find out the parties to be sued.
Mr. ALLEY. I now yield to the Gentfrom Indiana, FARQUHAR]
Mr. FARQUHAR I desire to call the attention of the House for a few moments to the facts connected with this proposition as it comes before the House today and as it came before the House at the last session. This question of legalizing the Clinton bridge across the Mississippi river and making it a post route was submitted to the comPostOffice early after the commencement of the last session of this congress, and for 6 months that committee gave it their calm and deliberate attention. Time and again they met and had this question before them. They examined witnesses in large numbers, and had all the facts in testimony before them. After the serious and deliberate examination which, as an impartial committee, they should give to the subject, they come in here and say to the House that they believe, after hearing all the testimony and all the facts, that there has been no “material obstruction” to the navigation of the waters of the great Mississippi by reason of the construction of this bridge. Now, I undertake to say that that is the question and the only question that is submitted to this House by this bill, and I was surprised at the speech made by the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] at the last session, and the speech made today by him, charging that this bridge is an obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi. Sir, the gentlemen from ifioi, [Messrs. WAshburne and HARDING] and the Gentfrom Missouri, [Mr. Hogan] Representatives in this House, were repeatedly before the committee during the last session and were heard upon this question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will ask the gentleman whether we have been heard before the committee this session or have had any notice that this measure was pending?
Mr. FARQUHAR. No, sir; and there was no occasion that those gentlemen should be heard or notified, because the committee had agreed at the last session that this bill should be reported as a E. separate proposition, inde of all other questions connected with ridging the Mississippi. The chairman of the committee took it upon himself, when “the mammoth bill” was before the House, to move as an amendment this bill substantially; but he did not move it as a separate and independent measure, as it comes before the House today. He now presents this measure by instruction of the committee, made prior to the adjournment of Congress at the last session, and by the committee reaffirmed during the present session. Sir, I ask is it the duty of a committee of this House to go round and hunt up the distinguished Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASH BURNE] and ask him whether they shall report to this House a measure which the committee has calmly and deliberately decided to report?
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?.
Mr. FARQUBAR. I will yield for a question.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I wish to ask the gentleman whether the committee who reported this bill did not persistently require of companies that olegal authority to build bridges over the Mississippi (this bridge having been built without legal authority) that there should be a draw ofi. 160 feet.
Mr. FARQUHAR. I answer the gentleman with pleasure. The committee required no such thing from any bridge company or their friends. On the contrary, the committee refused to recommend the passage of that “mammoth bill.”. They directed their chairman to report it to the House without any recommendation whatever, while, at the same time, having for 6 long months examined carefully, deliber ately, and impartially the evidence adduced before them, they did direct him to report this bill with a favorable recommendation, because the evidence was overwhelming that this bridge was no obstruction to the free navigation of that river. Now, sir, I desire to say that the provisions of the “mammoth bill, ” which was supported by my friends from Illinois, [Messrs. WAsh BURNE and HARDING] was identical in its provisions with the present bill, except that that bill required a draw of 160 feet while this has a draw only of 120 feet.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is the whole question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. How about the RockIsland bridge?
Mr. FARQUHAR. I know nothing about it except from the testimony before the committee, and that was slight. My information is from the Gentfrom Illinois in i. the he made here last winter, and I would like, if I had the time, to show the House the misre.pr.ese.ntations, the misstatements, the misI presume, of the gentleman in regard to the RockIsland bridge, as applied by him to the Clinton bridge on a former occa slon.
Mr. GRINNELL. Let me say a word in reference to the RockIsland bridge.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. I desire to ask the gentleman whether this bridge was not built by the permission of the States of Illinois and Iowa?
Mr. FARQUHAR. I understand, from the evidence, that the bridge was built by permission of the Legislature of the State of Illinois and in conformity to the general law on the subject of the State of Iowa. These gentlemen came there and pursued the only legal course marked out by law and constructed that bridge. And now a word on the question of detention. I venture to say that no boat was ever detained in passing through that bridge over 2 or 3 minutes. There is no further detention than that necessary. It is opened by a steam engine, and takes but 2 or 3 minutes to open and close the draw.
The SPEAKER. The time yielded by the Gentfrom Massachusetts to the Gentfrom Indiana has expired.
Mr. FARQUBAR. I ask the gentleman to allow me a few moments more.
Mr. ALLEY. I cannot do it, because I have promised to yield the floor to several other gentlemen.
Mr. FARQUBAR. If the gentleman has to break his promise, he may as well break it in my favor. He told me that he would yield me the control of the floor after calling the previous question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the i.from Massachusetts yield me the oor for ten minutes?
Mr. ALLEY. When the gentleman speaks of a Gentfrom Massachusetts as having an interest in this matter, does he refer to me?
Mr. DAVIS. When he alluded to the Gentfrom NewYork did he refer to me?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I supposed the Gentfrom NewYork had an interest in this bill.
Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will allow me, I will tell him.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman can do it after my ten minutes expire. I cannot allow him to interrupt me now. Sir, considering the stupendous interest that this corporation has, it is no wonder that after this measure was defeated by 15 or 20 majority at the last session of Congress it has, like the fabled Antaeus, risen from its fall and appeared here at this session. Sir, as representatives of the people we ought to interpose our veto against a measure of this kind, but alas! too often it is in vain. The Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. ALLEY] has given us no reason why we should make a discrimination in favor of this bridge over every other bridge on the river. None can be given except the one to relieve the railroad companies from their liability to make it conform to the requirements of other bridges. We have said by our law that no bridge should be built with a span of less than 160 feet, have we not? Then why make an exception in this case, unless it be at the be hest of this Albany corporation, the “Albany Regency, ” and these railroad corporations? Tell me why.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman says the bridge is already built. Yes, sir, they built a bridge which is an obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi, and they know it. The Gentfrom Indiana, [Mr. FARQUHAR,) in reply to me, said I could give no instance of this bridge acting as an obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi river. I say to the gentleman that, there have been numerous instances in which, as I can prove by incontrovertible testimony, this bridge, it is estimated, has indirectly been a damage of more than half a million dollars to the people of the Northwest; that I know. And yet because it is owned by these corporations, and they have built a bridge which is an obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi, they rush here and ask us to do, what? Not to leave the bridge in its present status, with its character to be determined by the courts, but they come here and ask us to legalize their illegal act; that is what they do. Now, I ask the representatives of the people if they are prepared to do this? Why did not the committee bring in a report setting forth all the facts?
Mr. ALLEY. The Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] having justified himself to his constituents, which I suppose was all he desired or intended to do, I shall not occupy the attention of the House many minutes, and will then give way to other gentlemen who desire to occupy the rest of my time. Now, in regard to the flourish of the gentleman about some testimony he holds in his hand, a page or 2 of the statements of pilots, steamboat owners, and others who are directly interested Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. terested 2
Mr. ALLEY. I would say that he refers to that as all the testimony as if by implication the committee, somehow or other, had supported the remainder of the testimony. Now, hold in my hand ten times as much testimony, sworn testimony also, from interested and disinterested parties, which testimony is of a character directly opposed to that which the Gentfrom Illinois has presented; and How in if it is desired that the whole shall be read I certainly shall have no objection.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask that it be read, and I ask that the additional testimony given by my colleague and myself before that committee be also read.
Mr. ALLEY. The House, I am sure, after hearing the testimony read, would come to the conclusion, as the committee did, that no stronger case was ever made out. The committee unanimously came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that if any bridge under any circumstances was to be built, this was a bridge eminently worthy of the protection of the Congress of the U.S. With these remarks I will yield 5 minutes to my on the committee, [Mr. FAR QUIHAR.
Mr. FARQUHAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Clerk to read what I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows: “Src. 6. Abife:, &c., That the bridges across the Ohio river at Wheeling, in the State of Virginia, and at Bridgeport, in the State of Ohio, abutting on Zane's Island in . said river, are hereby to belawful structures in their present position and elevation, and shall beso held and taken to be, anything in any law or laws of the U.S. to the contrary notwithstanding. “SEC Abife: That the said bridges are declared to be and are established post rSotaadtess, for the passage of the mails of the U.S and that the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge are authorized to said bridges at their presenhtsaivtee and melaeivnattaioinn, thaenidr the officers and crews of all vesselsand boats navi gating said river are required to regulate the use of their said, vessels and and of any pipes or chimneys belonging thoreto, so as not to interfere with the elevation and construction of said bridges.” [U.S. Statutes at Large, vol. 10, p. 112.
Mr. FARQUHAR. Mr. Speaker, I present that to the consideration of the House as the final result of the controversy arising out of the great Wheeling bridge case, to which I call the attention of my distinguished friendfrom Ohio, Mr. BINGHAM] I ask the House whether this bridge company, or its representatives are not asking but a comparatively small privilege when the great body of the people authorized the legislation read for that bridge at of Wheel that long controversy, not only legalizing it as a post road, but declaring that its height, its and its breadth should all be legalized, while in this case there is reserved to the Congress of the U.S. the power to remove this bridge whenever it may be found to be a “material obstruction to the navigation of the river?” Now, sir, there runs out from the city of Chicago to the city of RockIsland, just 60 miles south of the Clinton bridge, a railroad. There runs from the city of Chicago, just 40 miles above this bridge, at Dubuque, another railroad; near the end of which resides my distinguished friendfrom Illinois; thus there are 3 railroads passing over that magnificent prairie, coming somewhat in competition with each other. Yet the gentleman tells us that he is in favor of breaking down monop olies, while at the same time he is urging that we shall take away from the people of that portion of Iowa and that portion of Illinois one of these rival lines of transportation by tearing down this magnificent bridge and destroying that great thoroughfare.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is my proposition?
Mr. FARQUHAR. The gentleman's proposition is, that the bridge shall be lengthened in its span; and to do that it must be torn down to its foundation.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let it con . to the requirements applied to every other ri dge.
Mr. FARQUEIAR. Well, this is a singular proposition: that we shall do away with comW.” to increase the price of products. Whenyou create competition in transportation you reduce its price, and thereby increase the price of products. Let me say that this great Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company may be a monopoly; I know nothing about that; but I do know that it has, by its energy and capital, reached out its arms over 1200 miles of that great north western country, opening up facilities by which the products gathered from all parts of that country may be carried to the markets for which they are destined. That railroad now reaches 490 8 miles, from the city of Chicago to the city of Council Bluffs, upon the great missouri river. The great Pacific railroad has now reached 300 miles further up the valley of the Platte, and is looking toward the Rocky mountains, which it will reach during the coming year. Yet the distinguished Gentfrom Illinois, the representative of the people of the West, comes here and asks this Congress to tear down this bridge which is to carry over it the great trade which not only comes from the valley between the Mississippi river and the Rocky mountains, but from the far Pacific coast ay, from that celestial empire which is to contribute countless millions of passengers and tons of freight over this magnificent bridge which the gentleman prooses to tear down because this corporation is, in his excited imagination, a “great monopoly.”
Mr. o' The Gentfrom massachusetts has promised to yield to me.
Mr. ALLEY. My distinguished friendfrom Ohio wants just one minute, and I cannot refuse so modest a request.
Mr. ALLEY. now yield 5 minutes to the Gentfrom NewYork.
Mr. ALLEY. I yield 4 minutes to the Gentfrom Iowa, oALLISON]
Mr. ALLISON. I only desire to say, by way of explanation, what I intended to say before the previous question was 2nded.I do not know whether this bridge is a material obstruction to navigation or not, but I know that experts pilots and captains on that river do regard it as such. I am aware that engineers on these railroads insist that it is otherwise. Now, if it is no obstruction there can of course be no objection to this legislation. But what I desired to say was that legislation on this matter should be postponed until we could have an opportunity of seeing and reading a report from a distinguished engineer of the Army, General Warren, who within 3 months has made a full and complete examination of this bridge, and who has no interest either in favor of the railroad or of the river navigation.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. They dare not trust that.
Mr. ALLISON. Therefore it is I desired to say a word by way of appeal to my distinguished friend to wait owe can have an opportunity of seeing the report of that engineer. And I desire, furthermore, to say that if that distinguished engineer should find that this bridge is an obstruction to navigation, then there should be a proviso attached to this bill whereby this corporation within a reason able time should be required to so reconstruct. bridge as to make the navigation safe and ree.
Mr. FARQUAR. I would ask the gentleman to state to the House whether the question of the location of this bridge was or was not referred to that gentleman by Congress, and I anticipate his answer by saying that it was not.
Mr. ALLISON. I will only say that by the resolution of Congress this whole question was referred to the engineering bureau of the War Dept, and that distinguished general has made this examination personally; and therefore it is that I desire there should be a flow inserted in this bill substantially like this: Provided, That the said bridge shall, upon the recommendation of the chief engineer of the Army, within 5 years from the passage of this, act be so reconstructed as to make it conform to the provisions of an act to authorize the construction of certain bridges, and to establish them as post roads, approved July 28, 1866.
Mr. ALLEY. Does not the gentleman know that all the engineers whose attention has been called to this bridge are of the opinion that it will not obstruct navigation? And is not the gentleman himself sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case to be warranted in believing that it will not?
Mr. ALLISON. I doknow that distinguished engineers say it is not an obstruction to navigation. But though it may not bean obstruction to navigation today, it may be an obstruction 5 years hence; and therefore I think there should be some power somewhere to require this corporation to so change the construction from time to time as to leave this great natural highway to the Gulf of Mexico free and unin terrupted for the navigation of steamboats. And more than that. I now make my remarks in opposition to the bill, by way of expla. nation of what I proposed in the beginning rather than for the purpose of trying at this stage to amend it. There is another provision in the bill which I object to, and it is this: this bill authorizes and requires steamboats above the bridge to give a reasonable signal before the draw shall be passed. Now, I do not know what may be construed to be a reasonable sig nal, or who is to make the construction of the law; therefore I think there should be a more specific statute with reference to the present duties of the engineers and pilots upon those boats, or of the persons who may have charge of the draws.
Mr. ALLEY. One word in reply to a single observation of the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. ALLison] He says that though there may be no obstruction now there may be 5 years hence, and therefore there should be some power somewhere to remedy such an evil. If the gentleman had listened carefully to the reading of the bill he would have discovered that this power does exist, that it is especially reserved to Congress and to the courts. Therefore that difficulty is all obviated. I now yield 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. FARNsworth]
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Isaid nothing about the steamboat interest of my district.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I supposed my colleague was representing the people of his district and their interests. It reminds me of a story I once heard of a distinguished judge, now a U.S. Senator. When on the bench he was greatly annoyed by trifling suits, and when a case of certiorari was before him and he was annoyed and vexed at having to construe a statute, he asked the counsel for the plaintiff how much the case involved, and was told 20 shillings. Said he, “Oh, my God, I would rather pay that amount than have to construe the statute!” And so I think the people had better buy off the opposition of my colleague from the Galena district and have the opposition removed.
Mr. ALLEY. I now yield the residue of my time to the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. PRice.] I would gladly have yielded to the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. DAvis, who i. to say a few words, but I have not time to do so.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, this bridge about which there appears to be so much contention happens to be in my district that part of it, at least, which is said to be an obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi river. I have lived on the banks of that river for 22 years not far from this bridge.. I live below it, and I want to say to the members of this House that during the time I have lived there, and since the construction of this bridge, I have not heard of any damage being done to the navigation of the river by it. I wish to say in this connection, in reply to a remark made by some gentlemen last session upon this same bill, that the instance cited of a case of damage done to a raft did not occur at the Clinton bridge, but at the bridge at Davenport. Gentlemen will remember that at the last session of Congress we passed a bill authorizing and directing the removal of that bridge because it was an obstruction to the navigation of the river; and I say now
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlemen will yield.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for the yeas&nays.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon ordering the yeas&nays; and upon a division, there were ayes 12; noes not counted. Before the result of the vote was announced,
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, said: I call for tellers upon ordering the yeas&nays. I hope gentlemen are not afraid to place themselves upon the record. Let us see who are in favor of monopolies and who are against them.
Skip Skip Tellers were ordered; and Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, and Mr. ALLEY were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 30; noes not counted. So, one 5th voting in the affirmative, the yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I rise to a question of privilege. I was a member of the board of directors that ordered the construction of this bridge. In order to secure its construction we had to issue bonds, and I am the owner of some of those bonds. Now, as some may regard that as a clear case of interest I ask that I may be excused from voting; and I hope every other member who may be interested will do the same thing.
Mr. THAYER. I move that the member from Illinois [Mr. WENTwo RTH] be excused from voting upon this bill.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I will say that if I am compelled to vote I will vote for the bill.
Skip Skip The motion of Mr. THAYER was agreed t;o and Mr. WENTwo RTH was accordingly excused from voting. The question recurred upon the passage of the bill; and being taken, it was decided in the affirmative yeas 101, nays 43, not voting 47;. So the bill was passed. During the call of the roll, Mr. THAYER said: I desire to announce that my colleague, Mr. KELLEY, is absent, by leave of the House, on business of the Naval Committee. When the call of the roll was concluded, Mr. DAVIS said: I wish to ask to be excused from voting,
The SPEAKER. That request should have been made before the roll call had commenced. It is too late now.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. On what ground does the gentleman desire to be excused?
Mr. DAVIS. On this ground: that though I am not interested in this bill, yet as I was not allowed an opportunity to answer the question put to me by the Gentfrom Illinois I have not been able to explain that I have no interest. The result of the vote was then announced as above stated.
Mr. SAWYER mtRtv taken; on the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. MCDon ALD, its Chief Clerk, notifying the House that that body had passed House bill No. 380, to fix the times for the regular meeting of Congress, with an amendment. Also, House bill No. 508, to amend the organic acts of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and NewMexico, with amendments, in which amendments he was directed to request the concurrence of the House. Also, a bill (S.No.494) for the relief of the Wine na and StPeters Railroad Company, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. COMMITTEE ON THE MILITIA.
The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Messrs. BANks and WAN AERNAM to housie upon the Committee on the ilitia. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order after the morning hour the consideration of the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional, compensation to certain employees in the civil service at Washington. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a privileged motion, and move to proceed to business on The SPEAKer's table. The motion was agreed to; there being ayes 61, noes 48. MEETINGS OF CONGRESS. The 1st business on The SPEAKer's table was Senate amendment to the bill (H.R.No. 830 to fix the times for the regular meetings o Congress. The amendment was read as follows: Strike out all of section 2 after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: That no person who was a member of the previous Congress shall receive any compensation as mileage for going to or returning from the additional session provided for by the foregoing section.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I move that the House non-concur in the amendment. As I understand, it allows constructive mileage.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Well, I would like to understand the effect of the amendment.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the part proposed to be stricken out.
The Clerk read as follows: That section 17 of the act approved July 28, 1866, entitled “An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes.” be so amendedthat no Senator or Representative in congresswho has been a member of the Congress next immediately preceding shall receive any allowance for mileage for traveling to the place of meeting to attend such additional session provided for in the foregoing section.
Mr. WENTWORTH. As I understand, the House bill provided against constructive mile age. The Senate amendment, if I understand it correctly, allows constructive mileage.
Mr. WENTWORTH. If that is the fact, I have nothing further to say. e amendment of the Senate was concurred in.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork, mtRtv the amendment was concurred in; upon the table. agreed to. SUFFRAGE IN THE Territories. The next business on The SPEAKer's table was Senate amendments to the bill (H.R.No. 508) entitled “An act to amend the organic acts of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montano Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and NewMexico.” The amendments were read, as follows: Strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause and insert the following: That from and after the passage of this act there shall be no denial of the elective franchise in any of the Territories of the U.S., now or hereafter to be organized, to any citizen thereof on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude; and all acts or parts of acts, either of Congress or the Legislative Assembliesof said Territories, inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby declared null and void. Amend the title of the bill so as to read, “An act to regulate the elective franchise in the Territories of the U.S. ”
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move that the House concur in the amendments of the senate; and on that motion I call the previous question.
Mr. ALLISON. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?
Mr. ALLISON. I desire to ask the chair man of the ComTerritor [Mr. AshLEY, of Ohio, whether or not the provisions of this bill, if it becomes a law, wi?? apply to the Territories of Colorado and Nebraska.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Yes, sir; while Territories it will apply to them.. I now insist on the call for the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Mr. LeBLOND. nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question then recurred on concurring in the amendments of the Senate; and being taken, it was decided in the affirmative yeas 104, nays 38, not voting 49; So the amendments of the Senate were concurred in. During the vote, Mr. DEMING stated that his colleague, Mr. BRANDEGEE, was absent by leave of the House, and that if he were present he would vote in the affirmative. Mr. THAYER made a similar statement concerning his colleague, Mr. KELLEY. The vote was then announced as above recorded.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, then mtRtv the amendments of the Senate were concurred in; upon the table. agreed to. RETRENCHMENT. The next business on The SPEAKer's table was Senate JtResolution No. 157, appropria: ting money to defray the O ojoint select comRetrenchment. The JtResolution was read a 1st and 2nd time. It appropriates $15,000 to defray the expenses of witnesses and other expenses of the joint select comRetrenchment.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. I wish to inquire whether this is to be considered as the report of the comRetrenchment? [Laughter] It does not look very much like retrenchment. It is the only thing we have heard from that committee.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the labors of this committee, have been very I call for the yeas and ice, Rousseau, much enlarged and many additional subjects' have been referred to it. The Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HALE] chairman of the committee, is absent, but the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SchoNck] is present and can explain the object of the JtResolution.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the resolution read and was not aware anything of this kind was on your table. It carries along with it its own explanation. It is simply a provision to pay the expenses of the committee. What the committee have yet done we are not prepared fully to report, although we have reported 2 or 3 bills which are now pending in relation to appointments to office.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. I ask the gentleman whether the committee has saved the amount now proposed to be drawn from the Treasury?
Mr. SCHENCK. It is more than I am able to say what has been saved. A large amount of testimony has been taken and a great deal more is to be taken when our legislative duties will permit, which will develop a large amount of fraud and rascality in a variety of shapes by which the members of this Congress may here after well be directed in future legislation. I am not prepared to make any report what that testimony is. I demand the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was ordered to a 3rd reading, and it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. ADMISSION OF NEBRASRA. The next business on The SPEAKer's table was Senate bill No. 456, for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union. The bill was read a 1st and 2nd time.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Qhio. Before calling the previous question I will say that the Committee. on the Territories this morning unanimously directed me to move that the bill be put upon its passage. If the previous question be 2nded , I will yield to gentlemen a portion of my time.
Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will after the previous question has been 2nd ed.
Mr. GARFIELD. I only want half a minute just now.
Mr. GARFIELD. I am unwilling to pass, without debate or examination, a bill containing a provision which, if it have any legal effect at all, may become a very troublesome recedent hereafter. Suppose a bill should e offered tomorrow to let SCarolina in on the same condition? I do not express an opinion as to the merits of the bill; but resist the attempt to pass it without examination or debate. To make 2 new States in ten minutes, under the previous question, without having the bill printed or debated, is unworthy of a deliberative body.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I desire to state that the committee were unanimous in favor of the bill with the exception of the member from Tennessee, o Cooper]
Mr. FINCK. I wish to inquire of my colloeagute whether he intends toP. through any discussion a bill of such importance as this.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the House sustains the motion for the previous question I will allow discussion.
Mr. FINCK. If the gentleman will make it a special order and have it discussed
Mr. FINCK. It is very extraordinary to have a matter of this importance pressed through under the previous question.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] state how much time he will allow?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the previous question is sustained I have said I would yield to gentlemen all my time except perhaps 5 minutes. I will now yield to the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. WILson]
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I merely wish to appeal to the gentleman not to press this bill to a vote at this time. We have just passed a bill securing to all male citizens of the U.S. within the Territories the right of suffrage, without distinction of race or color. It is now proposed to pass a bill accepting a constitution for a State government which expressly disfranchises the persons we have just declared by our votes if: enfranchised. Now, sir I think, with a question of this kind presented to us, we should not make haste under the previous question to create this new State, and thereby undo our work so far as the colored citizens of Nebraska are concerned. I know there is a provision in this bill which declares that this act shall only take effect upon the fundamental condition that no person shall be disfranchised on account of race or color; but, sir, if we pass this bill the Territory be comes a State, and there is no consent by o the of the Territory to this condition, either y a vote of the people or by an act of the legislative body.? the Territory representing the people. We merely declare that our act of admission shall carry with it as a condition an annulment of one section of the constitution of the State. Now, sir, as has been suggested by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD, this may return to plague us when we are asked to pass upon the cases of the southern States. . not accept SCarolina if this condition can be rendered effective in Nebraska by attaching the same condition to her constitution?
Mr. DAWES. I would like to ask the gentleman what would be the legal effect of a fail ure on the part of Nebraska to perform this condition subsequent after the passage of this bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Why, sir, I think the effect of this provision would be to throw into the courts of the U.S. the question as to whether the colored citizens are entitled to vote in the new State of Nebraska.
Mr. DAWES. I would inquire further if it would not also raise the question whether upon the refusal to perform this condition subsequent Nebraska is any longer a State. And I would suggest here whether it is worth while for us in one hour under the previous question, in an hour distributed out by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] to those who may desire to discuss it 5 or ten minutes, to pass upon this new fundamental feature in the admission of States to this Union, whether a condition subsequent can be attached at all to the admission. I wish the gentleman would address himself to that.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I can only give my opinion in reference to this point. I have no doubt that this provision would have no effect whatever.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I hope the previous question will be voted down.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will hear the gentleman for a moment.
Mr. DAWES. This condition meets my hearty concurrence if incorporated into the constitution of the State of Nebraska; but I desire that it shall be incorporated into the constitution of the State of Nebraska by the legislation of this House, and I appeal to the Gentfrom Ohio to let us fully understand this question, and whether we are accomplishing what we wish to accomplish in this matter. This is, to my mind, a very grave question, a question which I desire to see discussed more than it can be discussed in one hour under the operation of the previous question, that time being distributed among the members of the House by the Gentfrom Ohio. It is deserving of the further and calmer and more deliberate discussion in this House, because it affects the condition and status not only of the State of Nebraska but of every other State in this Union, and of those States also which are knocking at the door to be admitted into this Union. The gentleman cannot surely comprehend and appreciate the magnitude of the question he is springing upon us under the previous question, and I hope he will permit us to discuss it more deliberately than we can do in the hour which will be left to him after the previous question is sustained.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the House will set apart tomorrow after the morning hour for the consideration of this bill and the one for the admission of Colorado as special orders, I have no objection to further discussion.
The SPEAKER. That can be done by unanimous consent, but otherwise the bill in regard to appointments to office and the banking bill, and several other special orders, would take precedence:
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I wish to inquire if the bill in relation to the Electoral College is not also a special order for tomorrow? The . That is also a special order, and there are several others. The Chair onlymentioned the prominent ones on which discussion is expected.
Mr. MORRILL. Make these bills the special order for Monday next.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. order for Monday next?
The SPEAKER. There are a number of special orders that would be ahead of this.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Cannot I have the unanimous consent of the House that these bills shall be the special order for Monday?
Mr. BLAINE and Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I object.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Then I will try the previous question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, ef Illinois. to lay the bill upon the table.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Is it not in order to move to refer this bill?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] is upon the floor now, having withdrawn the demand for the previous question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman has distinctly renewed the demand for the previous question.
Mr. INGERSOLL. If the demand for the previous question be withdrawn, will it not then be in order to move a reference of the bill?
Mr. INGERSOLL. Then I move to refer it to the ComTerritories.
The SPEAKER. That motion is not now in order, the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Ash LEY] being entitled to the floor.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I have alread said that the ComTerritories, with one exception, unanimously instructed me to put this bill upon its passage.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Then I want to ask the chairman of that committee this question: if this bill is passed with this condition subsequent, which attaches no penalty or forfeiture or a violation of the ji.on the State of Nebraska, will it not be a nullity, or how will it affect the status of that State when once admitted?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. That will be a question for the courts to determine.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I would like to answer my own question if the gentleman declines to answer it.
The SPEAKER. Does the Gentfrom Ohio yield the floor?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. lay the bill upon the table.
The SPEAKER. That motion has priority over the demand for the previous question.
Mr. FINCK. I demand the yeas&nays on the motion to lay the bill on the table. kilMl
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. That motion will the bill.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. kill it and all such bills. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative–yeas 41, nays 106, not voting 44;. The question recurred upon 2nding the call for the previous question.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would inquire for information: if the call for the previous question fails to be 2nded will the bill then be open for debate and amendment?
The SPEAKER. It will, or for commitment.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the House will grant me, for the consideration of the Nebraska and Colorado bills, some one day next week, immediately after the reading of the Journal, I will consent to a postponement of this bill till that time.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Iobject to any such arrangement.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Then I insist upon my call for the previous question upon ordering the bill to be read a 3rd time.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and upon a division, there were ayes 61, noes 68. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. AshLEY, of Ohio, and Mr. INGERSolI, were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 47. before the noes were counted, Mr. INGERSOLL said: The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AsHLEY] gives up the count.
The SPEAKER. After the House has ordered tellers upon a question no member can give up the count; but the tellers must perform their duty.
Mr. INGERSOLL. There were 65 in the negative.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I would o: the tellers have performed their full duty
The SPEAKER. Strictly speaking the duty of the tellers was not fully performed; but by unanimous consent the House can regard the announcement made by the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. INGERSoLL, one of the tellers, that there were 65 voting in the nega tive, as a sufficient count.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. There were some 20 members waiting to pass between the tellers who were not. I insist that there shall be a full count made and reported by the tellers.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will again appoint tellers..
Mr. ORTH, of o Indiana, and RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, will please act as tellers.
Skip Skip The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 39, noes 73. So the call for the previous question was not 2nd ed.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I now move that this bill be referred to the ComTerritories.
Mr. BLAINE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. BLAINE. I want to move to amend the motion of the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. INGERsoil] so as to havg this bill referred to the ComJudiciary. I desire to make that motion for the reason that the ComTerritories have already told us plainly that they have made up their minds. They have given us their unanimous verdict, and the House does not sustain it. The point at issue is a law point, and should properly be referred to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I will yield to allow the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE) to move his amendment to my motion, and then the House can dispose of it as they may think olro.
Mr. BLAINE. I now move to amend the motion of the Gentfrom Illinois so that this bill may be referred to the ComJudiciary; and upon that motion I call the previous question.
The SPEAKER. If the call for the previous question should be 2nded and the main question ordered, then, if the motion to refer should be voted down, the previous question will not be exhausted till the 3rd reading of the bill.
Mr. BLAINE. Then I withdraw the call for the previous question, and insist upon my motion to refer to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It is very evident that the House desires to discuss this bill. Now, if the House will grant me a day for the consideration of this bill I will fix the day for that purpose; I will have no objection to its postponement and discussion. All I want is to have a day named upon which I can have a vote upon this bill.
Mr. DAWES. I hope the suggestion of the Gentfrom Ohio will be adopted. There can be nothing fairer than the course which he proposes. He has done all that he can do in this matter, and I trust the House will now fix some time for the consideration of this important measure.
Mr. BLAINE. Let the bill take its regular order as it may come from the committee on call. I object to making it a special order, which, I believe, requires unanimous consent.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has already stated that it will require unanimous consent to make this a special order to take precedence of anterior special orders.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. When a special order is reached can it not be postponed by a majority vote?
The SPEAKER. It can. But at the present time the House is not engaged in the consideration of any special order; therefore the motion to postpone a special order could not be made now.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. INGERsoll] to yield to me for a moment.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to appeal to the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINEJ to withdraw his amendment to the motion to refer. I do so for this reason: the ComJudiciary now have on hand more business than they can possibly get through with during this session; they will be compelled in a short time to ask leave to sit during the sessions of the House. Therefore I hope this bill will be allowed to take the course usually taken by bills of this character. Let it be referred to the ComTerritories.
Mr. BLAINE. Let the House, if it chooses, vote down my motion; I cannot consent to withdraw it.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the rule with regard to the effect of the previous question.
The Clerk read as follows: “Its effects shall be to put an end to all debate, and to bring the House to a direct vote upon a motion to commit, if such motion shall have been made: and if trheipsomrteodtiobny does not prevail, then upon amendments a committee, if any; then upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question.”
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will, by way of a compromise, move that the bill, without being made a special order, be postponed until next Thursday after the morning hour, and that it be printed. Several MEMBERs. That is right.
Mr. BLAINE. Can that be done by a majority vote?
The SPEAKER. It can. The Chair, however, deems it proper to state that if the motion be adopted the bill will probably not be reached this session.
Mr. BLAINE. When the bill shall be reached will not the 1st question be upon the motion to refer to the ComJudiciary?
The SPEAKER. A motion to postpone to a certain day has priority of a motion to commit or amend.
Mr. BLAINE. Does it obliterate the motion to commit?
The SPEAKER. It leaves the motion to commit pending as the 1st question whenever the bill may be reached. A motion to postpone indefinitely comes in after a motion to commit; but a motion to postpone to a day certain has priority of a motion to commit.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Do I understand the Chair to say that, if my motion be adopted, we shall be unable to reach the bill?
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, the bill; if postponed, would probably not be reached during this session.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is what we want.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Irenew it. On the motion there were ayes 51, noes 75.
Mr. FINCK called for tellers. Tellers were not ordered. So the motion was not agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the motion of the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAIN E] to refer the bill to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I rise to a question of order. I submit the question whether. motion of the Gentfrom Maine is in orcier.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Under the rules, I believe, all questions pertaining to territorial matters and to the admission of States must be referred to the ComTerritories.
Mr. BLAINE. And all legal questions to the ComJudiciary. If the gentleman wants to divide the question I will agree that the amendments shall go the ComJudiciary and the bill to the Territorial Committee.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that itseems by the rule the ComTerritories has special charge of the question before the House. He will not, however, decide the matter, but leave it to the determination of the House. The rule concerning the ComJudiciary is as follows: “83. It shall be the duty of the ComJudiciary the to take into consideration such petitions and matters or things touching judicial proceedings as shall be presented, or may come in question, and be referred to them by the House; and to report their opinion thereon, together with such propositions relative thereto as to them shall seemexpedient.”
Mr. BLAINE. That meets the point exactly.
The SPEAKER. The rule concerning the ComTerritories is as follows: “91. It shall be the duty of the ComTerritories to examine into the legislative, civil, and criminal proceedingsof the Territories, and to devise and report to the Housesuch means as in their opinion may be necessary to securethe rights and privileges of residents and non-residents.”
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Would it be in order to refer it to the ComPostOffice?
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it would not be, although the House can refer to whatever committee it pleases. As the Gentfrom Maine would seem to indicate by the remark he let drop that the Judiciary was the proper committee, the Chair will state that the language creating the ComJudiciary seems to have. I withdraw my been special in its character. It is provided that that committee shall take into consideration such petitions and matters or things touching judicial proceedings as shall be presented or may come in question, and be referred to them by the House; and to report their opinion thereon, together with such propositions relative thereto as to them shall seem expedient. 4 times in the course of the rule ref. erence is made to i. judicial proceedings and proceedings alone. But it is for the house to determine what committee it will refer it to.
Skip Skip The question was taken on Mr. BLAINE’s motion to refer the bill to the ComJudiciary, and it was disagreed to. The question next recurred on the motion to refer to the ComTerritories.
Mr. ROSS. I move to refer it to the ComReconstruction.
The SPEAKER. As that is a select committee, the question will 1st recur on referring it to the standing committee.
Mr. BUNDY moved that the House adjourn. ExTrA COMPENSATION TO CLERRS.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the SecyTreasury, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the House, information concerning the disbursement of the fund of $250,0$160,000 as extra compensation to clerks in his Dept; which was referred to the ComWays&Means, and ordered to be printed. ENROLLED BILLS.
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 (H.R.No. 508) to regulate the elective franchise in the Territories of the U.S.; and An act (H.R.No. 830) to fix the times for the regular meeting of Congress.
Mr. LeBLOND. I think there will be a Republican caucus in this House this evening. [Laughter] The motion to adjourn was agreed to, and E. ten minutes to 4 o'clock p. m.) the house adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. FRIDAY, January 11, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. WADE, from the ComTerri tories, to whom was referred 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, reported it without amendment. Mr. WILLEY, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the memorial of C. B. Gardner, praying for compensation for brick used by the U.S. Army during the siege of Nashville, Tennessee, in the month of $om. 1864, submitted an adverse report. Mr. HOWE, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the petition of Benton Jones, praying to be reimbursed for money alleged to have been expended while acting as postmaster of the cavalry command in the dept of Mississippi, reported that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition and papers; which was agreed to. e also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of A. L. H. Cran.]". for compensation for property alleged to have been destroyed and taken by the U.S. military authorities in missouri while he was held a prisoner on suspicion of being a rebel spy, submitted an adverse report;, which was agreed to. e also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of William N. Smith, of Grundy county, Missouri, praying for"com. ensation for a tavern house, alleged to have been burned in the town of Glasgow, Missouri, through the orders of the military officers in command there, submitted an adverse report; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Frank Pugsley, praying for pay and allowances for services rendered as a private in the Army, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.499) for the relief of Frank Pugsley, late a private in company I of the 3rd regiment of NewHampshire volunteers. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading, and the report was ordered to be printed. STEAMSHIP SCOTLAND.
Mr. CHANDLER. The ComCommerce, to whom was referred the memorial of the marine underwriters of NewYork, praying for an appropriation for the removal of the iron steamship Scotland, wrecked on the bar outside of Sandy Hook, has directed me to to report a JtResolution on that subject, and I ask for its present consideration. By unanimous consent the JtResolution (S. it. No. 156) to provide for the removal of the wreck of the steamship Scotland was read 3 times and passed. It is a direction to the SecyWar to cause the removal of the wreck of the iron steamship Scotland, now on the bar outside of Sandy Hook, near the entrance of NewYork harbor. It is proposed to appropriate $100,000 for this purpose. The SecyWar, after notice given in one or more newspapers in Philadelphia, NewYork, and Boston, is to receive sealed proposals for the removal of the wreck, and to make a contract for its removal with the lowest bidder, the contract price not to exceed the sum appropriated. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. LANE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a 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 3, 1865; which was read twice ". its title, and referred to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. WADE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.501) amendatory of an act to provide a tem porary government for the Territory of Montana, approved May 26, 1864; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComTerritor, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CONNESS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No. 502) respecting the town site of Shasta, California; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed. PERSONAL ExPLANATION.
Mr. CATTELL. I desire to state that I was unavoidably absent yesterday when the vote was taken on the bill to regulate the elective franchise in the Territories, and that if present I should have voted for that bill, and also for the bill regulating the time for the meeting of Congress.
Mr. CONNESS. I move that Joseph Hill & Sons have leave to withdraw their petition and papers. It is a claim upon which there has been no report. The motion was agreed to. Norfolk NAVY YArd.
Mr. GRIMES submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComNavAffrs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of tempo rarily closing the navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia, and placing it, for the protection of the public property there, in charge of the commander of the Marine corps. IbALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.
Mr. RAMSEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComDistCol be directed to.into the legality and expediency of a certain ordinance, now pending before the councils of the city of Washington, conced:ing the use of certain of the streets of said city until tChoemypeaanry;19a1nodtot, htahtethBeayltrimepoorret bayndbilQl hio Railroad or otherwise. ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY. On motion of Mr. ANTHONY, it was Ordered, That when the Senate adjourns today, it be to meet on Monday next. TARIFF BILL.
Mr. FESSENDEN, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes, reported it with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and 1,000 extra copies of the amendment were ordered to be printed. PRINTING OF THE BANkrupt bill.
Mr. POLAND submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That 250 copies of House bill No. 598, with the Senata amendments be printed in bill form for the use of the ellate. PENSION AGENTs.
Mr. CRAGIN. I move to take apSenate bill No. 69 for consideration. o The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the amendment of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions. The poprotemporc. The pending question is on the 1st amendment reported by the ComJudiciary to the amendment proposed by the HoRep, w; is in line 11 of the House amendment, to strike out “January” and insert “October.” O
Mr. HOWE. I move an amendment to to, strike out “ October” and insert Ju.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The vote was taken on that amendment and it was disagreed to.
Mr. HOWE. Very well. The amendment of the committee to the Hòuse amendment was agreed to. The next amendment of the ComJudiciary was in line 12 of the House amendment, to strike out “6” and insert “5.”
Mr. HOWE. I hope that amendment will not be agreed to. If it is, the effect of it is, if it has any effect, to dismiss from office in 30 days every pension agent who has been appointed since the 1st of P. October, 1865. But disagree to this amendment the clause will only remove those who have been apointed since the 1st of October, 1866, and I i. the Senate will not agree to the amendment of the committee. ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HOWE. If the Senate will only listen to the effect of the amendment asked for here by the committee it seems to me they will disagree to it. If we agree to that amendment, as I said before, we throw out of office every agent who has been appointed since the 1st of October, 1865. If we do not agree to it nobody will be displaced except those who have been appointed since the 1st of October, 1866. o Mr. SUMNER. That does not go back far enough.
Mr. HOWE. I think it does go back far enough.
Mr. SUMNER. The month of August was a very destructive month. [Laughter]
Mr. HOWE. It is a curious fact, Mr. president, that, however destructive the month of August may have been to other officers, it is not known to have struck down any pension agent. I cannot hear of one in the U.S. It is a remarkable fact, but I think we ought to give due credit to it and be grate ful for it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have heard no argument yet that satisfies me that this amendment or any such amendment ought to be adopted. I understand that the object is to remove from office certain persons who have been appointed, so as to make the offices vacant and put it in the hands of the President to make new appointments. I suppose that these appointments which have heretofore been made are regarded as objectionable, and for that reason it is thought to be advisable to remove them. But what assurance have we that the new appointments will be any better than those that have already been made? Is there any particular necessity for this amendment? Will any advantage begained to anybody by its adoption? ‘I have no doubt that the appointments hereto fore made, many of them, are exceptionable; and if the Senate had any remedy it would be well enough to apply that remedy; but if they are removed I suppose, if not the same men, similar men will be appointed by the President and their appointments must be confirmed by the Senate or there will be no persons to discharge the duties of these offices. I should like to know what is to be gained by this proosed amendment.
Mr. CRAGIN. Mr. President, I have but very little knowledge of this bill, and therefore, although I have called it up frequently, I have not attempted to say anything in relation to it. The bill was originally passed by the And that the Senate at the last session, and the purpose of it was to give the appointment of these officers to the POTUS, subject to confirmation by the Senate. They have been heretofore and are now appointed by the SecyInterior; and while the office was of little importance it was perhaps well enough that the incumbents should be appointed in that way, but these offices have become now of great importance. These men have the distribution of large amounts of money, and their offices are very important. After its passage by the Senate this bill was taken up in the other House and amended, as Senators will see by examining the print before them; and I apprehend that unless we agree to the House amendment in some form, the bill. may not pass and become a law. Therefore, although so far as I am concerned personall I have little care about this amendment, I thin it better that it should be adopted substantially as it came from the committee, and I hope that it will be done and that we may be able to dispose of the bill at the present time.
Mr. HENDRICIXS. If the amendment which is now before the Senate should be adopted, would it then be in order to move to strike out all of the proviso in the House amendment and substitute other words?
The PRESIDENT protempore. such a motion would be in order, but the Chair is advised that there is already an amendment to the proviso proposed by the committee.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to strike out all after the words “provided further” in line 9 of the House amendment to the close of that amendment, and to insert other words.
The PRESIDENT protempore. such a motion in the opinion of the Chair will clearly be in order.
Mr. HENDRICKS. But it is not in order now, as I understand.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Not while another amendment is pending. The question now is on the amendment proposed by the committee to strike out “six” in line 12 and insert “five, ” and upon this amendment the yeas&nays have been ordered. The question being taken by rol"; yeas and mays, 1, nays 30; 21. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. The next amendment of the ComJudiciary was to strike out of the House amendment the following words: resident shall, within 15 days from the passageof this act, nominate to the Senate persons for pension agents in the several agencies in which pension agents have beenappointed since the said 1stday of January, A. D. 1866;and that all pension agents appointed prior to said date last named, and now acting, shall continue, in their respective officesuntil their successors shall be confirmed nominated and in accordance with the provisions of this fuct And in lieu thereof to insert: And of all other pension, agents when successors shall be duly appointed in their places. So as to make the House amendment read: That the number of pension agencies in any State or Territory shall in no casebeincreased hereafter so as to exceed 3, and that no such agency shall be established in addition to those now existing, in any State or Territory in which the whole amount of pensions paid during the fiscal year next precedingshall not have exceeded the sum of $500,000, and provided further, That the term of office of all pension agents appointed since the 1st day of October, A. D. 1866, shall expire at the end of 30 daysfrom the passage of this act, and of all other pension agents when successors shall be duly appointed in their places. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is on concurring in the amendment of the HoRep as amended.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I move to amend the House amendment by striking out the whole proviso after the word “further” in the 9th ine to the end of the 2/3rd line, and in lieu of those words inserting: That the term of office of all pension agents now in office shall expire when successors shall be duly appointed. As the section now stands Congress will legislate out of office pension agents who have been appointed since the 1st day of last Octo ber and leave all other pension agents to go out of office when their successors shall be duly appointed. I do not think the Senate of the U.S. would want to occupy that position, legislating with reference to a few office holders in one way, and to another set of office holders of the same class, appointed by virtue of the same authority, holding their offices under the same law, in another mode. I do not know of any instance in which congress have legislated the incumbents out of office where they have changed the office so as to make it subject to presidential instead of a deptal appointment, but have left them to go out of office as all other officers do when successors are properly appointed. Now, why not do that in regard to this set of officers? I propose here that hereafter pension agents shall be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and that the present incumbents shall go out when successors are thus appointed. think that would be decent legislation on the part of Congress; but to select a few men and legislate them out and legislate others in is not becoming this body, as I think.
Mr. LANE. By the bill as the Senate passed it at the last session it was provi that all pension agents should be hereafter appointed. the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. The amendment of the House, as now amended, is, that the term of office of all pension agents appointed since the 1st of October, 1866, shall expire within 30 days after the passage of the bill, and it shall be the duty of the President to send in others; and all pension agents appointed prior to that time hold their offices at the pleasure of the President subject to be o, and their offices expire when ever he shall nominate successors who shall be confirmed by the Senate. My object in voting for this amendment of the House is simply to limit the term of office of those who have been appointed since the 1st of October, 1866, and who have displaced Republicans appointed under a Republican Administration, o faithful, and competentmen, without any charge having been made against them, but simply for political considerations. I give this vote knowingly and most willingly with a view to limit the term of office of all those who have received appointments since the 1st of October, 1866, and I hope my colleague's amendment will not revail. I vote with that express object to legislate out of office those gentlemen who have been appointed to supply the places of others from mere political considerations.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I should like to know whether this amendment if agreed to strikes out the amendment of the committee at the end of the section which has already been adopted. I understand the object to be to get rid of the whole of the section commencing with the word “and” in the 9th line. What I want to call attention to is the provision which the senate has agreed to as reported from the committee that these officers shall hold their offices until their successors are duly appointed. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that we are establishing these offices during the pleasure of both the President and the senate. We may be creating what i.be equiva lent to life officers, or very nearly that, instead of following the policy which has prevailed to a great extent in recent legislation of limiting terms of office, giving them some fixed duration. I think it is hardly worth while for the purpose of disturbing a few officers, if there are indeed any who have been appointed since the 1st of October, to intrude this principle into our legislation.
Mr. CRAGIN. The Senfrom Pennsylvania will find, if he will read the text of the original bill, that these officers are to be appointed for 4 years.
Skip Skip Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask for the yeas&nays on my amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 6, nays 23; 23. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SUMNER. The bill under consideration is very good as far as it goes. It is o: only to pension agents. I see no reason why we should not the same principle to other officers. I called attention to this point the other day and gave notice of an amendment which at a proper time I should move. It seems to me indeed that the abuse, if I may so express myself, has been, if ogreater with regard to other officers than it has been even with regard to pension agents; but without pretending to say whether it has been greater or less, we must all be resolved that there has been an abuse. We know perfectly well that when the President returned from his eccentric journey to the West this last autumn, he signalized his arrival in Washington by an attempt to carry out what he had promised to do in oneof his speeches; in other words, to “kick” Republicans “out” of office. Now, it seems to me that Congress owes this duty to the country to protect these men so far as it can., Now if we take to ourselves the power which under the Constitution is given to us with regard to officers of requiring that they shall be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, we shall do something in the way of throwing a shield over the citizens who formerly held office, and who, in pursuance of the promise of the President at StLouis, have been “kicked out.” I use language which certainly, I should not employ as my own. I use it in quotation marks; it is the language of the POTUS To meet that class of cases Tsend to the Chair an amendment which I desire to have come in at the end.
The Secretary read the amendment of Mr. SUMNER, which was to add to the House amendment as an additional section the following: Sec. Abife:, That all other agents or officers appointed by the President or by the head of any Dept whose salary or ie.nsation derived from fees or otherwise excceoemds annually, shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consentof the Senate, and the term of office of all such officers appointed since the 1st day of July, 1866, shall expire at the end 9f 30 days from the passage of this act; Provided, That this is not applicable to clerks of the Depts.
Mr. HOWE. I only rise to inquire if that is an amendment to the amendment?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair understood the Senfrom Massachusetts to move it so.
Mr. MOIRRILL. It occurs to me now that my colleague [Mr. FossENDEN] expressed an interest in this measure when it was up the other day, and having sent to him I learn that he is engaged in the Supreme Court room,I suggest this fact and should be very glad if the Senator who has charge of it would allow this matter to pass over informally.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Isuggest to my friendfrom Michigan a little modification of that, not only to cover the bond, but the test oath that is required, and to avoid the use of the word “appointment, ” inasmuch as we do not by the bill treat these temporary designations as appointments. I. therefore, with the approval of my friendfrom Michigan, if he shall approve it when he hears it, suggest as a substitute for his amendment the insertion of these words in the very same place: And such person so designatedshall take the oaths and give the bonds required by law to be taken and given by the person duly appointed to fill such office.
Mr. HOWARD. I have no objection to that.
Mr. EDMUNDS. With that modification I hope the amendment will be agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Chair understand the Senfrom Michigan as accepting the proposed amendment of the Senfrom Vermont?
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is in the power of the Senfrom Michigan to adopt it as part of his own amendment, and the " then is on the amendment, as modified, to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move further to amend the amendment reported by the committee by adding to it the sections which I send to the Chair. They have been prepared in accordance with the suggestions made by gentlemen interested in the bill yesterday afternoon, which it appeared to the committee would have been better in another bill; but yielding with pleasure to those suggestions, we have prepared these sections with a view to cover the points which were referred to yesterday.
Mr. JOHNSON. I think the honorable member who proposes the amendment ha better follow wo I believe has been the pre: cedent in all such cases, and provide that th; punishment shall be inflicted upon trial and conviction of the offense. As it stands, the case is submitted to the court o and the court can award the punishment. The result, of course, would be the same; thof would be obliged to try him by a jury undo the Constitution of the U.S.; but it might be held to give the power to the out itself. I think the Senator will find upon looking at the penal statutes that they always so that upon trial and conviction the punishment shall be inflicted.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I omitted these words in drawing up this section in order to save." appeared to me to be a useless superfluity; because I supposed in the framing of a o statute that if you, in the 1st place, define an offense, and then declared what the p.ment of the offense should be, the enera principles of law operating upon the admi". tration of the affairs of justice would roq". that before anybody could subject the offo to punishment it must be judicially o that the crime had been committed, and thf." was the party who had committed th. If there should be any doubt in the mindso Senators upon that subject, as certainly o was not in my mind, although I agree to ". to insert such words, but not universal, Ish" have no objection to their being i shall not resist lar a motion to amend by P them in.
Mr. JoHNSON. I move to amenditio. way. It is better to follow the precedent Some court may think they have a right to iry without a jury.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is in the power of the Senfrom Vermont to accept that amendment and make it a part of his own; but this is an amendment to an amendment, in the 2nd degree, and is not susceptible of further amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON. I was about to suggest to the Senfrom Vermont that he had better amend his proposition in that way by inserting the words “upon trial and conviction thereof;” so as to read “guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on trial and conviction thereof, he shall be punished, ”’ &c., in the 1st, 2nd, and last sections of his amendment.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will accept the amendment of the Senfrom Maryland out of respect to his opinion.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment to the amendment will be so modified.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish to call the attention of the Senfrom Vermont to what he may not think of much importance; it is the penalty. I observe that there is a maximum penalt fixed, but not a minimum penalty. R. will ask the Senator, upon the whole, considering the whole subject, whether it would not be advisable to have a minimum penalty. I can imagine, and I think the Senator can, a judge who, taking advantage of the language, might, for instance, inflict a fine of one dollar, 5 dollars, or something that would be trivial. I would suggest to him, therefore, to guard against that by fixing a minimum penalty; say $500 or $1,000. It seems to me that any person who can be convicted under a statute of such importance ought not to escape with a small penalty.
Mr. SUMNER. I shall make no motion on the question; but as I am going to defer entirely to the Senfrom Vermont, I should like to have his attention merely for the minute or 2 in which I shall reply. I am not aware that the usage of the statutes is as uniform as the Senator represents. Indeed, I think he will find that in all the earlier legislation there was a maximum and a minimum penalty. I think the disposition latterly has been to have only a maximum penalty. However, without going into that question, looking at it simply as a question of reason and expediency, I have only now to ask you to consider whether, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, there may not be special reasons for a minimum penalty. You wish a statute that shall really be stringent, that as you read it shall seem to carry its penalties through, right to the mark. Do you do so if you have simply the maximum penalty? The answer is obvious, that a judge, if so disposed, may absolutely or almost nullify your statute. He may hear the trial, listen to the verdict of guilty, and then let the offender go. Now shall it be, sir? Shall we not in this case, where political temptation may intrude on the bench, make a provision that shall at least secure a certain degree of punishment. 'hat is what I have to say in reply to my friendfrom Vermont. If it does not impress him as it does me, I shall leave him to follow his own judgment; I shall not interfere with his bill by a motion.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I assisted in the preparation of these amendments, and I concur in the views expressed by the Senfrom Vermont, for the reason, in the 1st place, that this is a new offense created by statute, and it does not define a crime involving moral turpitude, but rather a political offense; and there is soune ground to suppose that mistakes may be made under this law by persons in office, and I think that in such cases there should be a large discretion left to the court. As was suggested by the Senfrom Vermont, this law applies as well to subordinates as to the principals who may be concerned in administering the law, and if a prosecution should be directed against a subordinate instead of the principal, as it may be, then I think the court should have a discretion to proportion the punishment to the circumstances of the accused. But I will suggest to the Senfrom massachusetts that where a person is tried and convicted under this law, he is not only to be fined or imprisoned, or punished in both ways, but certain disqualifications follow the conviction. Whenever a person is convicted under this law, he is convicted of a felony, and according to the law of this country whenever a man is convicted of a felony, he becomes disqualified to hold any office at any future time; and that of itself I should regard as a very great punishment to any man who might be, while engaged in the discharge of the duties of his office, prosecuted and convicted of malfea sance and condemned to the punishment which the law directs a penalty which is followed by a disqualification to hold any office, and in many of the States he is also disfranchised upon such a conviction. I think there is no danger to apprehend that this law has not sufficient terror in it to prevent its violation.
Mr. HOWARD. I concur fully in the view taken of this amendment by the Senfrom Massachusetts. It seems to me clear enough that under a strict construction of this amendment a court would not be departing from its duty, its strict, legal duty, if it should refuse to inflict any punishment at all upon the offender after he had been formally tried and convicted boats in amendment declare that he shali not be punished by fine exceeding a certain amount, without fixing, any minimum, and shall not be punished by imprisonment beyond a certain number of years.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator misunderstands the language. It does not say he “shall not be punished by fine exceeding, ” but it says he o be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000.
Mr. HOWARD. Very well. How then is the court to affix any penalty at all?.The court is not bound to impose one cent of fine or one hour of imprisonment, is it? Suppose. a court should omit to sentence the at all, would the court be violating its duty under this act?
Mr. HOWARD. I confess, Mr. President, I do not see it exactly in that light. It strikes me as being an anomalous mode of criminal legislation. There certainly ought to be some certain penalty fixed and established in the statute, so that the offender shall know to a certainty when he commits the offense that he is to be punished to some extent at least that he is not to go scot free, or go with a mere nominal punishment; that the business of legislation here has in view his actual punishment for the purpose of deterring him and others in like case offending for the future. Beside all that, Mr. President, it seems to me to be throwing upon the courts of justice a very irksome and in many cases a very painful duty to measure out at their own discretion, without reference to the statute and the will of the Legislature that has expressed no opinion at all, the punishment which is to be inflicted. I throw out these suggestions to the Gentfrom Vermont in the hope that he will make an amendment of his present amendment so as to fix a minimum to the penalties.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the senate ready for the question on the proposed amendment?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to inquire what the precise amendment is.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The amendment of the Senfrom Vermont is to add several additional sections to the substitute reported by the committee.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I understood the Senfrom Michigan to make a motion.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will state for the information of the Senate that the pending question now is on these additional penal sections, which were submitted by me in accordance with the wish expressed yesterday afternoon. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 23, nays 9; 20. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is upon the amendment reported by the committee as amended by the Senate. The amendment as amended was agreed to.
Mr. VANWINKLE. I had prepared an amendment yesterday to come in at the same place as the one offered by the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN] That amendment was withdrawn, but perhaps with the intention of offering it again.
Mr. SHERMAN. You had better offer yours.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not know, speaking personally and for myself, that I have any objection to so much of the amendment. poses that all officers who are not now 4 year men shall be such; but I think the effect of the amendment of the Senator introduced in the place where he proposes to introduce it would }. a little greater than what he seems to suppose himself. I think the effect would be, 1st, to continue from this date for 4 years the holding of any office by any person whose time may be almost out already. I only heard it read once, and I may be mistaken about that, but I fear from the collocation of the words in the original amendment that that would be the effect. Then I think another effect would be to preclude the President and the Senate, acting together and in harmony, from removing any such officer until the 4 years were expired. That was a provision which the committee had under consideration. But they thought it wiser for the present, at least, to leave the right of removal, which now by law is vested in the President at any time within the 4 years, to be still exercised by the President and the Senate in conjunction at any time during the session. The effect of the amendment would be to fix the duration of every office for the term of 4 years, and it makes no provision for any interference by the President and the Senate together, no matter how urgent may be the motives which would lead them to act if they had the power, while the bill, as it stands as reported by the committee, merely declares that these officers named shall be entitled to hold their office until a successor shall have been in like manner, that is, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, duly appointed; and then it provides at the end that this shall not be construed to extend the term of any office. I would suggest to my friendfrom WestVirginia whether he intends to have his amendment produce such results as I have named.
Mr. VANWINKLE. Certainly not. I am not sure that I understood the Senator distinctly as to his 1st objection; but the effect of this amendment will certainly be to make all terms that are not now fixed by law or the Constitution last for 4 years. That is in accordance, I believe, with the precedents in the cases of more than one class of officers. Most offices are for 4 years; but assessors and collectors of internalrevenue have no fixed terms; and I think the amendment is important in that respect, that there ought to be a period of time fixed for the term of that class of officers at least. I do not think it interferes at all with the right of removal, or at least I acted under the supposition that that was otherwise provided for in the bill. Removals are only to take place for cause. This amendment certainly does not interfere with that. The last section, or a portion of it, may perhaps be dispensed with if this amendment be adopted.
Mr. JOHNSON. I cannot vote for this amendment, but it is only because I think the o F.which it inaugurates is altogether wrong. do not know that any statute ever passed has created more trouble and done more mischief than that fixing a short term of office for these several appointees. The whole country is agitated in advance of the termination of the office; the President, or those who have the power to confer office are called upon; and frequently the pressure is so great that they are unable to resist, and new officers are put into the Depts. The result I think I ofrom knowledge is that the business of the Government is not half as well managed as it was before this system was introduced. It is only for that reason that I shall vote against the amendment. I concur with my friendfrom WestVirginia that it will not at all interfere with the authority of the President and Senate to remove officers. Offices may be continued under the provision which he seeks to incorporate into the bill.
Mr. VANWINKLE. "I cannot think that the amendment I have proposed is liable to the objection made by the Senfrom Oregon. There is nothing in it, certainly, which would prevent Congress passing a law tomorrow as to any class of officers whatever, limiting the term to 2 years or any other time. It cer. tainly, then, cannot be objectionable on that account. It merely fixes a term for those officers for whom no other term is fixed, and I suppose if an office should be hereafter created, and no term fixed, this amendment would apply. if I am not mistaken, I have made it 4 years from the date of appointment; and, as I have already said, every officer must thus come in review before the Senate at least once during a presidential term; and on the other hand, the President, during his term, will have the right, by the expiration of the term, of.ofevery officer or appointing some one else in his place. It seems to me it is just, and fair; and looking to the future it is, as a permanent arrangement, one that would work very happily. But I am not at all tenacious about it. It was suggested more than a year or 2 ago in respect to the officers I have named, that assessors and collectors of the revenue should be limited in their terms. That would bring many who have now been appointed for more than 3 years before the Senate in turn, whereas they will not come here otherwise. The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I feel it to be my lo, to propose an amendment to this bill, thoug I have no thought that it will be adopted. I move to strike out of the 3rd section all after the word “thereafter” in the 6th line, to theoucnlodses of the section. I do it upon 2
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest that the amendment of the committee having been agreed to, and that being a substitute for the entire bill, the motion of the Senator is not now in order. It will be in order in the Senate. The section having been agreed to in committee, it cannot be amended as the Senator proposes. The amendment will be in order when the bill shall have been reported to the Senate. The bill was reported to the Senate, as amended, and the question was stated to be on concurring W the amendment made as in ComWhole.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Must I offer my amendment now before the amendment is concurred in “
The PRESIDENT protempore. It may be moved as an amendment to the amendment made as in ComWhole.
Mr. HOWARD. I referred to the practical construction given to that clause of the constitution. I do not deny that the practical construction of it has been in accordance with the statement of the Senator.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir; I so under stood the Senator.
Mr. HOWARD. But we have the question up before us now denovo. It is to us a new question.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It is before Congress on a proposition of legislation, and that in volves the proper construction of this clause of the Constitution.
Mr. HOWARD. I have but a word to say in reply to the Senfrom Indiana. He discovers an inconvenience arising from the construction of the Constitution for which I contend. Undoubtedly, there may be cases of inconvenience..
Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to ask the honorable Senfrom Maryland whether the President has it not in his power to call the Senate together without a regular meeting of Congress, to advise him in respect to the filling of that very vacancy which may occur 2
Mr. JOHNSON. Of course he can call the Senate together: but is he to call the Senate together on the happening of each such contingency as I have stated
Mr. EDMUNDS. That depends upon its importance.
Mr. JOHNSON. I know it is not. So far it is free from all objection except this; that it is unnecessary; it is reaffirming in the form of a law what we have in the Constitution, and that constitutes the only objection to it. But it is the latter part of the section which the particular amendment proposes to strike out that is in my judgment very objectionable. The vacancy being filled now, you do not take from the President the right to fill it: And if no ogo. by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be made to such of. fice so vacant or temporarily filled as aforesaid, during such next session of the Senate, such officeshall remain in abeyance, without any salary, fees, or emoluments attached thereto until the same shall be fainlleddcobnysaepnptooifnttmheenS10th aetere.to, by and with the advice Then the office cannot be filled. That occurs. The vacancy may exist for the 1st time the day before the Senate meets. This section. says that in that case the President shall have power to fill it. The Constitution expressly provides and I beg my friendfrom Vermont to reflect upon the effect of that provision that in the case of every appointment which the President.Imay make during the recess to fill a vacancy, the commission which he is to i. to the officer shall continue until the last pay of the next session. You say it shall not by that part of the bill which the Senfrom Indiana proposes to strike out. You do not say so in words; but you say that if the President sends in that man's name and you reject him, or he sends in the name of anybody else and you reject him, the office shall be vacant from the date of the rejection.
Mr. EDMUNDS. We do not say that. We simply say that “if no appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be made to such office so vacant, or tempora rily filled as aforesaid” and that may be the same or some other person, and if another that man's commission would still continue until the end of the session “during such next session of the Senate such office shall remain in abeyance.” No fair construction of that language, it appears to me, can torture it into an attempt to limit the term of this officer who has been properly temporarily appointed until the end of that session. I do fidt see how my friendfrom Maryland can make that out, even on a special demurrer.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will call the attention of the Senfrom Maryland to the 5th and 6th lines of this section, which perhaps he has overlooked. The provision is: That the President shall have power to fill all Yacancies which may happen during the recess of the Senate by reason of death, resignation, expiration of term of office, or other lawful cause, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of next sessionthereafter. their
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. nizes the right of the person so temporarily appointed to hold his office until the end of the session.
Mr. JOHNSON. I was perfectly aware of that provision. That is in accordance with the constitutional clause. The Constitution says the same thing, the law says the same; but what is the benefit to the officer of having a commission which is not to expire until the end of the next session if he is to get no salary during any part of that time? The provision, as I understand, is that he who is appointed during the recess, unless he is again, after the termination of the recess, during the session of the Senate, appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, gets no salary, and if he is rejected by the Senate the office from that date is to be considered as in abeyance without any salary, fees, &c., attached thereto.
Mr. EDMUNDS. You interpolate the words “from that date.”
Mr. JOHNSON. If the honorable member would say “from the termination of the session of the Senate” the clause would not be so objectionable; but does he mean to say that the commission shall extend up to the 1st day of the session of the Senate that may occur subsequent to the appointment of the President?
Mr. EDMUNDS., Yes, subsequent to the 1st appointment which he is authorized to make; and it is impossible to put any other construction on the words.
Mr. JOHNSON. But according to the view of the honorable member in the case supposed he is not authorized to fill the vacancy. But, sir, I have said all that I proposed to say, except with reference to the concluding part of the section which it is proposed to strike out. It provides that the duties are to be discharged by some other person connected with the particular office; but there are a great many offices for whom there is no person provided to perform the duties during a vacancy a foreign minister for instance, a judge; nobody connected with the judiciary could discharge the duties of the office except the judge; so that while that admits the necessity of having the duties of the office discharged, it does not provide a sufficient remedy for the contingency which it contemplates may exist.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. Allow me to ask, would it not be easy in cases of that kind, if this becomes a law, to provide in the law creating the office for a special appointment?
Mr. HENDRICKS. Why, Mr. President, I am talking of the construction that Congress has put on this clause of the Constitution. The construction put upon it by the executive dept has been uniform since, I believe, the very 1st session of the 1st Congress under the Constitution; and now I refer to a case in which the Congress of the U.S. has put upon it a construction by passing a law at the last hours of the session, when it was impossible that there should be a confirmation of a nomination. Every Senator knows that the attention of the President for the last day or 2 of the session is occupied in considering the bills that are passed. Congress might have provided as the Senator suggests possibly; but it would have been a singular provision. It would have been a funny law. If it could have been illustrated in some of the pictorials, such a law as that would have been vastly amusing. But it was not done.. I am simply speaking of what Congress did do.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. I do not think the Senator understands me. If this bill shall become a law, hereafter, when an office is created at the end of the session, will it not be easy in the law creating the office to provide for a spe: cial appointment in that particular case by the President to run until the next regular meeting of Congress?
Mr. HENDRICKS. If that be so, what is the use of passing this? Why not leave him where the Constitution leaves him? The Senfrom Iowa suggests the statesman like proposition that Congress shall, by general provision of law, provide that a vacancy shall not be filled by the President, provided that vacancy existed at the adjournment of the Senate, and then to meet the practical troubles which will be found every year, he suggests that in each particular law we shall for that particular case repeal this general law which he says must now be passed. M. EDMUNDS. Will my friendfrom Indiana allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to remind him, because I need not inform him, for he is undoubtedly aware of it, that he has forgotten that there are many instances in the legislation of Congress when new offices have been created by law where in order to give the President power to fill them in the vacation for the 1st time an express provision to that effect has been inserted in the act of Congress; so that there is no such practical construction on that point as my friendfrom Indiana seems to suppose on his side of the question.
Mr. HENDRICKS. What law does the Senator refer to?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I can refer the Senator to several instances, but have not the memoranda at hand at this moment. There are several such instances.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I cannot question what the Senator says; but his compliment to my intelligence is not deserved. I have not observed them. I shall not question what he says, that they exist. I referred to his case as showing the construction Congress has put on this provision of the Constitution.
Mr. HOWARD. The Senfrom Indiana puts the question whether it was not expected in the cases to which he referred that the president should fill these offices by temporary appointments during the vacation. I suppose that is the point of his question, offices created at one session of Congress to which no regular appointment has been made during that session of the Senate. Well, sir, in the view which the Senator takes of that matter, it seems that he construes the action of Congress, or rather of the Senate, in adjourning and going home, as an assent to the power of the E.to fill the offices thus created.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator does not state it exactly as I undertook to state it.
Mr. HENDLICKS. I am speaking of laws passed at the session when Congress necessa. rily adjourns on the 4th of March. On the 3d.of March Congress passes laws requiring the appointment of important officers to execute laws passed at that date. Now, I say the Senate contemplated that the President o make those appointments after consideration, after an opportunity to consider the claims of the different applicants that should be made.
Mr. fo. I do not think that congress contemplated any such thing. They have not said so in any statute or in any resolution. They leave the matter to stand upon the constitution. They always leave it there as a matter of course.
Mr. HIENI) RICKS. Will the Senfrom Michigan allow me to ask him a question? The act organizing the Freedmen's Bureau was passed on the 3d of March. I think the Senator will concede that it was practically impossible for the President to consider of his nomination at that hour of the session. The Senator knows that the President's attention at that time is entirely occupied with the examination of bills with a view to his signa ture. The Senator knows that at the short session more perhaps than 1/2 of the laws are approved on the 3d of March. Now, the Freedmen's Bureau, would the Senator have held the President to be without blame if he left that law unexecuted for 9 months when the Senate necessarily adjourned within a few hours after the passage of the law? Was it the duty of the President to execute that law”
Mr. HOWARD. And I think occasionally at the end of every long session where cases of this kind came up. It is the commonest thing in the world. ‘?e has the power to fill the office by regular appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, if he will take the trouble to notify the Senators to be in their seats. Is there any difficulty whatever in that? Certainly the honorable Senator, in the face of these constitutional provisions and this usage, cannot, I think, contend that it was the understanding of Congress on the 3d of March that the President should make a temporary appointment to fill this socalled vacancy during the recess of the Senate. I do not see how the 2 things are connected with each other; I do not see any immediate connection between the gentleman's premises and his conclusion, in other words. The Constitution affords every facility for the appointment to office by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; while on the other hand it does not, for it cannot provide for every casualty every contingency, in the public service, aid against every inconvenience that may arise from death, from resignation, or from other accident. It would be necessary, in order to guard against every such inconvenience, to enlarge the Constitution to the dimensions of the statutes themselves, and even beyond that size in order to meet all those contingencies.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will furnish to my friendfrom Indiana one of the precedents to which I alluded, and there is any number of them. This one goes back to the good old times when no partisan motives which he seems to be so suspicious of can be imputed to Congress or to the President. By the act of the 7th of May, 1822, providing for certain collection districts in Florida, it was declared that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should appoint a collector and surveyor for each of the districts, and then it proceeded to provide further: “But the President, in the recess of the Senate, may make temporary appointments of any such colloctor or surveyor, whose commission shall, expire in 40 days from the commencement of the next session of Congressthereafter.” So that at that time, as at all the other times to which I have referred, when new offices were created, it was thought necessary to confer upon the President the express power of filling up those offices unless they were filled before the Senate adjourned.
Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to move an executive session. "
Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the Senator give way to me a moment to make a motion in connection with this bill?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move that the bill with the amendments be printed, so that we can see on Monday morning what the amendments are. The motion was agreed to. EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mr. SHERMAN. I renew my motion. 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, January 11, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. Boy NToN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. RIFLE CANNON.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following preamble and resolution: Whereas it is alleged that the Navy of the U.S. is unprovided with rifle cannon of large caliber, corresponding with those used in European sery ice; and whereas experiments have been made by American citizens in the construction of wrought iarnodn ccaalncnuolanteodfto large caliber, suitable for rifle shot onayal the alleged deficiency in the deficienocrdyninanfcaectoefxtishtes: U.S., if any such esolved, That a committee of 5 members be appointed from this House, with power to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses under oath, and fully to inquire and report to this House as otof tlahregfeacctasliobfesrucinh athlleegneadvdaelfisceiervniccyeoof fritfhlee c U.S., and to ascertain and report what Hooi any, have been made by citizens of the U.S. to supply such, deficiency, and the result of such experiments; and to ascertain and o: to this House what transactions, if any, have been made between the SecyNavy or other Depts of the Government and citizens of the U.S. in relation to the construction of wrought iron cannon of heavy caliber, and whether there are any sums equitably due from the Government in consequenceof such transactions, and to report by bill for the payment of thesame, and to report by bill or 9th erwise such measures as may be required to place the Navy of the U.S. in the supply of rifle cannon of, heavy caliber upon equality with the navies of Europe.
Mr. COBB. I object. PACIFIC MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, offered the oresolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the comPostOffice be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into theoof having ocean mail service between SanFrancisco, in California, to As toria and Portland, in Oregon, for the transmission of printed and other matter, thereby making the ocean mail service continuous from NewYork, via the Isth mus and SanFrancisco, to Portland, Oregon, avoiding the destruction of public documents and other epxripnotesudrematter by long and unnecessary overland report by and injury; and that they have leave to bill or otherwise. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. MILLER asked and obtained leave of absence for one week. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. GARFIELD and Mr. DELANO called for the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER. The pending question when the House adjourned last evening was the admission of the State of Nebraska, but that order is superseded by a rule of the House which will now be read.
The Clerk read as follows: “Friday and Saturday of every week shall be set apart for private bills and private businessin prefer. menacjeorittoy aonfythoethHeor, usuen.”less otherwise ordered by a
Mr. GARFIELD, I move to postpone the prior order, and take up the bill for the compensation of clerks.
Mr. DELANQ. I hope it will not be done. The private business deserves the attention of the House, and I hope it will devote this day to the legitimate business.
Mr. GARFIELD. I have twice given way to other business.
The SPEAKER. The motion admits of limited debate., Mr. KASSON. I would suggest that it is important that the House should go into Com. Whole on the legislative appropriation bill today. It has been laid aside for some time, and it is very important that we should send it to the Senate. The session is advancing, and we have sent no appropriation bills of any magnitude to the other body. therefore appeal to the gentleman to allow us to go into ComWhole, notwithstanding the assignment of the day for the consideration of business on the Private Calendar.
Mr. DELANO. I am constrained to say to the gentleman, whom it would give me pleasure at any time to accommodate, that I do not feel that the state of the Private Calendar justifies me now in granting his request.
Mr. KASSON. Then I ask if my friend cannot take up the most important measures of a private nature, and at the close of an hour give way to a motion to go into ComWhole.
Mr. DELANO. I will endeavor to do so. The question being taken on the motion of Mr. GARFIELD to postpone the regular order, it was disagreed to.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has commenced, and the 1st business in order is the call of the committees of reports of a private nature, commencing with the ComClaims, where the call rested on the last private bill day, December 14. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Skip Skip The motion was agreed to; and the petitions and bill laid on the table. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, mtRtv the said reports were laid upon the table; on the table. agreed to. GEORGE HENRY PREBLE.
Mr. DELANO, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do not pass, bill of the Senate No. 176, for theo.Henry Preble, a commander in the Navy of the U.S., and moved that the same be laid upon the table. The motion was agreed to; and the bill was laid upon the table.
Mr. SCHENCK. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was laid upon the table; and I call for the reading of. report. I know something of this case and I think it is a meritorious one. The report was read.
The SPEAKER. The motion to reconsider is not debatable, except by unanimous consent, as the original motion to lay the bill on the table was not debatable.
Mr. SCHENCK, I suggest that the report be laid over until the Gentfrom Maine, Mr. LYNch, ] representing the district to which ommander Preble belongs, can make an examination of the case. He is not now present. I would like, therefore, to have this motion to reconsider laid over on that account. I do not concur in the report of the ComClaims from what I know of the case.
The SPEAKER. Perhaps the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DELANol had better by unani wnous consent withdraw the report.
Mr. DELANO. I have no objection to that.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I prefer that the bill shall remain where it now is.
The SPEAKER. Then the bill is laid upon the table.
Mr. SCHENCK. Then I ask that the motion to reconsider shall be postponed until Friday next.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I object to that.
The SPEAKER. Then the question is upon reconsidering the vote by which the bill was laid upon the table, and that question is not debatable.
Mr. SCHENCK. Well, I think it is very hard action against a gallant officer.
Mr. DELANO. I hope that the gentleman who interposed an objection to the postponement of the motion to reconsider will withdraw it, as I wish to accommodate the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Schexck] It will save me the necessity of withdrawing the report.
Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the chairman of the ComClaims will withdraw this report for the present.
Mr. DELANO. I will do so"if the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. HARDING] will with: draw his objection.
The SPEAKER. That can only be done by unanimous consent, as the bill has been laid upon the table by a vote of the House.
Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the Gentfrom Illinois will withdraw his objection.
Mr. ANCONA. I call for the question on the mtRtv the bill was laid upon the table.
Skip Skip The question was put; and there were ayes 51, noes 24; no quorum voting.
Mr. DELANO. What will be the effect of this action?
The SPEAKER. If the motion to reton sider prevails, the effect will be to bring the House again to a vote upon the question “Shall the bill lie upon the table?”
Skip Skip Tellers were ordered on the motion to reconsider; and Messrs. HARDING, of Illinois, and BLAINE were appointed. The House o.; and the tellers reported ayes 60, noes 39. So the mtR agreed to. The question recurred on the motion to lay the bill upon the table.
Mr. BLAINE. That question is not debat able, but I believe it is in order for the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DELANo] to withdraw the report.
The SPEAKER. That can be done by unan imous consent, but the report having been made by the authority of a committee, the gentleman cannot withdraw it himself.
Mr. BLAINE. I hope no gentleman will object to having the report withdrawn in order that the House, at some future day not just now may give it impartial consideration. No objection was made; and accordingly leave was granted, and Mr. DELANo withdrew the report. SURETIES OF JAMES T. POLLOCR.
Mr. DELANO also, from the same commit.tee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, bill of the House No. 840, for the relief of the sureties of James T. Pol lock, the question being upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. DELANO. I ask that the bill be put upon its passage now.
Mr. PRICE. Is there any report accompanying this bill?.
Mr. DELANO. There is a report, but I can perhaps state the principal facts more briefly than the report.
Mr. PRICE. If the gentleman prefers to make an oral statement of the facts rather than have the report read I will not insist upon the reading of the report. But I think we should have some statement of the facts before we are called upon to vote for a bill of this character.
Mr. DELANO. In 1837 this Pollock was appointed receiver of the land office in Indiana, and gave bond and surety with 26 sure ties. One year afterward he was discovered to be a defaulter in the sum of $6,000. Imme. diately afterward a distress warrant accord.ing to the practice at that time, as I understand was issued for the collection of the amount of this defaleation and placed in the hands of Marshal Taylor, of Indiana. At the time the warrant was placed in the hands of the mar. shal Pollock was possessed of unincumbered real estate of the value of $20,000. The mar shal holding this distress warrant neglected to levy and proceed with the warrant until this real estate of Pollock became incumbered by subsequent judgments, which entirely consumed it. Suit was then brought against the marshal for non-feasance; that suit was continued from term to term until 1851. In 1850, by some means, a bill was passed by Congress releasing Marshal Taylor and his sureties from the lia bility growing out of their non-feasance in executing the distress warrant against Pollock. So that the property of Pollock was gone in consequence of the neglect of the marshal of the General Government; and the Government then stepped in and abandoned all its claims ainst Taylor, the marshal. Now, after a to: lapse years, and when all of the 26 sureties of Pollock, except 3, are either dead or insolvent, the Government is proceeding to collect the debt from the sureties.. BINGHAM. Will my colleague [Mr. DELAxol yield to me for a moment?
Mr. BlMGHAM. I desire to state that it appears that in the case of a collector of cus toms at Petersburg, Virginia, there was a simi lar defalcation on the part of the collector, and a voluntary release of the sureties upon his bond. The 36th Congress, by an almost unanimous vote, released the sureties under circumstances similar to those just stated by my colleague.
Mr. DELANO. It will be observed by those who have heard me that it was through the non-feasance or malfeasance of an officer of the Government that this debt was not collected from the principal, who at the time had sufficient property unincumbered to satisfy the debt. And then the Government voluntarily surrendered its claim against its officer who was guilty of this neglect.
Mr. DRIGGS. Can the gentleman statehow long after the distress warrant was issued was it before the property of Pollock became in cumbered?
Mr. DELANO. Some 8 months, I understand.
Mr. ROSS. I would like the gentleman to inform the House how the original judgment was released.
Mr. DELANO. There never was any judgment in the case.
Mr. ROSS. There never was any judgment in the case? How could you have a distress warrant without a judgment?
Mr. DELANO. It was issued by the Treasury Dept, according to the practice at that time:
Mr. ROSS. I do not think there is anything in this case to justify Congress in discharging these sureties. They became responsible to the Government, in default of the principal, to Jay the Government this amount. I think the government has made no statement to justify the action asked of us. I do not think we should set such a precedent at this time.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; which was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. Mr. ROSS. table. The motion was not agreed to. The bill was then 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; upon the table. agreed to. Eitn Est F. Ki, beinsciiniidt.
Mr. DELANO, from the ComClaims, reported a bill for the relief ofernest F. of Cincinnati, Ohio; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. The bill, which was read at length, proposes to authorize and direct the SecyTreasury to pay toernest F. Kleinschmidt, of Cincinnati, Ohio, $1, 250, to reimburse him for money to that amount paid by him to the collector of internalrevenue for the 2nd dis. trict of Ohio, for 4 city lots in Cincinnati, which were sold by the collector to Klein schmidt for the payment of internalrevenue tax, which tax was subsequently declared by the superior court of Cincinnati to have been illegally assessed, and the sale of the lots to have been null and void.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read the 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. JAMES HOOPER.
Mr. DELANO, from the ComClaims, reported a bill for the relief of James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill, which was read at length, proposes to authorize and direct the SecyTreasury to pay to Hooper $16,000, to reim burse him for the destruction and loss at sea of the bark General Berry while in the military service of the Government, on the 9th of July, 1864.
Mr. MAYNARD. Is there a report in this case?
Mr. MAYNARD. I would like to hear it read.
Mr. MAYNARD. I am not prepared to vote for this bill.
Mr. DELANO. At the suggestion of m friendfrom Maryland, [Mr. J. L. Thomas, who is interested in the question, I will, with the consent of the House, withdraw the bill and report and take some other occasion to submit them for action.
Mr. MAYNARD. I object, and move the bill and accompanying report be referred to the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar, and ordered to be printed. Then we will have an opportunity to examine into the matter.
Mr. DELANO. I agree to that. The motion was agreed to. E. J. CURLEY.
Mr. McKEE, from the ComClaims, reported back Senate bill No. 433, for the relief of E. J. Curley, with the recommendation that it do pass. The bill authorizes the SecyTreasury to pay or cause to be paid E. J. Curley, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $34, 248 52, as compensation in full for corn purchased of him by Captain E. B. W. Reslieaux, asst quartermaster on the part of the Government.
Mr. ROSS. I make the point of order that the bill makes an appropriation and must have its 1st consideration in the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar.
Mr. McKEE. I should like to inquire whether, this bill having once been in the ComWhole House on the Private Cal endar, and taken therefrom and referred to the ComClaims, the point of order is a good one?.
The SPEAKER. It is an appropriation Wasit considered bill. in the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar at this Congress?
Mr. McKEE. At the last session it was taken from the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar on my motion, and referred to the ComClaims.
The SPEAKER. The rule is, the bill must have its 1st consideration in the Committee of Whole House on the Private Calendar. It seems it went to that committee, but by unanimous consent was taken from that committee and referred to the ComClaims. It has not had a consideration in the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar provided for in the rule. The bill was referred to the ComWhole House on the Private Calendar, and with the accompanying report ordered to be printed. MARG Are TTE ANN LAURIE.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, from the ComClaims, reported back senate bill No. 441, for the relief of Margarette Ann Laurie, with the recommendation it do not pass; and it was accordingly laid upon the table. ADWERSE REPORTS.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, also moved that the ComClaims be discharged from the further consideration of the following cases, and that they do lie upon the table: Petition of J. W. Nye, assignee of Peter Bargy and Hugh Stewart; and Petition of George C. Hager, claiming payment for rent of blacksmith shop, &c.
Skip Skip The motion was agreed to. Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, mtRtv just taken; upon the table. agreed to. The morning hour then expired. MU is deft OF U.S. soidIERs.
Mr. PIKE. I ask, by unanimous consent, that the order to print documents accompanying the message of the President in reference to the murder of soldiers in SCarolina be rescinded. They are volumine us, and the committee will be delayed in its action. When the report is made, if necessary they can be ordered to be printed. There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. YoUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION.
Mr. KOONTZ, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill supplementary to JtResolution of June 28, 1864, incorporating the Young Men's Christian Association of the city of Washington; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComDistCol. GEORGE D. DOUSMAN.
Mr. PAINE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of George D. Dous man, one of the securities for William H. Bruce, late sub Indian agent at Green Bay, in the State of Wisconsin; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComIndAffrs. ENItOLLEDJtResolution.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a JtResolution (S.No.151) appropriating money to defray the expenses of the joint select comRetrenchment; when
The SPEAKer signed the Saole. OCEAN BRAZILIAN STEAMERS.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the PostMGenl, in reply to a resolution of the House respecting the mail service performed by the ocean Brazilian steamers; Wii. was referred to the comPostOffice, and ordered to be printed. MILITARY ROAD IN DAKOTA.
The SPEAKER also presented the memorial of the Legislature of Dakota Territory, praying for the establishment of a military road from Elk Point to Sioux Falls, in said Territory; which was referred to the ComMilAffr, and ordered to be printed. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. KASSON. I move the rules be susended, and the House resolve itself into the omWhole, on the state of the Union on the legislative, &c., appropriation bill.
Mr. DELANO. I move to go into ComWhole House on the Private Gal endar.
The SPEAKER. The latter motion takes precedence.
Mr. DELANO. I will say to my friend that I will move that the committee rise at the exE. of an hour for the purpose of reaching is business.
Mr. KASSON. I dislike certainly to interfere with the Private Calendar, but the appropriation bill has been pending a long time, and I would like to get through with it.
Mr. DELANO., What I propose is that we spend an hour on the Private Calendar, and I propose to consider only such bills as there is no objection to.
Mr. KASSON. I suppose I ought to waive my motion in view of the fact that the day is assigned to private business, but I hope the gentleman will allow the appropriation bill to come in, if possible, a little earlier.
Mr. DELANO. I ask that, by unanimous today be considered as “objection ay.” No objection being made it was so ordered. Piri VATE CALEN DAR.
Skip Skip The question was taken on the motion of Mr. DELANo; and it was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into a ComWhole House, (Mr. BRoom ALL in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of bills and JtResolutions on the Private Calendar as on “objection day;” which were disposed of as indicated ow. Those bills to which no objection was made were laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that they do pass; and such bills and restlutions as were objected to retained their place upon the Calendar. HIRAM PAULDING. A bill (H.R.No. 457) for the relief of Hiram Paulding, rear admiral U.S. Navy. The bill, which was read, directs the auditing of the accounts of Hiram Paulding while a captain in the U.S. Navy, covering his expenditures in the entertainment of the foreign officers and people who visited the frigate StLawrence, under his command, at South ampton, not exceeding the sum of $963 92; and also his expenditures in entertaining the officers of the .of Bremerhaven and Stockholm in the years 1848, 1849, and 1850, not exceeding the sum of $2, 690.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks the objection comes too late.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I believe I made it in time.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman rise from his seat 2
The CHAIRMAN. Then the bill will be laid aside to be reported to the House. CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON. A bill (H.R.No. 710) to pay and discharge certain debts and expenditures to the corpora.tion of the city of Washington.
Mr. DELANO. I think I must ask thatthis bill be laid over.
The CHAIRMAN. The Gentfrom Ohio is understood as objecting. TULLER AND FISHER.JtResolution (H.R.No. 175) to audit and pay the claim of Tuller & Fisher, of Mis: souri. [Objected to by Mr. BENJAMIN] JOHN R. BecKLEY.JtResolution (H.R.No. 174) authorizing the SecyTreasury to audit andpay the claim of John R. Beckley. [Objected to by Mr. ALLIsoN] HENRY S. DAVIS. A bill (H.R.No. 820) for the relief of Henry S. Davis. [Objected to by Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois] JAMES Pool. A bill (H.R.No. 311) for the relief of James Pool. [Objected to by Mr. Allisox and Mr. Ross] ALEXANDER F. PRATT. An act (S.No.435) for the relief of Alex: ander F. Pratt. [Objected to by Mr. WASH: BURNE, of Illinois] Josiah O. ArtMEs. An act (S.No.16) for the relief of Josiah O. Armes. [Objected to by Mr. AMEs]
Mr. DELANO. I ask the Gentfrom Massachusetts to withdraw his objection so as to allow me to move to refer this bill to the ComClaims. It has never beenthere.
Mr. WINDOM. I object. SUFFERERS BY PORTLAND FIRE, An act (S.No.428) for the relief of the sufferers by the late fire in Portland. 10b. jected to by Mr. McKEE] 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 propo in Kansas Territory. [Objected to by Mr. THAYER] MRS. Abby GREEN.JtResolution (S.No.112) for the reSof of Mrs. Abby Greeff. [Objected to by Mr. ALLison] DoNAHUE, RYAN AND SECOR. A JtResolution (S.R.141) for the relief of Donahue, Ryan & Secor, builders of the iron clad monitor Camanche." [Objected to by Mr. DAVIS)
The CHAIRMAN. There is none upon the table.
Mr. MAYNARD. Has the JtResolution ever been referred to a committee of to House?
Mr. MAYNARD. if it has not beenand it is proper I will move to recommend thatthe ComWhole House be dischar;" from the consideration of this joint rol and that it be reported to the House, with. recommendation that it be referred to ComNavAffrs.
The CHAIRMAN. That motion is no!" order. I ask if there is not a GEORGE W. LANE.JtResolution (H.R.No. 2.;re. lief of George W. Lane, superintendent o: branch mint at Denver, Colorado, andA. Treasurer of the U.S. [Objeo" by Mr. Allison and Mr. Cobb] BOLMER AND WEBER. l A bill (H.R.No. 821) for the relief of. mers. Weber, of StLouis, Missouri. [90f" to by Mr. Aioison and Mr. Ascosol ill
Mr. HoaAN. I hope the gentlemen " withdraw their objection.
Mr. MAYNARD. Is there a report in this case? If there is I ask that it be read and there may then be no objection to the bill.
Mr. ANCONA. I. desire to withdraw my objection to this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. ALLison] also objected.
Mr. SPALDING. I renew the objection. TIMOTHY I, EY DEN. A bill (H.R.No. 822) for the relief of Tim othy Leyden. The bill was read. It authorizes the SecyTreasury to pay to Timothy Ley den, of Parkersburg. West Wis. (who was a teamster employed by Captain H. D. Patton, asst quartermaster do.on the 1st day of May, 1864, at Martinsburg, and was captured on the 2d day of May following by the enemy, while with his team on duty near Win chester, and was imprisoned until the 15th day of December following, and was confined in hospital from diseases contracted in prison until the 2d day of March, 1865, and whose service was never paid nor reported to the QuarterMGen by said asst quar. termaster,) the sum of $302 in full for such service; out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. No objection.made, the bill was lai aside to be reported to the House. JOHNSON A. DAWSON. A bill (H.R.No. 823) for the relief of Johnson A. Dawson, of Mount Sterling, Kentucky. The bill was read. It authorizes the SecyTreasury, for the faithful service performed in time of war by Johnson A. Daw. son, of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, contractor on mail route No. 9556, between Mount Ster ling and Stanton, Kentucky, to pay to said Johnson A. Dawson the sum of $300 in full for all extra allowances for such service.
Mr. ROSS: I, ask that the report accompanying the JtResolution be read. The report was read. It states that pn Sep tember 28, 1864, said Evan M. Buchanon, then on duty and duly commissioned a commissary of subsistence in the Army near Winchester, Virginia, was captured by the rebel guerrilla Mosby and brutally murdered after surrender; that at the time he had on his person money belonging to the Government and vouchers for money expended, amounting to $400 89, which was taken by the guerrillas. His administrator prays that said amount be credited to said Captain Buchanon on settlement of his account; and your committee deeming the claim just and proper therefore report back the accompanying JtResolution, and recommend its passage. No objection being made, the JtResolution was laid aside to be reported to the House. HENRY RUDD.:; A bill (H.R.No. 825) for the relief of Henry Rudd, of Henry county, Iowa. The bill was read. It authorizes and directs the SecyTreasury to pay to Henry Rudd, of Henry county, Iowa, the sum of $9, 150 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, in full for all losses and compensation to said Henry Rudd for horses purchased and delivered under a contract with the Government.
Mr. MAYNARD. It seems to me that this is a proper case to go before the Court of Claims. Would a motion to that effect be in order?
Mr. MAYNARD. Then I must object to the bill..
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I hope the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARDJ will withdraw his objection until some explanation can be made of it.
Mr. MAYNARD. I have no objection to hear any explanation that can be made.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. WASHBURNI I believe is familiar with this case, having had charge of it in committee. I am satisfied that he can make such a statement as will lead the ComWhole to allow this bill to be laid aside and reported to the House.
Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, honest contractors were so very rare during the war that I believe I will make an exception of this case and withdraw my objection. The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House. NORMAN J. HALL. A bill (H.R.No. 483) for the relief of Nor man J. Hall. The bill was read. It provides that in settling with the Treasury of the U.S. the accounts of Lieutenant Norman J. Hall, 1st U.S. artillery, acting asst commissary of subsistence, and asst quartermaster at Fort Sumter, SCarolina, there shall be allowed to Hall the sum of $965 72, on account of the loss of money and of vouchers for money paid, the amount being public funds and vouchers in his hands, destroyed by the blowing up of a magazine at Fort Sumter SCarolina, during the bombardment o that fort by the rebels in the month of April, 1861; the loss being without neglect or fault on the part of Hall.
Mr. MAYNARD. I call for the reading of the report.
The Clerk read the report. It states that the claimant was, in the month of April, 1861, 1st lieutenant of the 1st regiment U.S. artillery, stationed at Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, SCarolina, and was on duty at that fort by order of Major Robert Anderson, commanding there at the time of the bombardment and reduction of the same, as acting asst quartermaster and commissary of subsistence ooij.Anderson's command; that at the time and during the bombardment, claimant had in his possession $774 02 public money of the U.S., which he E. previously drawn from the Asst Treasurer of the U.S. at Charles ton, by the direction of Hon. John A. Dix, then late SecyTreasury of the U.S., and also vouchers for the expenditure of $191, 70, as acting asst commissary as aforesaid, which money and vouchers were placed and kept together, in a box for that purpose in the fort, and which box, with money and vouchers, on the 12th or 13th of April, 1861, were destroyed or burnt up and wholly, lost by the fire of the enemy and the explosion of a service magazine in said fort, without the fault or neglect of the claimant. These facts, the committee state, are sufficiently established by the evidence of Major Generals Dix and Anderson, and, in the opinion of the committee, entitle the claimant to the relief sought for by the introduction of this bill. The committee, therefore, recommend that the SecyTreasury and the proper officers of that Dept be directed to credit the claimant, in the settlement of his accounts, with the gross amount of $965 72, for public money and vouchers so lost and destroyed as aforesaid, and to this end recommend the passage of the bill. The bill was laid aside, to be reported to the House. o GOLDSMITH BIROTHERS. A bill (S.No.102) for the relief of Gold smith Brothers, of the cities of SanFrancisco, California, and Portland, Oregon, brokers. [Objected to by Mr. MAYNARD]
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. MCDonALD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the Senate had passed a JtResolution (S.No.156) to provide for the removal of the wreck of the steamship Scotland; in which the concurrence of the House was requested. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. A bill (H.R.No. 666) authorizing the SecyWar to purchase certain property for military purpose. [Objected to by Mr. Ross and Mr. HENDERSoN] ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY. A bill (S.No.290) to incorporate the National Life and Accident Insurance Company of the DistCol. [Objected to by Mr. WFNTwo RTH.
Mr. KASSON moved that the committee rise and report the bills which were laid aside. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. BRoom ALL reported that the ComWhole House, according to order, had the Private Calendar under consideration, andhad directed him to report the following bills to the House, with the recommendation that they do tlSS: p A bill (H.R.No. 457) for the relief of NHairvaym; Paulding, rear admiral U.S. A bill (H.R.No. 822) for the relief of Tim othy Leyden; A bill (H.R.No. 823) for the relief of Johnson A. Dawson, of Mount Sterling, Kentucky; A bill (H.R.No. 824) for the relief of Ed. ward Blanchard; A bill (H.R.No. 825) for the relief of Henry Rudd, of Henry county, Iowa; and A bill (H.R.No. 483) for the relief of Nor: man Hall.
The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the bills will be considered in gross.
Skip Skip There was no objection. The bills were orderengrossand read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, they were accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. DELANO moved to reconsider the vote just taken; upon the table. agreed to. AMENDMENTs of the RULEs.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a privileged question. The ComRules have directed me to report an amendment to the 51st Rule, o for the pur. pose of facilitating the transaction of busines; bn Mondays by curing the source of delay and trouble. I move to amend the 51st Rule by striking out all that part of it which provides for a tally of committees for bills, to be referred to the ComWhole, during the morning hour on alternate Mondays; and amend th: 180th Rule by providing that the States and Territories shall be called during the morning hour on every Monday, 1st for bills for leafe to be referred without debate to their appropriate committees, not to be brought backin" the House by a motion to reconsider; an that on said call JtResolutions of State on territorial Legislatures for printing and refer.ence may be introduced.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am also directed by the ComRules report a concurrent resolution looking too establishment of a JtcomPubBldg and grounds. The matter was." ferred to the ComRules, and they have determined, in view of the great importance of such a committee in reference 19 extension of the Capitol grounds, &c., it " best to make the committee a joint one.
The Clerk read the resolution, as occurring,) That the 1rules of the two Houses, so no There shall abe JtComPubbldgs and Grounds, to consist of fiyenoo". he to the of the Sonate ana 7 members on. part.". House, whose duty it shall be to consider all subjectsothe public edifices and grounds within the city of Washington which may be referred to them, and report their opinion thereon together with such propositions relating thereto as may seem to them expedient. The resolution was adopted.
Mr. RAYMOND. I am directed by the ComRules, to which was referred the resolution in regard to the reports and reporters of the Associated Press, to report the following: Resolved, That the reporters of the Associated Press and the reports madeby them beunder the same rules toulations as the reporters and reports of the obe.
Mr. ROSS. Does that require them to take an oath? I understand the reporters of the Globe take an oath.
The SPEAKER. The reporters of the Globe do not take an oath. They may elsewhere; they do not here. [Great laughter]
Mr. UPSON. Is the compensation to be the same?
The SPEAKER. It is not; that is a matter of law. The resolution was adopted. ExTRA COMPENSATION TO CLErros, Mr. HILL.
The SPEAKer yesterday laid be. fore the House a letter from the SecyTreasury, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the House, information concerning the disbursement of the fund of $250,0$160,000 as extra compensation to clerks in his Dept, which was referred to the ComWays&Means and ordered to be printed. I move, by unanimous consent, that reference be changed to the ComExpenditures in the Treasury Dept. here was no objection, and it was agreed to accordingly. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL, Mr. KASSON moved that the rules be susended, and the House resolve itself into the omWhole on the state of the Union. The motion was agreed to. So the House resolved itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. LAwkENCE, of Pennsylvania, in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of House bill No. 896, making appropriations for the legislative, executive,judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1867.
Mr. KASSON. Before taking up the pending question, I ask unanimous consent to correct a few errors that have been discovered on a reexamination of the bill. The 1st is on page 7, line 143. I propose to reduce the amount from $373 to 240.
Mr. KASSON. The next amendment is on page 8, line 172, to strike out $12, 658 for laborers and insert $12, 158; also to add the following: waFtoerr Lcelowsiest’S$a5n3d8e, ras, t law bhoircehr isnumchtahregesoaflatrhye o House said laborer is fixed, and $100 additional for a deficiency in the present fiscal year.
Mr. KASSON. I move further to amend the bill on page 22, line 5eighteen, by striking out the word “Nebraska, ” and reducing the oriation from $8, 300 to $7,000, so that the clause will read “For compensation of the surveyor general of Kansas, and the clerks in his office, $7,000.” Also by adding the following: For compensation of the surveyor general of Iowa and Nebraska, declared a surveying district by the act of Congress, entitled “An act to removethe office of surveyor general of the States of Iowa and Wisconsin to Plattsmouth in Nebraska, ” approved July 28, 1866, which is fixed at $2,00oper annum, and the clerks in his office, $7,000. This amendment is rendered necessary by an act of the last session changing the surveying districts so that Iowa and Nebraska now constitute one district, and Kansas another and separate district.
Mr. KASSON. It is also necessary to strike out the word “Nebraska” in line 551, and after line 552 to insert as follows: NeFborrasokfafi, cefureeln, t boofoskus, rvsetyaotirongeernye, ral of Iowa and and other incidental expenses, $2,000.
Mr. KASSON. I move further to amend on page 28, line 677, by so changing the clause as to read as follows: For compensation of the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, the civil engineer, chief clerk, messenger, laborers, and the following clerks and draughtsmen which are hereafter authorized, namely: one clerk of class 4, 2 clerks of class 3, one clerk ghotfscmlaasns two, one clerk of class one, and one at a salary of $1, 80oper annum, $16, 640. This involves no change at all, except by adding a draughtsman at the salary provided for in the other bureaus of the Navy Dept.
Mr. KASSON. I move further to amend on page 29, in line 680 9, by changing the clause so as to read as follows: For compensation of the chief of the Bureau of Ordnance, and chief clerks, clerks, draughtsman, (whosesalary is hereby established at $1, 80oper an num,) messenger, and laborers in his office, $16, 620.
Mr. KASSON. I move further to amend by insers.ng in line 690 4, after the word “draughtsman, ” the words “whose salary is hereby increased to $1, 800 per annum;” and also, by striking out the words “increase of salary of the draughts man, $400.”
Mr. KASSON. I move further to amend by inserting in line 690 8, after the word “draughtsman, ” the same words as before, namely, “whose salary is hereby established at $1, 800 per annum, ” and by striking out the words “increase of salary of the draughtsman, $400;" also, by changing the amount appropriated from $11, 820 to $11, 220, and by inserting before the word “clerk” the words “and of, ” and after the word “two" the words “which is hereby authorized.” The clause will then read as follows: For compensation of the chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering, chief clerk, and the clerks, draughtsman, (whose salary is hereby increased to $o1ff, i8ceo,0$ple1r, 8a2non;um,) messenger, and laborer in, his and of Qne clerk of class two, which is hereby authorized,
Mr. KASSON. In line 752 I move to insert, after the word “to P. the words “three chief clerks.”
Mr. KASSON. We have now reached the point in the bill where the committee paused when they were last in session.
The CHAIRMAN. The pending amendment will be read.
The Clerk read as follows: Qn page, 3 line, 786, sittrwikiell oreuatd“: 80 ” and insert “45;” so that For purchase of cereal, vegetable, and flower seeds, and for labor in putting up seed, seed bags, and miscellaneous items, $45,000.
Mr. BIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not feel at liberty to go into a general explanation in regard to the condition of the Agricultural Dept, for the reason that that subject was submitted to the ComAg for investigation and they have not yet reported. A large amount of testimony was taken by that committee and a great number of facts were proved, sufficient to induce this House, could they be related here, to reorganize the Dept and put it upon a foundation which would be creditable to the nation. But, sir, I rose for the purpose of saying that I believe it to be bad policy to reduce this appropriation. While i. means that we have now for acquiring useful agricultural information and diffusing the same among the people of the U.S. are not such as we would wish them to be, yet until we can rearrange and reorganize this Dept it seems to me that we ought not to attempt to destroy it. There is no other source of the prosperity of this country so important as that of agricult ure. It should be fostered by every means within the power of this Government.
Mr. DAWES. I would like to inquire of the chairman of the ComAg [Mr. BIDWELL] whether the investigations to which he has alluded, and which have continued. nearly all of this Congress, enable him to make any reply to the statements made by the Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. MoRRILL?]
Mr. BIDWELL. I will state that after the testimony was taken, I, as chairman of the committee, was exceedingly anxious to lay that information before the House. But the majority of the committee did not concur with the chairman; and consequently the chairman did not feel at liberty to bring that information before the House. I would state, however, that I believe such is now the disposition of the ComAg, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, that they will be able to agree upon a bill by the time the committee is called, which will provide for the reorganization of that bureau so as to place it upon a better foundation. Now, I am aware that the law under which that bureau is organized is complied with liter ally by the Commissioner on Agriculture. He is required by that law to report the amount of receipts and expenditures, and he makes his report annually; one year I believe it was contained within 16 lines; another year it was comprised within 7 or 8 lines, and this year I believe it is all embraced within 2 or 3 lines, as so many dollars received and so many dollars expended. As for the particulars, you have to wade through a multiplicity of vouchers, which would require an expert almost a month to decipher. I hope, therefore, that no further explanation will be required of me, unless I, as chairman of the ComAg, be authorized to report the result of the investigations made by the committee at the last session.
Mr. MORRILL. Will the Gentfrom California [Mr. Bidwell] allow me to ask him whether or not the facts stated by me are corroborated by the facts ascertained by the committee?
Mr. BIDWELL. I will state that they are not only corroborated, but I believe the testimony shows that they are even worse than the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] has stated.
Mr. MORRILL. I understand the gentleman to say triat my statements are not only corroborated, but that the testimony shows the facts to be even worse than I have stated.
Mr. BIDWELL. I merely give that as my opinion of what the testimony proves.
Mr. DELANO. I move to amend by striking out the last word, for the purpose of say.ing a few words. I would like to ask the Chair, in the 1st place, whether it would be in order for me to move to strike out the entire appropriation for the Agricultural Bureau?
Mr. KASSON. Before the Chair decides that question, I would suggest that the ComWhole has already passed upon a portion of the appropriations here recommended. Now, I apprehend that it is not in order to move to strike out anything which this committee has adopted. That is the point I submit to the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. It would be in order to move to strike out the paragraph now under consideration.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to enter into the general debate upon the subject of the administration of the Agricultural dept. I have made such representations as it was proper for me to make in the consideration of this question in committee. Here I represent the action of the committee, and have only to say that if this Dept is to be continued the majority of the committee decided in favor of these several amounts of Fo for the objects named. apprehend that as a matter of order the motion of the Gentfrom Ohio can only be put in the 1st instance as to the paragrap j. consideration; and then, of course, it may be renewed, if the gentleman chooses, as to each succeeding paragraph. The question practically jo.ific Hous is therefore whether we shall make these appropriations and rely upon a report from the ComAg to reorganize that Dept, and by legislation, if not otherwise, remove the present head of the Dept, if that be the will of the House; or whether we shall strike out only this part of the appropriation, leaving a mere skeleton bill for the conduct of the business of that Dept. My own conception of the duty of the committee is that, if it be their will to change the administration of this Dept and reorganize it, thuscar. rying out the object which the Gentfrom Ohio has in view, this reorganization should be provided for in a new bill. We certainly should not pass this appropriation bill without provid.ing the means of carrying on that Dept in case the present incumbent should be dis. placed and a successor appointed. I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the committee only asking that such legislation maybe adopti as will not put an end to the existence of oil. the dept.
The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted on theifp.enDdEinLgAaNmOe.ndment. I withdraw the amendment.
Mr. BERGEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out the last word. It appears to me, sir, that if it is the intention of this House to continue the Dept of Agriculture, it is necessary to vote the appropriations as reported by the committee. I think that the agricultural interests ef this country demand that this Dept should be continued and the necessary appropriations provided. One word, sir, as to the statement made by the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. M.; in relation to the expenses of that Dept. As a member of the ComAg I was present during the whole of the investi: gation which has been referred to, and as I understand the matter the Gentfrom Vermont is mistaken in the conclusion to which he has arrived. I differ on this point withthe chairman of the committee, and, as I understand, the majority of the committee also differ with him. The : made in reference to the administration of the Dept of Agriculture were not, I think, sustained to the extent which the Gentfrom Vermonthas stated. I do not desire to go into particulars with reference to the proceedings in the committee; it may be improper to do so. I may state, how: ever, that the committee were divided in opinion.’ My understanding with reference to the charges made and the extent to which they were sustained differs from that expressed by the chairman of the committee, although simply give my own view of the matter. I hope that the appropriations for this Dept will be by all means continued; and if it is necessary to reorganize the Dept, a appears to be the opinion of the chairman and others, that is amatter for future consideration: I do not pretend to say the Dept might not be reorganized and placed under better regulations than it is at present; but that is a matter for future consideration: hope, under the circumstances, in view of ho importance of agriculture in this country, tho' the appropriations as reported by the commi" to will be sustained by the House.
Mr. BROMWELL. I do not understand the condition of the amendment, and I ask tha'" be again read. The Clerk again read the amendment.
Mr. BROMWELL. Mr. Chairman; I mo". an amendment to the amendment, striking" $45,0inserting $5,000. It does seem to mo, sir, it is about time to country got rid of this thing called an Agricult. ural Bureau, if it is to be carried on fore.” in the manner which we have seen:. For o: last 2 years there have been complaints. " no man who has put his foot into this, 'o' has been anywhere else in the U.S.. but has heard complaints of the managem” of that socalled bureau.
Mr. HILL. We have heard a greato complaints about the conduct of the Ag". urai'Bureau. What f desire, and what. sume the committee desires, are the o What is the trouble with Mr. Newton? Let" gentleman specify.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Chairman, without finding unnecessary fault with any of the mem. bers of the House who see proper to attack the head of the Agricultural Dept, I may be allowed to call upon, those gentlemen at least for some specifications in their whole sale charges. It is admitted by the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] that he has given the country better agricultural reports than any of his predecessors. Wherein does the head of the present bureau fall short of any former head of that Dept?
Mr. COOK. What has my colleague to say about the charges made by the Gentfrom Vermont,were admitted to be true by the Gentfrom California?
Mr. INGERSOLL. I have this to say: that it is admitted that the head of this Dept is as capable and as honest as any man who has heretofore had charge of it, and gives the country as much information beneficial to the agricultural interest, and moreover I do not understand that it is admitted that the ComrAg has been guilty of maladministration of his office; at any rate do not condemn him without a hearing. Mr. Chairinan, the agriculturists of the West and of the East and of all parts of the country feel a deep interest in the maintenance of the Agricultural Dept if they have no interest in the distribution of seeds. And my colleague and many other members will bear me testimony that they have more applications for the report of the ComrAg than for all other public documents put together; and I have no doubt that the Government is more amply compensated for this outlay to promote and foster the agricultural interest than in the expenditure of an equal amount in any other direction. Rf. GRINNELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRINNELL. I wish to inquire whether if you cut down this appropriation for seeds you may not with propriety do the same in relation to the publishing of the reports.
Mr. INGERSOLL. The gentleman is quite right. I am speaking against the tendency of these assaults. If you cut down the appropriation in this particular where will you stop? probably not till you have deprived the agriculturists of the country of the benefits of this Dept altogether. This is what I want to enter my protest against., Some gentlemen seem to consider it very and pleasant pastime to assail the kind hearted old Quaker who is at the head of this bureau, thinking, perhaps, that there is no one who takes interest enough in him to defend him. A MEMBER. He is a non-resistant, I believe.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I believe the Quakers hold to the doctrine of non-resistance in their creed. But let that pass. I protest against this proposed reduction of the appropriation: This bureau is in successful operation, and if the head of it has not the capacity and intellect of some gentlemen on this floor he certainly has able assts, who have given the country the best report that has ever been published by that Dept; and he has distributed a great variety of choice and rare seeds throughout the breadth of the land. In deed, I am told that some members owe much of their popularity at home to the fact that they have been very assiduous in distributing the flower seeds. [Laughter] If that is so, I am against ".; them of this aid by which they may be returned to the 4 1st Congress. [Laughter] Now, I hope my colleague, who preceded me, and members from the west generally, will not persist in cutting down this appropriation. Better abolish the Dept altogether than make a trifling appropriation that will but maintain its existence in name only, and leave it utterly inadequate to the wants and demands of this grestest of all interests.
Mr. KASSON. I ask leave simply to say that very much time has been spent on this one clause of the bill, and I think the whole subject has been pretty thoroughly ventilated. I therefore hope, by general consent, debate will be closed in 5 minutes on this clause.
The CHAIRMAN. Debate is closed on the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, debate on this paragraph will be closed in 5 minutes.
Mr. KASSON. I then move that the committee rise for the purpose of closing the debate on this paragraph.
Mr. DELANO. I hope the gentleman will withdraw the motion to allow me to submit an amendment in the form of a proviso at the close.
The CHAIRMAN. That would not be in order now.
Mr. KASSON. I will withdraw the motion for the present, and allow the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. LeBiospj to speak on the subject.
Mr. LeBLOND. I do not think I would have any more influence with
Mr. JOHNson than my colleague [Mr. Schexck] and his associates had with Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. SPALDING. Does the gentleman allude to me when he speaks of his colleague having influence with the President?
Mr. SCHENCK. I do not; I referred to my other colleague on that side of the House, [Mr. LeBLoNd.
Mr. SPALDING. If the gentleman referred to me, I was going to say that I understand Mr. Kennedy, once at the head of the Census Bureau, is likely to be now appointed in place of Mr. Newton.
Mr. SCHENCK. I do not think that would be any improvement.
Mr. SPALDING. I agree with the gentleman in that opinion.
Mr. SCHENCK. I hope no such change as that will be made. What should be done is to put at the head of that bureau a scientific man, who would make it what it ought to be, and not give us through the instrumentality of others merely such reports as can be obtained from the papers and elsewhere. We ought to have there a man who would so conduct the affairs of the bureau in all its relations at home and abroad as to show himself fit to act as one of the advisers of the President. [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. LEBLOND, Ine w withdraw my amend.ment to the amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. SCHENCK. I ask the gentleman to listen to a single statement made by this person who signs himself “W. B. Gendell, ” (of whom I never heard before,) and then to state what he [Mr. Trowbridge] knows of the transactions there referred to. This gentleman addresses himself to Congress, and says:. When the committeeappointed by of Congresswere testimony in relation to the management, &c., of the Agrigultural Dept, a number of employees in, the that Dept were summoned as witnesses. The records of the committee will show that but 2 of testimony; thesewitnessesgave clear and direct the others hesitated and equivocated, and gave only such testimony as was forced from them by direct questions. The testimony given by myself and the other witness is unimpeached and unimpeachable, and the facts detailed by us have been fully established, “For thus being compelled to testify against the Commissioner, and acting up to the spirit and meaning of our oath to truth, ' we were immediately editsrmutihsseadnfdrotmheowffihcoel.e” Does the gentleman know whether that is true or not? Did there appear before the committee, clerks who have since been dismissed?
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I do not know with regard to the dismissal. It was in last Febru ary that we took this testimony. do not recollect this man by name; but I give an emphatic denial to the statement he has made in that paper, that the clerks in the Dept hesitated or equivocated or in any way seemed to be influenced or controlled by the ComrAg, or by what they expected would be done to them by him. On the con. trary, the employees of that Dept testified before us fairly and frankly, without any hesi.tation. No man appeared in his answers to be under any improper influence or constraint.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I withdraw my amendment.
Mr. KASSON. I would suggest whether it is not time to bring the discussion to a close on this clause. It is very important that we should get through this bill. We are making no progress. Every member knows how the business is crowded on the Calendar of the House, and I appeal to the House by unanimous consent to close debate on this paragraph in 5 minutes.
Mr. KASSON. Then I move that the committee rise.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania, resumed the chair.
Mr. BIDWELL. I hope the gentleman will not debar me a word of explanation.
Mr. KASSON. I intend to move to close debate in 5 minutes when the House resolves itself again in ComWhole, and then the gentleman can have an opportunity to be heard. The motion that the committee rise was agreed to. So the committee rose; and
The SPEAKer having resumed the chair, Mr. LAwrence, of Pennsylvania, reported that the ComW. on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and particularly 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, had come to no resolution thereon.
Mr. KASSON. I now move that when the House shall again resolve itself into ComWhole on the state of the Union for the consideration of the special order, all debate upon the pending paragraph be closed in 5 minutes, Mr. KOONTZ. adjourn. I move that the House
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion and let us have an understanding that tomorrow be devoted to debate on the In essage.
Mr. KASSON. I wish members to consider the condition of the business of the House. The consideration of the unavoidable appropriation bills will render it impossible for us to make the progress that every member desires unless every day during the remainder of the session shall be given to the transaction of the regular business. It is necessary that at least 3 weeks constant attention should be given to the appropriation bills, to the exclusion of any other that may be presented.
The SPEAKER. Does the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] submit his proposition to the House?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Gentlemen object to it, and there is no use submitting it to the House. The motion to adjourn was agreed t;o and thereupon (at 4 o'clock, p. m.) the House adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, January 12, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. COMWAYS&MEANS.
Mr. MORRILL. I ask unanimous consent that leave be granted to the ComWays&Means to sit during the sessions of the House.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I ask the Chair whether the members of the committee will have the right to come in and record their votes?
The SPEAKER. Under the ruling of the previous Congress members of the committee can come in and have their votes recorded before the result is announced, but not afterward. There was no objection, and leave was granted to the ComWays&Means to sit during the session of the House. Reward for Jeff. DAVIS.
Mr. UPSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill authorizing the payment of the reward offered by the POTUS in April, 1865, for the capture of JeffersonDavis; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComAppropriat. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Mr. CLARIXE, of Kansas, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to secure the speedy construction of the Union Pacific. southern branch, and telegraph line, and to 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 ComPacificRR, and ordered to be printed. JAMES M. BISHOP.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, from the ComWays&Means, reported back House bill No. 496, for the relief of James M. Bishop, who claims $236, with the recommendation it do pass. of the bill directs the proper accounting officers the Treasury Dept to ascertain and allow to James M. Bishop, of Quincy, Illinois, for services in March and April, 1863, to finish the work left undone on the assessment lists in the 4th district of Illinois by Mr. Lutkin, an asst assessor, at his decease, such a sum as shall be equal to that now fixed by law to be paid asst assessors for such service; the said sum of money, when ascertained, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and in full for his claim, with interest since June 1, 1863.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will state in reference to this bill it is for services rendered and deemed to be correct by the Dept on the decease of the then assessor or asst assessor. There was no law under which the bill could be paid. The committee thought it was a very just one.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read the 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time and passed. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PATENTS FOR LAND.
Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to declare the effect of certain patents for lands; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. Free TRADE.
Mr. PAINE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and referred to the ComWays&Means: Resolved, That the American Government ought to protectAmerican industry; but if pelled the peoplearecomto submit to free trade in the products of agriculture, they ought to have at thesametime free trade in the products of manufacture. Robert M’CANDLEss.
Mr. CULLOM, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill granting a pension to Robert McCandless; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. Rifle CANNON. /
Mr. HUBBARW), of Connecticut. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following preamble and resolution: Whereas it is alleged that the Navy of the U.S. is unprovided with rifle cannon of large cali ber corresponding with those used in European service; and whereas experimentshave been made by American citizens in the construction of wrought iron cannon of large caliber suitable for rifle shot and calculated toothe alleged deficiency in naval ordnance of the U.S., the if deficiency any such in factexists: Resolved, That a selectcommittee of be appointedfromthis House, with powfeivre members to send for personsand papersand to oath, examine witnesses under and fully to inquire and report to this House as to the facts of such alleged deficiency of rifle cannon of large caliber in States, the naval service of the U.S and to ascertainand report what experiments if any, have been made by citizens of the U.S. to supply such, deficiency, and the result of such experiments; and to ascertain and report to this House what transactions, if any, have been made betweenthe SecyNavy orments of the Government and citizens ootfh the U.S. in relation to the construction of wrought iaronny cannon of heavy caliber, and whether there are sums equitably due from the Government in Consequence of such transactions, and to report by for the payment of the same, and bill to report by bill or otherwisesuch measures as may be required to place the Navy of the U.S. in the supply of rifle cannon of heavy caliber upon equality with the navies of Europe.
Mr. KASSON. I object, and demand the regular order of business. MORNING HOUR.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has commenced, and the 1st business in order is the call of the committees for reports of a private nature, commencing with the ComIndAffrs, where the call rested on yesterday. ABIAL MORRISON.
Mr. HENDERSON, from the ComIndAffrs, reported a bill to indemnify Abial Morrison, of the State of F.". Oregon, for by hostile Indians in Washington Territory in the years 1855 and 1856; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill authorizes the payment of $3, 492 out of money due by the U.S. to the Yakima and Klikitat tribes of Indians.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read the 3rd time; and, being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time and passed. Mr. HENDERSON mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. BOUNTIES TO PENNSYLVANIA WolunTEERS.
Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the payment of bounties to the soldiers of the 180 6th regiment of Pennsylvania volunteers; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, an referred to the ComMilAffrs. SURGEON LEWIS DYER.
Mr. BINGHAM, from the ComMilAffrs, reported back, with a recom. mendation that it do pass, Senate bill No. 382 for the relief of Lewis Dyer, late surgeon o the 8 1st regiment of Illinois volunteers, The question was upon ordering the bill to be read a 3rd time. The bill was read at length. It directs the proper accounting officer to audit and settle the accounts of Lewis Dyer, late surgeon of the 8 1st regiment of Illinois volunteers, and.him the pay and emoluments of a surgeon of volunteers from the Gth day of April, 1863, to the 26th day of May following, deduct.ing therefrom any amount which may appear to have been heretofore paid him by error.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. If there is a report accompanying the bill I ask that it may be read. The report was read. It states that the peti.tioner claims pay as surgeon in the U.S. Army from the 6th of April, 1863, to the 26th of May following. It appears in the evidence that the petitioner was surgeon on duty with the 8 1st regiment Illinois infantry, near Vicksburg, on the 6th day of April, 1863, when, on account of some charges referred against him by the regimental officers, i. was summarily dismissed the service. An investigation was made at the request of Gen. eral McPherson, which resulted in the res: toration of the petitioner on the 26th of May following. It is proved by the statement of J. H. Baucher, medical director of the 17th Army corps, and other officers then in the service, that the petitioner continued to perform the duties of surgeon (as if no order or his dismissal had been made) during the whole time between the 6th of April, 1863, and the 26th of May following, and that these services were demanded by the Army then in the field and in need of surgeons. The petitioner was dismissed the service, without a hearing, at a time when the Government needed his services. In view of the necessities of the service, although under sentence of dismissal, he appears to. volunteered his assistance to the officer in command, and his services were accepted and faithfully reo dered. On examination of all the facts in the case, the committee are of opinion the petitioner should be paid, and report the ao companying bill.
Skip Skip the bill was then read the 3rd time and passed. Mr. BINGHAM mtRrv the bill was passed; uponthe table. agreed to. MARY A. RiPLEY.
Mr. DEMING, from the ComMilAffrs, reported back, with a recommend:ation that the same do not pass, Senate bill No. 546, for the relief of Mary A. Ripley. The bill was accordingly laid upon the table. ADVERSE REPORTS. On motion of Mr. DEMING, the ComMilAffrs were discharged from further consideration of the petitions of peoVan Ael, of Maximilian Rosenburg, of citizo of NewYork for bounty or pensions to hop nurses, and of Daniel P. Cilley, chaplain.” the 26th NewYork veteran cavalry; which were laid upon table. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. INGERsoll. I was absent when to ComDistCol called; I ask unanimous consent that theo. mittee may now be allowed their regular for bills of a private character.
The SPEAKER. It will require unanimous Consent.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Let the bill be read, which I see the gentleman has in his hand ready to report.
The SPEAKER. The question is not in regard to any particular bill, but whether the ComDistCol shall now be allowed their regular time for the consideration of business of a private nature.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I desire to reserve my right to object until after the bill is read. Senate bill No. 218, to exempt the property of debtors in the DistCol from levy, attachment, or sale on execution, was then read.
The SPEAKER. The question is whether there is any objection to allowing the ComDistCol to take their regular time now. No objection was made. EXEMPTION LAW IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. ROSS. I would like my friend [Mr. INGER soli] to yield to me to move an amendment that a homestead of the value of not exceeding $1,000 shall be exempted.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not think I can yield this morning for that purpose.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I know it is. I know that in the State of Illinois and perhaps in some other States the law exempts a homestead of $1,000 as long as the family resides upon it. If the gentleman desires to have a law of that character for this District he should introduce a separate bill for that purpose, because there are a great many qualifications which should be attached to it. For that reason I cannot yield to allow the amendment to be offered to this bill.
Mr. ROSS. Will the gentleman permit me to make a motion that the bill be recommitted with instructions to report an amendment of the character I have indicated?
Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot, for the reasons I have already stated. The gentleman will remember that in our State it is a distinct act, independent of all other exemptions of personal property; and I think it should be the same here.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. INGERSOLL. I will yield for an in ulry. q M. FARNSWORTH. if I understand the amendment of the committee it excepts from the operation of this bill all actions for tort. Why should actions for tort be excepted? Why should a man by his tort deprive his family of the benefits of this exemption? It seems to me there would be much more propriety in excepting actions on contract. If a man makes a contract and agrees to abide by it, it seems to me there would be much more propriety in excepting it from a statute of exemption than to except an action for his tort merely. I think there should at least be the same exception of judgments for a contract as for a tort. "I would like my colleague [Mr. INGERsoll] to explain why he makes this difference.
Mr. INGERSOLL. The only reason I can give in favor of the present form of the bill whether it is a good reason is for the House to determine is, that if an exemption were provided in actions of tort it might have a tendency to produce breaches of the peace, men knowing that there would be no liability to the sale of their property for any judgment that might be rendered against them. This was the only reason urged in the committee; and it was deemed to be especially applicable to Washington city, where the population is to a great extent of a transient character, and where a provision of the sort referred to might have a i. tendency.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. The punishment of the offender personally for a breach of the peace would, it seems to me, have more terror than the fact that his property might be levied upon. Let a man be proceeded against personally and punished by imprisonment for any tort he may commit, but do not let a family be robbed of the means of support on account of the tort of the head of the family.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I have no objection personally to extending this exemption to cases of tort committed by the head of a family. I am willing that the amendment suggested by my colleague shall be adopted.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I am inclined, Mr. Speaker, to concur in the statement of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania {Mr. JOHNson] with reference to the assessment of the specified amount of provisions to be allowed for the support of a family. If the gentleman can frame an amendment to meet the case I shall be very happy to give it my concurrence. I now othe floor to the Gentfrom Ohio, my colleague on the committee, [Mr. WELKER]
Mr. WELKER. There is one objection to the amendment reported by the committee, to which I want to call the attention of the House. It provides that this exemption shall not apply to debts contracted after the passage of this bill. I think that that provision is unu sual in legislation of this kind. In all the States where property is exempted from execution the law always applies to existing indebtedness. Iobject that this clause of exemption shall be confined to indebtedness that may occur after the passage of the law, and I hope, therefore, that this amendment will not be adopted. If we attempt to afford relief to this class of debt ors in the DistCol, let us do it so far as past indebtedness is concerned as well as in relation to debts that may be incurred after the passage of the act. I hope the House will not adopt the amendment reported by the ComDistCol.
Mr. BROMWELL. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. BROMWELL. I desire to offer the following amendment to the bill: The officercharged with the execution of any writ of attachment or execution shall ascertain the value and amount of provisions to be allowed to any family under this act by summoning 3 householders of the District, who shall, being 1st duly sworn by said officerfaithfully to perform their duty, proceed to sfaemt ialyp, aratctchoerdpinrgovisions necessaryfor the debtor's to this act, if such provisions be found on the premises or in debtor; the possession of the and if not, they shall make out a return to such officer of the value of such provisions, and the same shall be allowed on any property of the debtor. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to; and the amendment of the committee, as amended, was also agreed to. The next amendment of the committee was in line 21, after the word “library” to insert the words “not exceeding in value $400.” The amendment was agreed to. The bill was read a 3rd time.Mr. INGERSOLL. I demand the previous question on the passage of the bill. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was passed. On motion of Mr. THAYER the title was amended by striking out the word “the" and inserting the word “certain;” so as to read, “An act to exempt certain property of debtors in the DistCol from levy, attachment, or sale on execution.” NATIONAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE.
Mr. MERCUR. I am instructed by the ComDistCol to ask unan imous consent that the ComWhole on the Private Calendar be discharged from the further consideration of Senate bill No. 290, to incorporate the National Life and Accident insurance Company of the DistCol. No objection was made; and the bill was accordingly read a 3rd time. It declares H. D. Cooke, Charles Knap, Abram B. Olin, S. W. o S. Fowler, John C. Durant, S. A. Peugh, John McKelvin, C. T. Sherman, Cal vin C. Chaffee, John Murphy, John B. Hutch inson, A. M. Clapp, Giles F. Tilley, R. W. Latham, and Thomas Hood a corporation under the above title.
Mr. THAYER. I wish to ask the gentlemen on the ComDistCol to allow me to move an amendment, in the shape of a proviso, that no insurance shall be effected by this ountil at least $30,000 of capital the has been paid in in cash.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Suppose they do not regard it, how will it appear that they have not paid it in? Mr.THAYER. If they were to insure in conI will hear what the travention of their charter they would be subjected to instant forfeiture of all the franchises granted by it.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That would have to be done by a court.
Mr. THAYER. It would be done by a quo warranto.
Mr. MERCUR. I suggest to my colleague [Mr. THAYER] that instead of inserting a proviso he move to increase the amount of the 1st installment from 5 dollars to 20 or 25 dollars.
Mr. THAYER. I desire to consult the wishes of the committee and I will therefore move to increase the amount of cash required to be paid on each share to 30 dollars.
Mr. MERCUR. The shares I believe are 50 dollars. SPEAKER. The shares are $100 in the bill in the hands of the Clerk.
Mr. THAYER. I ask to have that part of the bill read.
The Clerk read as follows: Said capital stock shall be divided into shares of 100each, and there shall be paid into the treasury of the company by each subscriber to said capital stock at the time of subscribing an installment of 5 dollars on each share of stock subscribed for, and a further installment of 5 dollars on each share at such time thereafter, not less than 30 days from the former, as this commission or incorporators may determine.
Mr. THAYER. I move to strike out the word “five” and insert “ 30.” A MEMBER. The whole capital stock is $1,000,000.
Mr. THAYER. But the minimum is $100,000, and what I want is to require $30,000 to be paid in at the outset.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend the 2nd section by inserting near the close, after the word “incorporation, ” the words “beyond the full amount of the shares subscribed for by him;” so that the clause will read as follows: But no stockholder of said incorporation shall, in any event, be liable in his private capacity for the debts and liabilities of this incorporation beyond the full amount of the sharessubscribed for by him.
Mr. DAVIS. I would ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. MERCUR] whether the subscription after the payment of the 30 dollars per share, or the 30%., is to be secured in any other mode than by the notes of the subscribers; whether there is any other tangible security.
Mr. MERCUR. The bill provides That the accumulated funds of said company over and above the expenses, losses, and the guarantee fund may be invested in bonds, national bank stock, real estate, bond and mortgage, deeds of trust, or dividends, as the directors may determine.
Mr. DAVIS. The company is allowed to go into business on the payment in of $30,000 or $100,000; therefore the public have only the security of $100,000 in addition to the security of the makers of the notes or subscribers to the stock. I want to know if there is any other security.
Mr. ALLISON. As I gather from the reading of the bill, the balance of the subscriptions must be secured as the incorporators may see proper to require. That is the provision in relation to security. Now, I would like to ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. MER jwho has charge of the bill a question. I desire to know from the gentleman whether or no there is any provision in this bill which requires this corporation to make a statement to the public of the condition of their affairs.
Mr. MERCUR. There is a clause requiring the secretary of the corporation to make an annual report to the SecyInterior showing all the material transactions of the company.
Mr. ALLISON. I desire, then, to suggest a further proviso to the bill. It seems to me that the operations of this company should be confined to the DistCol; other. wise this corporation may extend its business to every State in this Union without being subject to the local and State jurisdiction, and the people throughout the country may have no accurate knowledge of the condition of this corporation. Now, if it is a corporation designed for the accommodation of the people of this District its operations should be con. fined to the District; and I therefore move to add at the close of the last section of the bill this proviso: Provided, That the operations of the companyshall be confined to the DistCol.
Mr. MERCUR. I take it that all theseinsur.ance companies may take risks in any State of the Union, subject to the local laws of thatState, and even foreign corporations can do thesame. Hence I say that there is no reason for this amendment, because before in any Statethey permit corporations incorporated by Congress to take risks they will take ample security for their own citizens. I see no reason why an incor. poration established by authority of Congress should have its powers and authority limited to the DistCol. There are insur.ance companies authorized by virtue of State legislation in most of the States of the Union, and this company should stand upon the same footing with them, subject to the laws of the several States in which they attempt to oper. ate or perform any of their functions. I hope the House will attach no restrictive clause to this charter, because it will cripple the opera.tions of the company.
Mr. ALLISON. It will be claimed by this company that inasmuch as it is incorporated by authority of the Congress of the U.S. it is not subject, and cannot be made subject, to State authority; I think, therefore, that the business of this corporation should be confined to the DistCol, where the Congress of the U.S. has exclusive jurisdiction, and I trust my amendment will be adopted.
Mr. MERCUR. While I think this amend.ment excessively objectionable, I would personally make no objection to a clause provid.ing that all risks taken in any State shall be subject to the laws of that State. That would obviate the anticipated objection of the Gentfrom Iowa, Mr.. Allison;] but it seemso me that a clause restricting the operations the company to the DistCol would be unjust and improper.
Mr. No. I rise to move an amendment to the amendment of the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. Allisos] I understand him to propose that a limitation shall be laid upon th. operations of this company which shall confine them to the DistCol. Now, would it not be fair to allow a corpo ration created by Congress to transact its busi;ness in the States. the Union on an equal footing with corporations created by the State Legislatures? In the State of Connecticut, for instance, there have been created by the State Legislature many insurance companies; and they are not confined in their operation; to their own State, but come into Illinois and into all the States, subject to the local laws of those States, and come in competition with the local institutions of those States, subject to such local regulations as the States so proper to impose upon them. I move the following amendment to the amendment: That the operations of this company mayboo. tended to all the States of the Union, subject to the laws of the respectiveStates.
Skip Skip The question was put on the amendment to the amendment; and there were ayes 27, no" 22; no quorum voting or Drentof BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired. The 1st business in order is the consideration of Senate bill No. 456, for the admission of the State of Nebraska, into the Union, which was pending as unfinished blishness when the House adjourned on Thursday last.
Mr. GARFIELD. I move to postpone to further cousideration of that bill until the joi"; resolution for the increased compensation have been disposed of. It will take but a few minutes to pass it, as it has already been engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. KASSON. I thought it was understood by the House when we adjourned on yesterday that we would proceed today with the consideration of the legislative appropriation bill in the ComWhole. It is a bill to furnish means to carry on the regular operations of the Government, and therefore of more importance than this extra compensation bill. If the compensation bill should now be taken up I am afraid it will entirely prevent us from getting the appropriation bill through the House today.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Iowa 8. Kasson] has the right to move to go into omWhole on the special order.
Mr. GARFIELD. I have twice waived my right to have this bill put upon its passage for the sake of giving to the House a morning hour. Now, if the bill shall not be considered and disposed of today it cannot be taken up on Monday under the rules, and on Tuesday the special order, the bill on reconstruction presented by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania; STEVENs] will come up for consideration. hope that gentlemen will not take advantage of my forbearance in twice waiving my right to put this resolution upon its passage. It is now engrossed and has been read a 3rd time, and can soon be disposed of.
Mr. KASSON. I would inquire of the Chair what is the pending motion upon the bill for increased compensation to clerks.
The SPEAKER. The pending question is upon 2nding the call for the pronour question upon the passage of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope the previous question will not be secended.
The SPEAKER. The compensation bill is not now before the House. The question is upon the motion of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] to postpone the further consideration of the Nebraska bill. If that motion is agreed to, then the House JtResolution No. 224, giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service of the Government at Washington, will come up for consideration, that being the next pending unfinished business.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I would inquire of the Chair what would be the condition of the Nebraska bill should this compensation bill be now taken up and disposed of?
The SPEAKER. It will again come up as unfinished business when the compensation JtResolution shall have been disposed of. The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. GARFIELD to postpone for the present the further consideration of the Nebraska bill; and upon a division there were ayes 77; noes not counted. So the motion was agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. STOKES asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. ARNELL, for ten days. INCREASED PAY of civil EMPLOYees. The House accordingly resumed the consideration of the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service at Washington. The pending question was upon 2nding the call for the previous question upon the passage of the JtResolution.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD] who called the previous question, withdraw his call for a moment?
Mr. GARFIELD. I cannot withdraw the call. This bill has already been engrossed and read a 3rd time, and no amendment can now be made to it.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to inquire whether, if the previous question should not now be 2nded upon the passage of the JtResolution, it.? then be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time? clerks in the civil service at Washington shall
The SPEAKER. That motion would then be in order.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. And the JtResolution would then be open to amendment?
The SPEAKER. It would should the motion to reconsider prevail.
Skip Skip The question was then taken upon 2nding the call for the previous question; and upon a division there were ayes 59, noes 51. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, and Mr. GARFIELD were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 59, noes 55. So The previous question was 2nded.The main question was then ordered; which was upon the JtResolution. Mr. WARD, of NewYork. Upon that question I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to ask a question of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD]
Mr. STEVENS. By a law of the last session the Fo of female employees was increased. would inquire of the gentleman if by this JtResolution the female clerks will receive this increased compensation at the rate of 20%?
Mr. GARFIELD. I suppose it was intended to include them when the committee drafted the bill; but if, as the gentleman says, their pay has been increased within the present fiscal year, that is since June 30, 1866, my opinion is that they will receive 20%., minus that additional compensation.
Mr. STEVENS. No; it will not give them anything, because the $900 is a larger increase than 20 cent.
Mr. GARFIELD. Then I fear they would not receive anything under the resolution as it now stands. But everybody knows that if the bill needs amendment in this respect or any other it can be made in the Senate.
Skip Skip Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. mtRtb the main question was ordered on the passage of Mr. GARFIELD. the JtResolution. on the table. On the motion of Mr. GARFIELD there were ayes 60, noes 53. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. VANHoRN, of NewYork, and Mr. Ross were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 65; noes not counted. So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. BENJAMIN. I move that the bill be laid on the table. Mr. WARD, of NewYork. On that motion I call for the yeas&nays. Mr. GARFIELD,I suggest to the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] that he had better withdraw his motion, and let the vote be taken at, once on the passage of the resolution. It will amount to the same thing. Mr. BENJAMIN. Very well; I withdraw the motion. The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the passage of the JtResolution, on which the yeas&nays have been ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yoas 93, nays 46, not voting 52; So the JtResolution was passed. During the call of the roll the following announcements were made: Mr. DEMING. My colleague, Mr. BRAN DEGEE, is absent by leave of the House on business of the ComNavAffrs. If he were present he would vote for the JtResolution. Mr. O'NEIL. My colleague, Mr. MYERs, is absent by leave on business of a select committee. Ifhere he would vote in favor of this JtResolution. Mr. RADFORD. My colleague, Mr. WIN FIELD, is absent on account of sickness. If he were present he would vote for the passage of this JtResolution, Mr. DRIGGS. My colleague, Mr. LoNG YEAR, is detained from the House by sickness. The result of the vote was announced as above stated. Mr. GARFIELD mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. ANNA. R. SHEET. On motion by Mr. PERHAM, by unanimous consent, leave was granted for the withdrawal from the files of the House of the petition and papers of Anna R. Sheet with a view to their reference to the Pension Bureau. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. KASSON. Before moving to go into ComWhole on the state of the Union I move that all debate on the paragraphs relating to the Dept of Agriculture be closed in 20 minutes after the committee shall resume the consideration of the legislative, &c., appropriation bill. The motion was agreed to..Mr. KASSON moved that the rules be susended, and the House resolve itself into the omWhole on the state of the Union. The motion was agreed to. So the House resolved itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. LAwRENCE, of Pennsylvania, in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of 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. The Chairman stated the pending amendment to be as follows: QA page, 33, strike out “89, saenvdeinnsheurnt d“rfeordt, ya fnivde;86; ” so that it will read: For purchaseof cereal, vegetable, and flower seeds, and for labor in putting up seed, seed bags, and miscellaneous items, He also stated that debate by order of the House was limited to 20 minutes on the pending subject.
Mr. BIDWELL. It is known to every one there is a valuable and interesting collection in the Dept of Agriculture belonging to the entomologist, Mr. fo which he i. spent years in forming, he being aoscientific gentleman. It certainly would prove of great value to the agricultural interest of the country. It will form the nucleus of one of the grandest museums in the world. I think in making appropriations for the Dept of Agriculture, a certain amount should be set apart in order to collect specimens ofo, especially those which concern agriculture. This collection is now about the only interesting thing in the Dept, and I hope the amendment of the Gentfrom NewYork will be agreed to. Here the hammer fell]
Mr. DELANO. I have an amendment which I desire to offer to add at the end of line 791 the following proviso: Provided, That no moneyshall hereafter be paid to the present Commissioner on account of his salary, except so much as may be due for past services.
Mr. DELANO. Then I will make my remarks without offering it. I want to be distinctly understood as not participating in the accusations of dishonesty or want of integrity on the part of the man who administers this Dept. I do not stand here to defend him against such charges, but I desire distinctly to be understood as not joining in them. I do not know whether they are true or not; but I do aver that it is the universal sentiment of the agriculturists of the country that he is incompetent for the position he holds, and there is a general feeling and desire that he should be removed. The interest that he represents I took occa.sion to allude to yesterday as of vast import.ance. We have.given public lands for agricultural schools, and the whole amount so given will reach the sum of about 5 mil. lion dollars. The proceeds are in the hands of the State Legislatures, and are being used for the purpose of disseminating knowledge among agriculturists; and the time has come when we should all look more to the culture of that interest and bestow upon it that legislation which its importance demands. That can never be done, in my opinion, while this Dept is in the hands of the present incumbent. I will give you an instance of his intelligence I have it from a former member of this House, now high in office: being in conversation with him some time ago on the subject of the origin and nativity of the Irish potato, to test theold gentleman's knowledge he asked him what his opinion was on the subject. Assuming a gravity that the occasion demanded, the Commissioner said: “It is a subject upon which I have be: stowed a great deal of attention and much reading, but have not fully come to a conclu.sion in regard to it; but my best opinion is, that it originated in Pennsylvania.” [Laughter] I do not know, sir, if that was the reason that you found it necessary yesterday to come down from the Chairjthis officer. [Laughter]
Mr. THAYER. Can the gentleman prove that it is not so? tio.
Mr. DELANO. "What is the name of that beautiful stream in Pennsylvania where some variety of this potato is said to have beencul tivated once 7 "Ah, the Neshannock. But enough upon that subject. I only alluded to this as one of numerous instances of the same kind, and I say that it is a dis; grace to the country that this man should be forced on the agricultural interest; it is lamentable that the POTUS, who can find time to permeate the land with spies to find out who is going to vote for officers who will sustain his “policy, ” can; not find time to take this man's case in han and provide properly for this great and important interest. I hope, therefore, as we have no other way of reaching this matter, that the House will apply this principle of withholding the supplies which was applied at the as session in the case of the minister to Por tugoal. the hammer fell]
Mr. BROMWELL. I desire to ask the gen: tleman a question for information. The chairman of the ComAg [Mr. Bidwell] has stated here that the evidence taken before his committee more than com" firms the charges brought by the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. Morrill] against the Com. missioner; that he wanted that evidencebrough: before the House; but that the committeedoes not desire to bring that evidence here, and so. eral members of the committee have appear? before the House in vindication of the Commosioner. I wouldinquire now why that evideo" is withheld from the House if these gentlemen really wish to vindicate the CommrAg, and the evidence taken tends to his exculpation? ion ad
Mr. KASSON. That is not a question." dressed to the committee of which I am a ber but to another committee, and I can” answer it. I will yield now to the sole from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] for moments.
Mr. STEVENS. I have but a word to in relation to this matter. The appo". asked for by the bureau was $90,000, to ComAppropriat reduced hr $80,000. By the vote taken here to o: day, authorizing cereals to be collected in. York, I have no doubt but that the approprition may be still further reduced $10,000. have to say as to my upon district that we look this item of appropriation as of more value than all the rest of your legislation put together. do not care whether the Irish potato was raised originally in Pennsylvania or not, but I should like some gentleman who is wiser than Mr. Newton to tell me where it did originate. I do not think my learned friendfrom Ohio (Mr. DELANo) or anybody else can tell us as to that. I believe it originated in the West Indies or in Pennsylvania; but I say that the ignorance of the ComrAg on that subject is an ignorance in common with every member of this House. Nobody knows better.
Mr. DELANO. Did the gentleman ever hear that it originated in Pennsylvania?
Mr. STEVENS. I think so. I believe it was alleged long ago that it originated some where in the lower part of the State. Now, sir, all I have to say is, that we are not trying the head of this bureau. These appropriations are for carrying on the Dept. If the present head of the bureau is not a proper man for the place, let us take the proper means to get a proper man put there; E. do not let us strike down the Dept. I do not wonder at the course of the Gentfrom Vermont, (Mr. MoRRILL,) who has always othese agricultural appropriations. hat use are they to people up there in Vermont? Can you sow seeds upon rocks and stones? I know that these appropriations are not useful there, and I am not surprised at the opposition which my friend has made to them from the beginning; but, depend upon it, if the people want anything at our hands it is the continuation of this agricultural approriation and the dissemination of these seeds. here may be some worthless things distrib uted. There always will be under such circumstances. As I said before, I did not rise to defend the integrity of this officer. That I believe is above reproach. His energy is beyond doubt. His science is not in question here. I believe that he has infused more vigor into this bureau since he has been there than any scientific man would have done bending over his crucibles night and day. He is a man of business; but we are not trying him. If you want to try him go before the proper tribunal; but give the appropriation necessary to carry on his office. What kind of legislation would it be for us to withhold the appropriations for the Army and Navy because we do not like the heads of those Depts?
The CHAIRMAN. By order of the House debate is now closed on this paragraph. The question was upon the pending amendment, to strike out o: word “ 80 ” and insert, “45, ” so that the clause, if amended, will read as follows: For purchase of cereal, vegetable, and flower seeds, and for labor in putting up seeds, seed bags, and miscellaneous items, $45,
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend the amendment by.; striking out “$45,000” and “$60,000.” That was the sum I originally moved. he question was taken upon the amendment to the amendment; and it was not agreed to.
Skip Skip The question was then taken upon the amendment; and upon a division, there were ayes 21, noes 86. So the amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. MAYNARD. I move to amend by striking out “$80,000” and inserting “$90,000, ” the amount estimated for by the head of the Bureau of Agriculture.. I think, after the debate which we have had here, we should appropriate the amount asked for.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope this item will be left as the committee reported it, although the original estimate was cut down $10,000.
Mr. MAYNARD. Very well. I will with draw my amendment.
Mr. VANAERNAM. I move to amend this clause by adding the following: Provided further, That $10,000 of the foregoing appropriation be used for the purchase of the Glover museum, and $3,000 for the capture and experiment in the domestication of the American fur bearing animals: And provided further, That the Commissioner shall, on or before the 15thday of December of each year hereafter, make a report in Congress detail to of the moneys expended by him.
Mr. KASSON. I ask for a division of the amendment; and that the vote be 1st taken upon the appropriation for the Glover mu seum. The question was accordingly stated to be upon the following clause: Propided further That $10,000of the foregoing appropriation be used for the purchase of the Glover museum.
Mr. BIDWELL. I move to amend this clause by inserting before “$10,000” the words “not exceeding:1
Mr. VANAERN Wii. I accept that amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Imove to amend by striking out the words “and $3,000 for the capture and experiment in the domestication of the American fur bearing animals.”
Mr. KASSON. I would inquire if the question, under my call for a division, is not now upon the item in relation to the purchase of the Glover museum?
Mr. MAYNARD. I hope that we may have some explanation of what the Glover museum is.
The CHAIRMAN. Debate is not now in order except by unanimous consent. Mr.sNG. I object to any debate.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to amend the 1st clause of the amendment of the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. VANAERNAM] by striking out the words “of the foregoing appropriation, ” so as to make this an independent appropriation.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon the amendment to the 1st clause of the amendment; and there were, upon a division ayes 48, noes 16; no quorum voting. The CHAIRMAN appointed Mr. KAsson and Mr. Bidwell to act as tellers. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 67, noes 35. So the amendment to the 1st clause of The amendment was agreed to. The question was then taken upon the clause as amended; and upon a division, there were ayes 48, noes 41; no quorum voting. The CHAIRMAN appointed Mr. TAYLor, of NewYork, and Mr. Cook, to act as tellers. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 58, noes 39. So the clause, as amended, was agreed to. The question again recurred upon the next clause of the amendment offered by Mr. VANAERNAM, as follows: And $3,000for the capture and experiment in the domestication of the American fur bearing animals: And providedfurther, That the commissionershall, on or before the 15thday of December of after, make a reportin detail to Congress of expended by themoneys him.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I move to amend by adding the following: Provided further, That no portion of this appropriation need be expended in the capture and domestication of the fur bearing animal known as polecat. [Laughter]
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Is that the right name? The amendment of Mr. BENJAMIN was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the 2nd clause of the amendment of Mr. VANAERNAM.
Mr. VANAERNAM. I hope the commit: tee will give me the privilege of making a brief explanation of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. That requires unanimous consent.
Mr. VANAERNAM. I. As I am not permitted to make a word of explanation, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot do that now, as the committee have already acted upon a portion of the amendment.
Mr. obo ALL. I ask for a division of the question, and that it be 1st taken upon the portion of the amendment relating to fur bear. ING animals.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that the amendment is not susceptible of division.
Mr. BROOMALL. Is it in order to move to strike out the portion relating to fur bearing animals?
Mr. BROOMALL. Then I move to amend the amendment by striking out the words; “and $3,000 for the capture and experiment in the domestication of American fur bearing animals;” so that the amendment will read: And providedfurther, That the Commissionershall, on or before the 15thday of December in cach year hereafter, make a report in detail to Congress of moneys expended by him. all
Mr. NIBLACK. Mr. Chairman, what has become of the amendment in regard to pole cats?
Mr. NIBLACK. I only desired to suggest that the polecat is not a fur bearing, but a far smelling animal. [Laughter]
Mr. BRoom.ALL's amendment to The amendment was agreed to. The amendment as amended was agreed to. The Clerk, resuming the reading of the bill, read the following:. For propagation, and distribution of plants, cut t;ing"s, and shrubs, $14,000: provided, That the propa of plants, cuttings, and shrubs shall be conned to such as are adapted to general cultivation and to promote the general interests of horticulture anFdoragerixcpueltruimreetnhtraolugghaorduet nthe U.S. in reservation No. 2,
Mr. SCHENCK. I move to amend by adding after the clause just read the following: And it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to make distribution of seeds directly from the Agri cCuolntugrraelssD. dept, and not through members of I desire to say, Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. No debate is in order. Debate has been closed on the whole para graph. The amendment was not agreed to; there being ayes 11; noes not counted.
Mr. SCHENCK. I see that most of the members want to electioneer with these seeds.
Mr. DELANO. I now offer the amendment I have already indicated. I move to amend by adding after the clause just read the following: Provided. That no money shall hereafter be paid to the present Commissioner on account of his salary except so much as may be due for past services. The amendment was not agreed t;o there being ayes ten; noes not counted.
The Clerk read as follows: Mint at Philadelphia: For salaries of the director, treasurer, assayer, melter and refiner, chief coiner and engraver, asst assayer, and 7 clerks, $36, 500.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I move to amend the clause just read by striking out the last word, I offer this amendment for the purpose of making an inquiry. I see that in addition to the appropriation contained in this clause, there is another clause beginning on line 846, which reads: “For additional salary of the treasurer of the Mint at Philadelphia, $1,500. I desire to know what is the salary of these officers as fixed by law and whether the additional salary is authorized by law.
Mr. KASSON. This bill E. for no increase of salary whatever. By action during the last Congress, or perhaps during the last session of the present Congress, the salary was fixed by law. The “additional salary” is a technical phrase, having relation, to certain additional duties which have been imposed on these officers by law.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I would like the gentleman to state what the additional salary is.
Mr. KASSON. Without referring to the book, I think the salary is $4,000, and what is technically ealled the “additional salary” is an allowance, I believe, of $500, made in pursuance of a law imposing additional duties.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Iwithdraw the amendment. The Clerk, resuming the reading of the bill, read the following: For additional salary of the treasurer of the Mint at Philadelphia, $1,500.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move tIo amend by striking out the clause just read. differ with the Gentfrom Iowa o KAssoN] in regard to the construction of the law. I say that, whatever may be the salary of this treasurer this bill adds to it $1,500.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that this point has been distinctly made, for I have here the law which establishes the salary of this officer. It was passed on the 7th of April, 1866, and will be found in the laws of the last session.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will ask what the salary of this officer is now by law.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the present salary is $4, 500, this makes it $6,000.
Mr. KASSON. I mean $4, 500 exclusive of this. The regular appropriation was formerly $4, 500. This “additional salary” was added by the law of last session. The gentleman's proposition is to repeal the law of last session.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No, sir; my proposition is this, and I defy the gentleman to controvert it: that there is an existing law fixing the salary of the treasurer of the Mint at Philadelphia, and this appropriation, which the gentleman proposes to pass, adds that much to it.
Mr. KASSON. If the gentleman desires it, and the committee will wait, I will send for the law. The salary is fixed at $6,000, and this is for the additional $1,500 fixed by law. If the gentleman turns back he will find we appropriate for the treasurer of the Mint instead of the Director which I had in my mind; for the treasurer it was $3, 500, and this is an additional salary for the treasurer of the Mint $1,500, making the total $5,000 instead of $6,000. I will refer to the law. It is section 14 of the general law of last session. It provides that from and after the 1st day of April, 1866, there shall be paid, instead of the salaries at present authorized to the irector, &c. to the treasurer, $6, 500, and $1,500 for additional compensation as Asst Treasurer of the U.S. And so it is with all the others. My 1st statement, then, is correct: his salary as treasurer of the Mint is $3, 500, and his salary as Asst Treasurer of the U.S., the duties of which office you imposed upon him by law, is $1,500 a year additional.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That does not conform to the text of the bill. Here the provision is for additional salary to the treas. urer of the Mint. I say this is adding $1,500 to that man's salary.
Mr. KASSON. I must call the gentleman's attention to the mistake which he makes. This provides for the Asst Treasurer of the U.S. at this place, as the treasurer of the Mint acts as Asst Treasurer of the U.S.
Mr. THAYER. Is there not a Treasurer of the U.S. at Philadelphia, and what occasion is there for the treasurer of the Mint to act as Asst Treasurer of the U.S.? If there be necessity for it, then it is all well enough.
Mr. KASSON. I do not rise to discuss the laws of the last Congress, and while I say this is carrying out existing law, it is not proper to introduce into this bill any general legislation.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. This is to strike out general legislation, for this provision is to increase by indirection the salary of a public officer who is already getting too large a salary..
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I should like to hear some reason why Philadelphia is selected for this curtailment of salary? All should be stricken out if it be stricken out in this case. I hope no discrimination will be made of this character, but that the bill will be allowed to remain as reported. And I hope therefore the amendment of the Gentfrom Illinois will be voted down. The committee divided; and there were ayes 15, noes not counted.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, were appointed. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported ayes 34, noes 63. So the amendment was disagreed to.
The Clerk read as follows: For additional salary of the treasurer of the branch Mint at NewOrleans, $500, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. strike that out.
Mr. KASSON. It is provided by the same law of Congress. There is no increase of appropriation. o Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the folio from Iowa what this $500 will make the whole salary?
Mr. KASSON. The amount provided by existing laws. [Laughter]
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is that?
Mr. KASSON. If the gentleman will give me time to refer to the original law I will answer him; I do not carry it in my mind.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will modify my motion, instead of striking out to add the following proviso: Provided, This shall not beconsidered as additional salary to the one now provided by law.
The Clerk read as follows: For additional salary of the treasurer of mint at Denver, $500 the branch Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to add the same proviso.
Mr. KASSON. If that is to be adopted, I ask the gentleman to change the language so as to provide that it is not an increase of the salary now provided hy law.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will agree to that if you will let me go back and move the same amendment to the paragraph concerning the treasurer of the Mint.
The Clerk read as follows: For additional salary of the treasurer of the branch mint at SanFrancisco, California, $1,500.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. same amendment.
Mr. KASSON. With the consent of the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE, ] I propose that a clause shall be inserted which we will draw and send to the Clerk, providin what I have already stated as the intention o the bill, that this shall not be construed as an increase of salary.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is all I desire.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I shall have to insist on taking the vote on my amendment.
Mr. KASSON. This is neither a decrease nor an increase, but for the purpose of satisfying the views of the Gentfrom Illinois. I propose to insert a clause declaring that there shall be no actual increase by this bill.
Mr. BIDWELL. Is this to carry out an existing law?
Mr. k'sson. It is. The amendment of Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, was accordingly withdrawn.
The Clerk read as follows: For salaries of additional clerks in the office of the Asst Treasurer at Philadelphia, $6, 585.
Mr. O'NEILL. I move to amend by adding at the end of the foregoing clause these words: And $6,000 for an increaseof the salaries of clerks, I move to I move the I object to any decrease additional clerks, messengers, and watchmen in the said office, each from 20 to 25%. Those employed in the Asst Treasurer's office have very responsible positions. They perform the duties of clerks and other important duties, and are really not paid as they should be. They are selected for their capa city, integrity, and fidelity, and I know the compensation paid them is not what is paid by private employers to such clerks, messengers, and watchmen as they are. The very best men are required by the Government in these places, and the only way to get them is to give them proper compensation. I hope the committee will adopt my amendment.
Mr. KASSON., I will state to the gentleman that during either the last session or the session of the preceding Congress the com: pensation of these persons at the mints was provided for by making some increase. That was as far as the committee were willing to go, and we are certainly not willing to go further in this bill. The amendment was disagreed to.
The Clerk read as follows: For salaries of additional clerks and additional compensation of officers and clerks, under act of August 6, 1846, for the better organization of the Treasury, at such rates as the Secretary just and reasonable, $60,000.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire some information from the gentleman who has charge of this bill in regard to this item $60,000 to be paid out “at such rates as the SecyTreasury may deem just and reasonable.”
Mr. KASSON. This is the usual clause in all the appropriation bills for the administra.tion of the duties imposed by Congress upon’ the SecyTreasury in this respect by the original sub Treasury act.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. “At such rates as he may deem just?”
Mr. KASSON. Yes, sir. It was in the same language last year and the year before, and the amount is identical with that heretofore introduced in these appropriation bills.
Mr. KASSON. My friendfrom Indiana entirely mistakes the object of the clause appropriating this money. It has no relation whatever to the distribution to which he has referred. The ComAppropriat is as much opposed as he is to a continuance of that system, but this does not relate to the clerks in the Treasury dept. It is for the services of clerks employed in the business of the sub Treasurers over various parts of the U.S., which the law cannot foresee sufficiently to make a specific classification of the clerks or a specific appropriation for their salaries. We have consequently adopted in the past this policy of placing money for this purpose in the i. of the head of the Treasury Dept. I shall heartily cooperate with my friend in opposing any restoration of that system of distributing extra pay to which he has alluded; but this appropriation is necessary to carry on the current operations of the Dept, and is entirely distinct from the matter to which he has referred.
Mr. BROMWELL. I would ask the member from Iowa if this clause does not provide for additional compensation to officers and clerks and if it would not place it in the discretion of the SecyTreasury to allow an increase of compensation.
Mr. KASSON. It follows the language of the acts heretofore passed on the subject, and it is not intended, nor has it the effect, of increasing salaries at all.
Mr. BROMWELL. What salaries would it increase, or what salaries does it contemplate?
Mr. KASSON. It is not contemplated to increase any salaries. The clause adopts the language of former laws, and carries out the system which we have followed from year to year in reference to these officers. I assure the gentleman that there is no such increase as he supposes contemplated.
Mr. BROMWELL. It seems to me that this clause conveys an implied authority to the SecyTreasury to allow increased compensation to officers of that Dept.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I. suggest to my colleague that he move to strike out the words “at such rates as the Secretary may deem just and reasonable, ” so that these sala ries shall be paid in accordance with existing law, i.the matter at the discretion of the Secretary.
Mr. KASSON. 5 no objection to that if the gentleman will say that these men shall be paid at the existing rates, or will use some such phrase as that.
Mr. BROMWELL. I do not see how additional compensation can be paid at the existing rates.
Mr. KASSON, I have not the original law before me, but I will say to my friendfrom Illinois that the word “additional” used in this clause is copied from the existing law. Some questions in relation to this matter were put in the House last session; the law was then referred to, and the explanations made were deemed satisfactory by the House.
Mr. BROMWELL. I will read the clause, and I think the gentleman will see that my ob. jection to it is well taken: For salaries of additional clerks and additional compensation of officersand clerks, under act of Au gust 6, 1846, for the better organization of the Treasury, at such rates as the Secretary may d just and reasonable, $60,000. retary mayaeem just an It seems to me that the Secretary might draw from that authority to take the $60,000, or some E. of it, and give it to such clerks in his dept as he may deem it just and reason able to pay it to.
Mr. KASSON. The gentleman is in error in regard to the application of the words “at such rates as the Secretary may deem just and reasonable, ” if he supposes they are intended to have the effect he has indicated. The amount to be hereby appropriated is to meet the exist:ing rates of compensation of these officers and clerks named in the original law. The limit we place upon the SecyTreasury is in regard to the amount of the appropriation. We have no design to enlarge either the discretion or the amount. These clerks are already employed, and this amount is to pay em.
The CHAIRMAN. The debate upon the pending amendment is exhausted.
Mr. HILL. I withdraw my amendment in order to enable other gentlemen who may desire to debate an opportunity to offer amendments.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I move to amend this clause by striking out the words “and additional compensation of officers and clerks.” If that amendment shall prevail, I will then move to further amend the clause by striking out the words “at such rates as the Secretary may deem just and reasonable." The clause would then read as follows: For salaries of additional clerks, under act of Au gust 6, 1846, for the better organization of the Treasury, $60,000 That leaves the appropriation as it now stands, as the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAS so N] says it is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the existing law. I am opposed to these additional compensations. I prefer that the compensation should be fixed by law, and then we will all know what it is, and what amount is to be appropriated. As this now reads it seems to me to give a great deal of discretion to the SecyTreasury in this matter.
Mr. HILL. Will the Gentfrom missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] yield to me for a moment 7
Mr. HILL. I desire to call the attention of the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN, ] as well as of the ComWhole, to the fact that the language used in this clause is precisely the language of the law which au: thorized the distribution of the money reported to this House. The Secretary in his report makes this statement, quoting from the law: “For compensation of temporary clerks in Treasury Dept, the and for additional compensation to officersand clerks in the same Dept.” The language of the clause now under consideration is as follows: For salaries [instead of “compensation, ” as in existing the law] of compensation of oaffdicdeitrisoannadl eclelerrkkss., ” and additional That is precisely the language used in the act under which the $160,000 was appropriated, and under which the Secretary has distributed that money to the heads of the bureaus.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Except that this sec.tion limits theoof this money to the classes specified in the act of August 6, 1846.
Mr. THAYER. This clause does not limit the discretion of the Secretary in the distribution of the money.
Mr. STEVENS. We passed an act last year appropriating $160,000, and an act the year before appropriating $250,000, to be distributed at the discretion of the SecyTreasury, which discretion he most shamefully abused.
Mr. HILL. I agree with the gentleman there.
Mr. STEVENS. He gave the money to those who did not need it, kept it from those who did need it. He asked this year for the same amount, $160,000, every dollar of which the I have not the act of 1846 now ComAppropriat struck out, and no part of it, therefore, is included in this bill. This $60,000 is for the clerks authorized under the law of 1846. That law, I think, created sub Treasuries and authorized the SecyTreasury to employ clerks at his own discretion for that purpose. Those clerks have been employed, but none of them have their salaries fixed, except so far as they have been fixed by the discretion of the Secretary under the law of 1846. This appropriation is to enable the SecyTreasury to pay these clerks as he has paid them heretofore; it does not allow him any discretion whatever.
Mr. THAYER. I would inquire if the act of 1846 does not classify the clerks and fix their pay according to certain classes?
Mr. STEVENS. I have not the law before me; but my impression is that that was left to the discretion of the SecyTreasury.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I desire to call the at tention of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] to another thing. This clause reads “additional compensation of officers and clerks, ” it does not say “clerks” simply.
Mr. STEVENS. We have used the same language here which we have always used in appropriation bills.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It seems to me to be very evident that the effect of this clause which we are now discussing is to give additional compensation to the clerks; and it allows the SecyTreasury a very wide discretion in fixing their rates of compensation as “he may deem just and reasonable.” Now, I think we better fix the salaries ourselves, and not leave the matter to the discretion of anybody. I should like to see the law of 1846 so as to know whether there is vested in the SecyTreasury any such discretion to fix the additional salaries of clerks. That is not the way Congress formerly legislated. It may have done so in that particular case.
The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted on the pending amendment. The question being taken on the amendment of M.". there were ayes 37, noes 24; no quorum voting. 3
Mr. W.ASHBURNE, of Illinois. I trust the from Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN,) if he oes not wish to break up the committee for want of a quorum, will f: this question go into the House.
Mr. KASSON. If the question can be passed in any way I am willing that the vote shall be reserved till the bill comes before the House. That will give us an opportunity meanwhile to obtain the information which some gentlemen desire.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I suggest that we pass this paragraph informally, with the understanding that we may return to its consideration hereafter.
Mr. KASSON. I have no objection to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] withdraw his amendment?
Mr. BENJAMIN. No, sir; I insist on a vote upon it. No quorum having voted, the Chairman, under the rule, ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. BENJAMIN and LeBLoND. The committee divided; and the tellers reported ayes 47, noes 29; no quorum voting.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and
The SPEAKer having resumed the chair, Mr. LAwRENCE, of i.o.reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and particularly 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, had come to no resolution thereon. PENSION LAWS.
Mr. HILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill extending the provisions of the pension laws; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. And then, on motion of Mr. LeBLOND, (at 15 minutes of 4 o'clock p.m.,) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. Monday, January 14, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Secretary proceeded to read the Journal of Friday last.
Mr. WADE. I move that the further read of the Journal be dispensed with. Nobody is listening to i.t.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It can only be dispensed with by. unanimous consent of t he Senate. No objection being made, the reading of the Journal is dispensed with. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a report of the SecyTreasury, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 4th of Decem ber, information in relation to the amount of money paid or ordered to be paid since the 18th day of May last to the several newspapers printed and published in the District of 3. . for advertishg notices and proposals for each of the Executive Depts of the Government, and the number and character of the advertisements for which said money was paid; which was ordered to lie on the table.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUse. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, Chief Clerk, announced that it had passed the bill (S.No.383) for the relief of Lewis Dyer, late surgeon of the 80 1st regiment Illinois volunteers; and also that it had passed the bill ( S.No. 218) exempting the property of debtors in the District op i. Co from levy, attachment, or sale on execution, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message further 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. 457) for the relief of Hiram Paulding, rear admiral U.S. avy; A bill (H.R.No. 483) for the relief of Nor man J. Hall; A bill (H.R.No. 916) for the relief of James M. Bishop, who claims $236; A bill (H.R.No. 974) to indemnify Abial Morrison for property destroyed by hostile Indians in Washington Territory in the years 1855 and 1856; A JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service at Washington; and 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. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. The message further announced that The SPEAKer had signed the enrolled bill (S.No.383) for the relief of Lewis Dyer, late surgeon of the 8 1st regiment Illinois volunteers; and it was thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate.
Skip Skip BILLS BECOME LAWS. A message from the POTUS, by Mr. W. G. Moore, his Secretary, announced that he approved and signed on the 11th instant the JtResolution (S.R.No. 154) to provide for the exhibition of the cereal productions of the U.S. at the Paris exposition in April next, and on the 14th instant the bill (S.No.459) suspending the payment of money from the Treasury as compensation to persons claiming the service or labor of colored volunteers or drafted men, and for other purposes. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The following bills and JtResolutions from the HoRep were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below: A bill (H.R.No. 457) for the relief of Hiram Paulding, rear admiral U.S. Navy to the ComClaims. A bill (H.R.No. 483) for the relief of Norman J. Hall to the ComClaims. A bill (H.R.No. 916) for the relief of James M. Bishop, who claims $230 to the ComClaims. A bill (H.R.No. 974) to indemnify Abial Morrison for property destroyed by hostile Indians in Washington Territory in the years 1855 and 1856 to the ComClaims. A JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service at Washington to the ComFinance. 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 to the ComJudiciary. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. WILLIAMS, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Mary J. Dixon, of Alexandria, Virginia, praying for the restoration of property sold or taxes, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.503) for the relief of Mrs. Mary J. Dixon, of Alexandria, in the State of Vir. inia, widow of the late Turner Dixon, deceased. he bill was read and passed to a 2nd read ine and the report was ordered to be printed. Mr.ANTHONY. The ComPrintg, to whom was referred a resolution to print extra copies of the memorial of the NewEng land Emigrant Aid Company, praying for in demnification for the destruction of their property at Lawrence, Kansas, have instructed me to report it back adversely. It has not been the custom of the Senate to print memorials, and this memorial, which is one of some importance, has been once printed, and I presume there are on the files of the Senate as many copies as any Senators will require. The me morial should go to the ComClaims.
The PRESIDENT protempore. will be entered. PENITENTIARIES IN THE TERRITORIES.
Mr. CRAGIN. The ComTerri tories, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 715) setting aside certain proceeds from internalrevenue for the erection of penitentia ries in the Territories of Nebraska, Washing. ton, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Dakota, have had it under consideration, and instructed me to report it back to the Senate with a recommendation that it pass; and if there be no objection. I ask for the present consideration of the bill. By unanimous consent the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to set aside and appropriate the net proceeds of the internalrevenue of the Territories of Nebraska, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Dakota, for the fiscal years severally end.ing on the 30th of June, 1866, the 30th of June, 1867, and the 30th of June, 1868, for the purpose of erecting, under the direction of the Secyinterior, penitentiary buildings in those Territories, at such places therein as have been or may be designated by the Legislatures thereof and approved by the SecyInterior; but the moneys so set aside and appropriated in each of the Territories are to be devoted exclusively to the erection of a penitentiary in the Territory in which they have been and shall be collected, and not in any other; and that they shall not exceed in amount the sum of $20,000 in the Territory of That order Yogo and $40,000 in each of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Dakota. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. GRIMES asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.504) to improve the value of Government lands on the line of the McGregor Western railway, by aiding said railway company to construct said railroad; which was read twice by its title and referred to the ComPubLands.
Mr. CONNESS asked, and by unanirhous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.505) to quiet title to land in the town of Santa Clara, in the State of California; which was read twice by its title and referred to the ComPubLands. PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate the following resolution, passed by the HoRep on Friday last:ingResolved, (the Senate concurring.) That the follow o added to the joint rules of the 2 Houses, namely: RULE –. There shall be a JtCommee on public buildings and grounds, to consist of 5 memberson tHhoeupsea, rt of the Senate and 7 on the part of the whose duty it shall be to consider all subjects relating to the public edifices and grounds within the city of Washington which may be referred to them, apnrodproespitoiortnsthreeirlaotipnignion thereon, together with such thereto as may seem to expedient. them The resolution was referred to the ComJudiciary. MRS. ELIZABETH R. SMITH.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 451. The motion was agreed t;o and the bill (S.No.451) for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth R. Smith was read a 2nd time and considered as in ComWhole. It proposes to appropriate the sum of $2, 468 in full payment and satisfaction of the claim of Mrs. E. R. Smith, widow of the late Lieutenant R. H. Smith, of the 3rd regiment U.S. artillery, for property lost on board the steamer SanFrancisco, in the year 1853. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. PENSION AG ENTS.
Mr. LANE. I move that the Senate R. ceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 69, which has been up some 4 or 5 times; and I hope we shall dispose of it this morning. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate resumed the consideration of the amendment of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.69), to provide for the payment of pensions, the pending question being on the amendment moved by Mr. SUMNER, to add at the end of the House amendment the following additional section: SEC. Abife:, That all other agents or officers appointed by the President or by the head of any Dept, whose salary or . comderived from fees, or 1,000annually, shall be appointed otbhyertwheise President, s by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the term of office of all such officers appointed since the 1stday of July, 1866, shall expire at the end of 30 days after the passageof this act; Provided, That this is not applicable to clerks of the Depts.
Mr. LANE. I just wish to say one or 2 words in reference to that matter. This is a bill to provide for the appointment of pension agents. It was well considered at the last session, and it has been well considered and debated at this session, and the Senate can vote knowingly, as it seems to me, in reference to all its provisions. Now, here is an amendment proposing to apply the same rule to all offices the salary attached to which is over $1,000 a year. While I. with the object sought to be accomplished by the Senfrom Massachusetts, I hope that that amendment will not be placed upon this bill, for it opens the whole subject of removals and appointments, and I very much fear that the bill will fail if this amendment be ädopted. In consideration of the facts that this bill is well understood, has been thoroughly debated, and its whole scope and object. to the Senate, I hope that now no general proposition to apply the principle to all offices will be adopted as an amendment to this bill.
Mr. LANE. The reason I assigned for objecting to this amendment is a reason which will strike the Senate. The facts in reference to the appointment of pension agents have been fully discussed. Their Qriginal. by the War Dept, then by the interior Dept, then the proposition to give the power of appointment to the President, the number of agents, their compensation, the duration of the offices, have all been debated fully and freely before the Senate. Here now is a proposition to apply the same rule to all other offices the salary of which is over $1,000. As to the manner of their appointment, the duration of office, the compensation, and all these things, the Senate, if they vote upon the amendment, as it seems to me, must vote in ignorance of the facts. I think I should vote unhesitatingly for the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts as a separate bill, or erhaps as an amendment upon some other ill. As I said before, I sympathize fully with the object sought to be accomplished by it; and if the amendment is engrafte. this biii shall still vote for the bill; but I prefer voting upon one thing at a time and upon a subject about which the Senate has been fully informed. I hope, therefore, that the Senator will forego the offering of his amendment upon this bill and let us digest and adopt some general in reaching all these offices. At present I know not how many officers would be embraced by the amendment; I know not what has been the manner of their appointment heretofore. I ask simply now that this measure, which has been fully debated, running through 2 sessions, i be voted upon on its own merits. I have no objection to the amendment, and I think I should cheerfully vote for it as an independent proposition.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I should think, sir, that there is more of principle and of rule in the Ho". of the Senfrom Massachusetts an in the proposition of my colleague, although I ift not vote for either. My colleague says by his bill, which he now indorses, that pension agents have become important officers, but that some of them must go out of office if they were appointed after a certain day, and others who were appointed before that date shall hold office; so that the importance of the office under the Constitution depends upon the date of their commission. I am not able to see the principle that is involved in that. I shall not vote for the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts, but he embraces the whole subject, and his particular proposition, might upon principle be adopted instead of the bill of my colleague.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is upon the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts to the amendment of the HoRep.
Mr. SUMNER. On that question I ask for they.eas&nays. eas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HOWE. I wish the Senate would reflect that we have one bill before us which, if it becomes a law, will deny to the President the right to remove, without the consent of the Senate, officers who are appointed with the consent of the Senate. Now, to place the large class of officers referred to by this amendtment under the protection of that law, it is manifestly necessary that this provision should be enacted into law, here or elsewhere, now or at some other time. There is no conceivable bill that I know of in which it could be more properly placed than the "; bill, and if we pass it now then the work will be done. If we put it off to another time we shall still have it to do, if it is to be done, and it stands a “right smart” chance of not being done at all. So I really hope the amendment will be adopted on the pending bill. quo." being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 12, nays 21; 19. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is on concurring in the amendment of the HoRep as it has been amended by the Senate. The amendment as in. amended was concurred Mr. MORRILL. Do I understand that that vote passes the bill?
The PRESIDENT protempore. It does. The bill is now disposed of so far as the senate is concerned.
Mr. MORRILL. Then I move to reconsider the vote last taken, and I willmention as a reason that my colleague [Mr. FEssexDEN] expressed an interest in this measure when it was before the Senate on a former occasion, and I know he still continues to take that interest in the measure.
Skip Skip The question being put on the motion to reconsider, a division was called for.
Mr. GRIMES. I understand that an appeal has been made by the Senfrom Maine in behalf of his colleague, who is confined to his lodgings by sickness, and who feels a special interest in this bill. I have never yet heard of a case where an appeal of this kind was made that the Senate did not listen to it.
Mr. LANE. The Senfrom Maine has been here 3 or 4 days when this subject has been under consideration. I know that I saw him in his seat during at least 2 days while it was before us.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator is mistaken. The last day this bill was under consideration the Senfrom Maine was engaged in the room of the ComFinance in preparing the tariff bill, which I find on my this morning, and he was sent for, but could not leave the room.
Mr. LANE. That may be, but I know he was here several days when the bill was under consideration.
Mr. GRIMES. He was sent for the last day it was before the Senate, but he could not come here. I sent for him myself.
Mr. CRAGIN. I wish to inquire of the Senfrom Maine if his colleague expressed a desire to be present when this bill should be finally disposed of? I had a conversation with him and did not understand from him that he had any special wish in relation to it. He said he was opposed to the House amendment and in favor of the original bill as it was passed by the Senate; but he did not express particular anxiety about it.
Mr. MORRILL. In reply to the Senfrom NewHampshire I have to say that on a former occasion when this bill was up my colleague was obliged to be in the Supreme Court, he called my attention to i. fact, and expressed a desire to be present when the bill should be considered. That is the reason I called the attention of the Senate to the fact this morning. I know this morning that he is confined to his room by illness; and I should hope that, as the bill is not to go back to the House, at least this courtesy might be extended to my colleague.
Mr. joS. I hope this motion to reconsider will not prevail. This bill was up at the last session, was debated 3 or 4 days, and passed by the Senate and sent to the other House. It has now been passed by the HoRep with an amendment. There has been a debate of 3 or 4 days on the amendment, and we have now reached an end and disposed of it. I hope that action will not be reconsidered. If we are to reconsider measures in this way there is no telling when we shall get through with them. I do not see any great importance in reconsidering this vote. I. perhaps as little interest in the matter as anybody else; but I have watched this bill now through 2 fessions, and if this motion to reconsider be carried I shall consider my duty as discharged and my care of the bill as passed by entirely.
Mr. SUMNER. This billis important, 1st in what it does, and 2nd ly in what it does not. It does provide a rule in one case, but it miserably fails to provide a rule in the great and urgent classes of cases throughout the whole country. It is a bill specially to meet almost I may say a particular case, instead of a bill general to meet the interests of the whole country. And, sir, the Senate are called to act upon it merely at the last stage on a disagreement between the 2 Houses, when there is but one vote. not remind you that there are several votes. A bill is considered in committee and then in the Senate, and then again there is another vote on its final passage. There is nothing of that kind now. You act by a single vote. Imention these things as reasons, in addition to those which have been already assigned, wh this vote should be reconsidered. I think it had better go over for another day, and let us look the bill more carefully in the face and see whether it is what under the circumstances we ought to pass. On common occasions, I need TENURE OF OFFICE.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of Friday, which is the bill (S.No.453) to regulate the tenure of officeS.R.POLAND. I gave notice on Friday that I should this morning ask the Senate to take up the bankrupt bill, passed by the HoRep at the last session, for consideration; but I do not desire to antagonize that bill with the one now before the Senate, and therefore I shall not move this morning to take up the bankrupt bill. But I desire that it may be understood that as soon as this bill is disposed Iof shall move the Senate to proceed to the consideration of the bankrupt bill. I apprehend that some of the Senators are more alarmed than is needful in reference to the length of time that will be consumed by that bill. I think we shall all agree that the bankrupt bill pending, if one is to be passed, is made very nearly as perfect as it can be. I merely desire to say that when this bill shall be disposed of I shall then ask that the bankrupt bill be taken up for consideration.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question before the Senate is on the motion of the Senfrom Indiana, [Mr. HeNDR1cks,) to amend the amendment made by the Senate as in ComWhole to this bill by striking out all of the 3rd section after the word “thereafter, ” in the 6th line. The words to be stricken out will be read.
The Secretary read as follows: And if no appointment, by and with the advice and consentof the Senate, shall bemade to such office so yacant or temporarily filled, as aforesaid, during such next session of the Senate, such officeshalf ret main in abeyance, without any salary, fees, or emol uments attached thereto, until the same shall befilled by appointment thereto, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and during such time all the powers and duties belonging to such office shall be exercised by such other officer as may by law exercise such powers and duties in case of a vacancy in such office.
Skip Skip The question being put, a division was called for. Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for the yeas and naVS. e yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. ENo. As the Senfrom Oregon has expressed to the Senate a hope that this amendment will not be adopted, I wish to ask him a practical question. What officer is authorized to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of an internalrevenue collector in case of a vacancy in that office? I ask the question because that is an office which under this, provision of the bill, may become vacant, and if this bill becomes a law there will be no power to fill it during the recess of the Senate. I ask him the question simply as illus trative of perhaps 1000other cases.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I suppose each collector has a deputy, and if so the deputy would discharge the a of the office, or whether that be so or not this provision, as those who framed the bill understand the Constitution, is in conformity with that instrument; but if it shall be necessary to make further provision in reference to any particular office it may be made by law; but this is adopted as a general rule. Where a nomination is made to the Senate by the President and the Senate do not concur in making an appointment during the session of the Senate, it is to be taken and considered as the joint judgment of the President and the Senate that the office shall not be filled in that way at that time; and the committee understand that when upon a nomination of the president, or upon repeated nominations of the President. Senate decide not to advise and consent to that nomination, it is the judgment of the Senate that the office shall not then be filled; and that the President ought not, if the Senate adjourns, to have the power to override the judgment of the Senate by making an appointment upon his own motion, because it is the province of the Senate to decide that question I hope this amendment. They are in fact the electoral body, and they having so decided it is to be regarded as the judgment of the competent body that the office shall not be filled at that time.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I think I sufficiently answered the question of the honorable Senfrom Indiana, and I do not propose to discuss the merits of this bill upon this amendment. I think it is evident that if this part of the bill be stricken out it will be deprived altogether of its value and will amount to nothing, for it will then provide that if the President makes a nomination to the Senate and that nomination is rejected, then after the adjournment of the Senate the President can proceed to o: an officer to fill the supposed vacancy, and so it recognizes in the President practically the absolute power of appointment without any regard to the judgment of the Senate, Suppose the President nominates a man today to fill an office now vacant, and the senate rejects the nomination, and the President declines to make any further nomination, and the Senate adjourns. Then, according to the argument of the Senator, the President may fill that office; and so, if that be the policy, the President may ignore the existence of the Sen. ate so far as appointments are concerned, and take the whole power into his own hands. This clause of the bill is intended to strip him of that power and confine him to what the Constitution confines him to–the power of making nominations to the Senate, and allowing the upon prominations made by the Senate to decide as to whether the office shall or shall not be filled.
Mr. COWAN. I should like to ask the honorable Senfrom Oregon how the Government is to get along in case the Senate refuses to confirm any of the President's nominations. I ask whether he intends, whether the purport of his bill is, that the Government shall stop, cease to be, because of the want of concurrence between the 2 coordinate powers who have these appointments?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I hope the honorable Senator does not indulge in the supposition that the Senate of the U.S. will be more likely to act in a manner to over turn the Government than the POTUS There is nothing of that kind to be apprehended. Are the Senate to act upon the assumption that they themselves will arbitrarily and without reason reject nominations made by the President so as to prevent the administration of the Government? Are we not responsible to the people of the U.S.? Are we not as competent to decide upon the qualifications of a candidate for office as the President? Are we not as comptent to determine whether a certain course will promote or prevent the administration of the government as the President? Are we to surren der our power as the Senate of the U.S and put it all in the hands of the president, upon the othat we are in competent to discharge our o: Senators resident? I expect that when the President makes a momination the Senate will take a reasonable course in reference to that nomination. If the nominee be an unworthy or an incompetent man he will be rejected, and it will be the duty of the President to make another nomination in the place of the one rejected; and this bill is intended to devolve upon him that duty; and if he makes another nomination it is not at all probable that in many cases there will be a disagreement between the President and the Senate; but if it should so happen that in some few cases they should disagree and the duties of the office should devolve upon a deputy, or if the office should possibly be vacant for a short length of time, I say it is much better for the whole country than that this absolute and unlimited power over all the officers of this Government should be in the hands of anyone inan.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I understand this question to be simply a question whether the Constitution of i. U.S shall or shall not be observed. I understand that the Constitution makes 2 things requisite to an appointment a nomination by the President and the consent of the Senate. It would be revolutionary for this Senate to undertake to make a nomination, and it is equally revolutionary for the President to undertake to make an appointment without the consent of the Senate. The 2 must act together. This subject has undergone very full consid: eration heretofore. The committee of detail in forming the Constitution had it before them. They reported to the Convention that embas sadors and judges should be appointed solely by the Senate, and that the other officers should be appointed solely by the Executive; but that report of the committee of detail was rejected, and after mature discussion the Constitution was made as it is, making it requisite that the 2 branches of the Government, the Senate and the Executive, should both concur in an appointment. Now, what does this bill provide against? The President has the power, by making appointments in the recess and then by not sending those nominations to the Senate, to continue session after session the same person in office, actually abrogating the Constitution; actually making the approval of the Senate of no importance whatever in the appointments. Attention has been called to the books on this subject, and the advocates of this measure have been told that they have not properly examined the authorities. The other day the President commended to the Senate a long extract from Mr. Justice Story against usurpation on the part of the Legislature. Consequently he approves of the writings of that distinguished jurist. Now, I desire to read to the Senate what that authority says on this very subject: “The power of appointment, one of portant the most imand delicate in a republican Government”
Mr. COWAN. What book does the honorable Senator read from?
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator will allow me to correct him?
Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly, if I misrepresent.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senfrom Indiana expressly declared that it was not the purpose of the opponents of this bill, to advocate the reappointment of one who had been rejected for a particular office to the same office.
Mr. SHERMAN. I shall come to that in a moment.
Mr. COWAN. Do not charge us with what we do not assert.
Mr. COWAN. I should like the honorable Senator now to state the grounds upon which Governor Johnston was rejected by the Senate.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not refer to governor Johnston at all.
Mr. COWAN. He is the collector at Phil adelphia.
Mr. SHERMAN. I spoke of a collector of internalrevenue.
Mr. COWAN. That is another man entirely.
Mr. SHERMAN. I will take the case put by the Senfrom Pennsylvania, where a collector of customs in probably the 2nd most important port of the U.S. for I believe Philadelphia stands next to NewYork in the amount of the imported goods brought there was nominated and his nomi nation was rejected by the Senate. The senator may say it was for political reasons. It is not for him nor for the President to say what reason actuated the Senate. We have no right to call in question the reasons that influence the President in making his appointments.
Mr. COWAN. I am certain that my honorable friend now has forgotten all about the circumstances of the appointment of Governor Johnston.
Mr. COWAN. He certainly would not will. fully desire to misrepresent that gentleman's case. Governor Johnston was appointed collector of internalrevenue for a particular dis’ trict in Pennsylvania
Mr. COWAN. He did not reside in that district at the time, and the ComFinance, to whom his case was referred, asked the Senate not to advise and consent to his appointment because the law required the collector to reside in the district, and he not residing there was not qualified. He was afterward appointed collector of the port of Phila.delphia an entirely different office.
Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I suppose it would be convenient and proper early in the debate to have the views of one or more members of the committee who reported this bill. I observe that the Senfrom Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDs] chairman of the Senate branch of the ComRetrenchment, is not present this morning, and our colleague, the Senfrom Oregon, E
Mr. WILLIAMs, jis. Now, sir, I would propose to the Senfrom Indi. ana that he withdraw his amendment for the present, allowing the debate to go on upon the Generalquestions involved in . bill without being embarrassed by the particular considerations connected with his amendment. certainly he can renew it afterward. For my own part I shall be very glad to hear either the Senfrom Oregon or the Senfrom Vermont upon this general subject. I have reflected upon it sufficiently to become interested in it; I have formed some convictions upon particular points, while upon others my mind is still open to conviction under the influence of debate. F propose, then, to my friendfrom Indiana that he allow the debate to take place on the general questions involved in the without being confined to the particular proposition offered by himself.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The suggestion of the Senfrom Pennsylvania is entirely agree able to me. I simply, before there is a vote on the bill, desire a vote on this proposition, and with the assent of the Senate will withdraw the amendment for the present that the debate may take place upon the bill generally. Perhaps that debate will touch the questions involved in this amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The yeas&nays have been ordered upon the amendment, and it can be withdrawn only by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Is there any objection? No objection being made, the amendment is withdrawn, and the question now i:s Will the Senate concur in the amendment made as in ComWhole?
Mr. HOWE. I move to amend the pending amendment in the 4th line of the 3rd sec.tion by striking out the words “expiration of term of office or other lawful cause.” The Senate will notice that the 1st section in effect continues all persons in office until the successor shall be appointed and qualified. So that if we do not insert any language to control that, there will be no vacancies occurring in the recess of the Senate. The only effect of keeping these words in is to create vacancies. jthem you will have no offices expiring during the recess.
Skip Skip The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOWE. I now move to amend the same section in the 9th line by inserting after the word “Senate” the words: Or if no appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall be made to any officethe term of which shall expire ssession of the Senate before the expiration of that session. So that the clause will read: And if no appointment, by and with the advice and consentof the Senate, shall be madeto such office so vacant or temporarily, filled as aforesaid, during such next session of the Senate or if no appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall be made to any office the term of which shall expire during any session of expiration of that session, sucthheofSfiecneashtealbl erefomreainthe in abeyance, without any salary, fees, or emoluments attached thereto, &c. I will say in explanation what my purpose is. It has sometimes happened that offices the terms of which have expired during a session of the Senate, have not been filled during that session, but have been treated after the adjourn,ment of the session as vacancies happening during the recess, and have been filled by com: mission; and the purpose of this amendment is to require these offices to be filled before the adjournment of the session, or to place them under the provisions of the section with reference
Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no objection to the amendment.
Mr. COWAN. Suppose they are not filled; that has always been the trouble heretofore. There is only one of 2 courses to pursue: either a perpetual session of the Senate, or to run the hazard of having the office vacant until the Senate meets.
Mr. HOWE. That does not apply in refer.ence to this case, whatever might be the inconvenience happening from the other class of cases. If the President does not fill this office during the session of the Senate, undoubtedly the old incumbent will continue to hold.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator permit me to ask him what doctrine of State rights as advocated by Mr. Madison has been condemned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Take his doctrine as enunciated in the resolutions of 1798.
Mr. JOHNSON. If my friend will permit me to interrupt him again, is he not aware that Mr. Madison, in more than one letter, written in 1832, when nullification was then maintained throughout the South, and particularly in SCarolina, said he had been ‘entirely misunderstood; that so far from the resolutions of 1798 justifying secession, they denied it; and his letters are written with great ability. From the character of the man, however unfortunate he may have been in the language of the resolutions he had to explain, there can be no doubt his explanation was a very sincere one.
Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator will permit me, in the case to which he refers he will discover that Mr. Jefferson had made out and signed the commission of Marbury, but that the commission had never been formally deliv ered, but was retained.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Adams, not Mr. Jefferson.
Mr. JOHNSON., Mr. Adams signed the commission just as he was going out of office.
Mr. HOWARD. Yes, and Mr. Madison refused to deliver it. I think it was made out and left on the President's table, but never formally delivered. The question was, in the 1st place, as to the power of the court to compel by mandamus the delivery of the commission to Marbury, and that was really the whole question before the court.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not differ with the view of the case as suggested by the Senator, and nothing that I have said is in conflict with that suggestion. I may be in error as to the person by whom the commission was signed.
Mr. HOWARD. It was signed by the 1st Adams John Adams.
Mr. BUCKALEW. If the Senator will permit me to make a suggestion to him, I do not understand that the particular line of argument upon which he is now entering, and which was followed by a Gentfrom Pennsylvania in the HoRep at the present session, relates at all, or has any application to the class of officers referred to by this bill, who are officers appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The field of argument to which we are invited by the Senator's last remarks is one relating to the appointment of subordinate officers, the appointment of which, under a particular clause of the Constitution, may be lodged in the President alone, with the courts of law, or with the heads of Depts. Now, the powers which may be exercised by Congress in the establishment and regulation of those offices is one thing; the power of Congress over offices, the incumbents of which are appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate is another thing; and it is over the latter field of inquiry that this bill invites us to travel. I call the Senator's attention to this wide distinction at the present time, because I intend to speak throughout my remarks upon this bill with distinct reference to this broad and marked distinction between what have been sometimes called constitutional offices and offices which are legislative purely, both in their creation and in the regulation and arrangement of the duties of the incumbents of the same.
Mr. JOHNSON obtained the floor, and on his motion the Senate proceeded to the consid. eration of executive business. After some time spent in executive ses.sion the doors were reopened and the Senate adjourned.
HoRep MonDAY, January 14, 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. CALL OF STATES AND TERRITORIES.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in order is the call of States and Territories for bills and JtResolutions for reference, and not to be brought back by a motion to reconsider. By the amended rule JtResolutions from the Legislatures of States and Territories may be presented under this call. CERTIFICATES OF DischartGE.
Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, introduced a JtResolution authorizing the President to issue certificates of muster and discharge, on parchment, to all honorably discharged officers of the Army; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and Referred to the ComMilAffrs. BOUNTY.
Mr. HART introduced a bill providing for the payment of bounty to the representatives of soldiers killed or who died in the service whose term of enlistment was less than one year; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComMilAffrs. PRivileges of CitizenSHIP.
Mr. SHELLABARGER introduced a bill declaring the forfeiture of certain privilege. of citizenship by acts of rebellion otheUni.ted states, and providing for the restoration of those privileges in certain cases; whichwas read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed. TREASURY DEPT POLICE.
Mr. ECKLEY submitted a concurrent reolution that the U.S. police at the Treasury buildings be placed upon the same footing, with the same powers, and the amount compensation as the Capitol police, and under the orders of the chief architect of the Treasury building; which was referred to the ComPubBldg and Grounds. WASHINGTON HOMESTEAD COMPANY.
Mr. WELKER introduced a bill to incor porate the Washington Homestead Company; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComDistCol. SALARY OF 1ST COMPTROLLER.
Mr. DELANO introduced a bill to lish the salary of the 1st Comptroller of to: Treasury; which was read a 1st and secontime, and referred to the ComClaims. surveyor GENERAL's of FICE MONTANA.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, submitted. resolution and memorial of the oil." Montana, asking for the establishmen.”.” surveyor"generafs office, &c.; which. ferred to the ComTerritories.” ordered to be printed. INCREASE OF PAY.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, also submittedo resolution of the Legislature of Mont” i. ritory, asking Congress to amend the . act so as to increase the pay of the Fede officers, ve as also the members of the Legislativo Assembly of said Territory; which was". i. to the ComTerritories dered to be printed. CAPTAIN DAVID BEATTY.
Mr. STOKES introduced a bill for the relief of Captain David Beatty and his men, of Tennessee, independent scouts; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComMilAffrs. RECONSTRUCTION.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, introduced a bill to reestablish civil governments in the States of Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, and to restore said States to position and the exercise of political and representative power in the federal Union; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the joint select ComReconstruction, and ordered to be printed. TAX ON COTTON.
Mr. NIBLACK introduced a bill to repeal so much of an act entitled “An act to reduce internal taxation, ” and to amend an act entitled “An act to provide internalrevenue to support, the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes, ” approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof, as imposes a tax on unmanufactured cotton; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComWays&Means, and ordered to be printed. JOHN RANDOLPH. CLAY.
Mr. NIBLACK also introduced a JtResolution authorizing the proper accounting officer of the Treasury to reopen and readjust the accounts of John Randolph Clay, late U.S. minister to Peru; which was read the 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComForAffrs. BILL Printed. On motion of Mr. HILL, a bill introduced by him on Saturday was ordered to be printed. MILITIA.
Mr. JULIAN introduced a bill to amend the 2 1st section of an act entitled “An act to amend the several acts heretofore passed to provide for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes; ” which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComMilAffrs. CANAL SEW ERAGE COMPANY.
Mr. INGERSOLL introduced a bill to incorporate the Washington and Georgetown Canal ewerage Company; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComDistCol, and ordered to be printed. QUIETING TITLE IN DISTCOL.
Mr. INGERSOLL also introduced a bill to provide more effectually for quieting title to property in the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComDistCol. FEMALE SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. NOELL introduced a bill to amend an act to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill provides that no person shall be disfranchised from voting or be ineli gible to office on account of sex.
Mr. NOELL. I move to refer the bill to a select committee of 5.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has a right to make the motion under the rule.
Mr. THAYER. I object to the reference to a special committee, and I move that it be referred to the ComDistCol.
The SPEAKER. The latter motion has priority; when 2 committees are moved the vote 1st is on the reference to the standing committee.
Mr. NOELL. I demand the yeas&nays. The&nays were refused. The bill was referred to the ComDistCol, and ordered to be printed. MILITARY ROAD IN WISCONSIN.
Mr. McINDOE introduced a bill to amend an act entitled “An act granting lands to the State of Wisconsin to build a military road to Lake Superior;” which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. MINING BUREAU.
Mr. HIGBY introduced a bill to establish a Mining Bureau; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMining. RIGHTS OF ACTUAL SETTLERS.
Mr. DONNELLY introduced a bill to protect the rights of actual settlers upon the public lands of the U.S.; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed. JAMES P. PECK AND REUBEN WOOD.
Mr. HITCHCOCK introduced a JtResolution for the relief of James P. Peck and Reuben Wood, of the Territory of Nebraska; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, an referred to the ComPubLands. Town of PREscott, ARIzoNA.
Mr. GOODWIN introduced a bill donating 2 quarter sections of land to the town of Prescott; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComPubLands. ROADS IN ARIZONA.
Mr. GOODWIN also introduced a bill do nating lands to the Arizona Central Road Company and to the Mosave and Prescott Toll Road Company for maintaining stations and digging wells on said roads; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed. ACCOUNTS OF REVENUE OFFICERS.
Mr. WARNER introduced a bill to regulate the settlement of the accounts of revenue officers in certain cases; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComWays&Means. LOST DOCUMENTS.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, introduced a bill to supply records of documents lost during the late rebellion; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the ComJudiciary. FRANKING PRIWILEGE.
Mr. BUNDY introduced a JtResolution continuing the franking privilege to the members of the 3N iCongress the same as if the 40th Congress did not meet till the 1st Monday in December next; which was read a 1st and 2nd time and referred to the comPostOffice. NAVY YARD AT CHARLESTOWN.
Mr. BANKS. I desire to introduce for reference a bill to repeal so much of the act approved April 17, 1866, chapter 45, section one, as appropriates the sum of $25,000 for the purchase of the right of draining through the navy yard at Charlestown, Massachusetts. I have received a copy of a paper which purports to be a deed of the land occupied now by the navy yard, which land is sold to the U.S. upon the express condition that the U.S shall forever keep open this sluice, or drain. There may have been some transfer since that time which is not known to me; but unless there be something of that kind the act which was passed last year appropria ting $25,000 to extinguish that right ought to be repealed. I ask that the bill be referred to the ComNavAffrs.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask if this provision was not passed by the House with full knowledge.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois and tried to stop it. I knew it The bill was then read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComNavAffrs, and ordered to be printed. IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. The House then resumed the call of the States and Territories for resolutions where the call ceased on Monday, the pending question being upon the following resolution offered by Mr. KELSo, upon which
Skip Skip The previous question was demanded: Resolved, That for the o:of securingthe fruits of the victories gained on the part of the Republic during the late war, waged by rebels and traitors against the life of the nation, and of giving effect to the will of the people, as expressed ating the late election by majorities numtbheerpine glls during the aggregate more than 400,000 votes, it is the imperative duty of the 39th congress to take, without delay, such action as accomplish will the following objects: 1. The impeachment of the officer now exercising the functions pertaining to the office of the POTUSA., and his removal from office, upon his conviction in due form, of grimes the and high misdemeanors of which he is manifestly and notoriously, guilty, and which, render it unsafe longer to permit him to exercise the powers he has unlawfully assumed. 2. tratioTno, provide for the faithful and efficient adminis of preseribedthbey executive deptwithin the limits law.
Mr. KELSO. Is it in order to debate the resolution this morning?
The SPEAKER. The rules prohibit debate on a resolution on the same day on which it is introduced. As this is not the same day, unless the previous question shall be demanded and 2nd ed, the resolution is open to debate.
Mr. KELSO. I then withdraw the demand for the previous question, and, retaining the right of the floor, yield to my colleague [Mr. LoAN] for ten minutes.
Mr. HALE. I rise to a question of order, and I ask that the words 1st uttered by the gentleman be taken down at the Clerk's desk. y point of order is this: I understand the Gentfrom Missouri to charge the POTUS with complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. desire to know if that be so and I think it is the fair import of his remarks whether such a charge is in order, made by a member upon this floor in a speech? The words objected to by Mr. HALE were taken down at the Clerk's desk and read as follows: “The crime was committed. The way was made clear for the succession; an assassin'sbullet, wielded aonldd, directed by rebel hand and paid for by rebel made AndrewJohnson id.; of the U.S.A. The price that he was to pay for his promotion was treachery to the?os and fidelity to the party of treason and rebellion.”
Mr. HALE. The gentleman had read another sentence to the same purpose. I ask that those words also be taken down.
Mr. LOAN. I think the gentleman is in error on that point.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would prefer that those words should be read now, so that the Chair may rule upon the whole of it.
Mr. LOAN. I was about to read the next paragraph when the gentleman interrupted me, and had taken up a page of manuscript for that purpose.
Mr. HALE. There were other words uttered in my hearing at the end of the paragraph which has been. by the Clerk, and it is those words that I desire to have taken down.
Mr. LOAN. I am not under any obligation to furnish the words the gentleman desires to have taken down. Let him repeat them, and when they are taken down I can say whether I had uttered them or not. You made the point of order, and you must tell what the words are to which you object.
Mr. HALE. Am I to respond to such an address as that made to me by a member of this House?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewYork has a right to state the words which he desires to have taken down. The whole House knows that where speeches are read from manu script, as in the case of the Gentfrom Missouri, [Mr. LoAN, ] they are not taken down stenographically by the Globe reporters.
Mr. HALE. I will state that the words I refer to were to the same effect substantially as those I have had taken down. I cannot repeat the exact language, but it carried the idea directly that the now POTUS was a party to the assassination of Abra ham Lincoln, and contracted to pay, and did pay, a price for that assassination. I cannot. the words of the Gentfrom Missouri. do, however, state that the words which he used unquestionably conveyed that charge.
Mr. LOAN. I submit that if the gentleman cannot give the other words, the point of order must stop at that point at which he can give eill.
Mr. HALE. I fear my point has not been stated sufficiently explicitly. My point is this: that the POTUS cannot be put on trial before this House except by solemn form of impeachment; and that under a resolution declaring simply, as does the resolution now pending, that it is the duty of this House to inaugurate such proceedings as will lead to the impeachment of the President, these charges cannot be made; that before such charges can be made here against any officer of this Government he must be put on trial in the constitutional form.
The SPEAKER. That would be a good rule, the Chair would suggest, for action in the Senate when they are trying a specific charge of any impeachment. But before the impeachment is ordered by the House, it is in order for any member of the House to state the grounds upon which he proposes to ask the action of the House. If complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln is a high crime and misde meanor, and the Chair has no doubt it is, then it is in order for any member to make the charge here. The charge is made here in the House, upon the responsibility of the member from issouri, [Mr. LoAN] It is to be tried by a committee of this House, and if they report in favor of articles of impeachment, then the question is to be determined by this House; and if the House find articles of impeachment, they are to be tried by the Senate, where the specific charges presented by the House can alone be considered.
Mr. HALE. Is the resolution now before the House a resolution for the impeachment of the POTUS?
The SPEAKER. It is a resolution declar. ING it to be the imperative duty of Congress so to do, which opens up the whole question, according to the rules, as they have beenconstrued by all who have preceded the present occupant of the chair as Speakers of this House. The Chair, therefore, cannot restrain the gen: Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. LoAN] in his remarks to that effect.
Mr. HALE. Very well; I will not appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would take it as a personal favor if the gentleman would take an appeal, in order that so important a question may be decided by the House and not the Chair only.
Mr. HALE. { do not take an appeal for the reason that I consider
The SPEAKer's decision satisfactory, so far as the practice of the House is concerned, although it is different from my own idea of it.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would prefer that the HoRep should decide a question so solemn and responsible as this is.
Mr. STEVENS. The decision of the chair is all right.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I will appeal from the decision of the Chair in at cordance with
The SPEAKer's request, though I shall vote to sustain it.
The SPEAKER. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. WENTWORTH, I move to lay the appeal upon the table; and upon that question I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were not ordered.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I will withdraw the motion to lay on the table, and call for the yeas&nays on deciding the appeal.
Mr. THAYER. I renew the motion to lay the appeal on the table.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and upon a division, there were ayes 101, noes 8. So the appeal was laid on the table.
Mr. LOAN. I appeal to my colleague to give me further time.
Mr. HALE. Will the Gentfrom missouri allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. HALE. The gentleman has upon this floor deliberately charged upon the Chief Executive of this nation complicity in assassination. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he does not feel it due, as well to his own sense of self respect as to a proper regard for the dignity of this House and for the character of this Government both at home and abroad, that, before he takes his seat, he shall at least disclose to the House some particle of evidence on which that charge, so grave in its nature, is founded.' I have waited thinking that before the gentleman took his seat he would at least intimate to this House that he had such proof. I now challenge him to specify any particle of proof which he can lay before the House or to which he can point as existing in any quarter. I insist that it is due to the dignity of this body, as well as to the character of this nation, that he shall do so before he takes his seat.
Mr. LOAN. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to pursue this matter in my own way and in my own good time. I have taken the initiatory steps in regard to this matter. It is now in course of progress. The course which this resolution will take will carry it before the proper tribunal to inquire into this matter; and there in a legitimate way the proofs, I presume, will be furnished to the gentleman's satisfaction.
Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman answer the other part of my question?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman states that he declines answering further. The morning hour has expired, and the resolution goes over till next Monday. The Gentfrom missouri [Mr. KELso] has 33 minutes remaining of his time. RECORDING WOTES.
Mr. LeBLOND. I rise for the purpose of submitting a motion to suspend the rules. On account of sickness in my family I was unable to be here on the reassembling of Congress after the holidays. During my absence the House adopted 3 propositions upon which I desire to record my vote. One is the JtResolution introduced by the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] relative to the construction of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery; another is the bill relative to suffrage in the DistCol; and the 3rd the impeachment resolution of my colleague, [Mr. AshLEY, of Ohio] I move that the rules be suspended to allow me to record my vote on all those propositions.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the manuscript of the Journal has aleady gone the printer, and is probably printed by this line.
Mr. LeBLOND. Then it makes no difference, I should have voted with the minority on all those questions.
The SPEAKER. If there is no objection the rules will be regarded as suspended and the gentleman's vote will be recorded, if the Journal is not already printed. There was no objection. Messrs. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, STEVENS, ROLLINS, MOOREHEAD, RAD FORD, and MARSHALL asked and obtained, under a suspension of the rules, leave to record their votes on the same propositions.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move a suspension of the rules to allow any member during today to record his vote on the 3 propositions which have been named. The motion was agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. The SPEAKER asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. TEXAS.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the SecyWar be directed to communicate to this House any report in his possession of General Wright, and also the reports of his subordinate officers, in regard to the condition of affairs in Texas.
The SPEAKER. This being a call for executive information, unanimous consent is necessary for its consideration on this day. There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to. A. B. MOREY.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution: Resolved. That the AttyGen be directed to communicate to this House all the papersbefore him in the matter of A. B. Morey, indicted in the local court at Vicksburg, Mississippi, together with his opinion thereon.
The SPEAKER. This being a call for executive information, unanimous consent is necessary for its consideration on this day. There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to. COST OF syf All ARMs, EtC.
Mr. PRICE. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution: Resolved.That the SecyWar be requested to furnish this House with a list showing the number of small arms furnished by the manufactory at Spring field, and the cost thereof; also the number ot arms furnished by contractors, manufactured in the U.S., other than those obtained at Spring field, and the costof the same: and also the number of small arms purchased of foreign countries, and the cost of the same.
The SPEAKER. This being a call for executive information, requires unanimous consent. There was no objection, and the resolution was adopted.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM The PRESIDENT. A message in writing was received from the POTUS, by Mr. WILLIAM G. MooRE.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message was received from the Senate, b
Mr. JOHN W. ForNEY, its Secretary, in which he announced that that body had passed without amendment House bill No. 715, setting aside certain proceeds from internalrevenue for the erection of penitentiaries in the Territo ries of Nebraska, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Dakota. It further announced that the Senate had passed a bill (S.No.451) for the relief of Mrs. lizabeth K. Smith, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. CURTAILMENT OF CURRENCY.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution: Resolved, as the opinion of public this House, That the interests will not justify a greater curtailment of the national circulation than $4,000,0opoer month, or $48,000,00douring the year 1867, which $48,000,000 ought not to be exclusive of and in addition, to compound interest notes falling due during the ctuher rent year. Resolved, That in lieu of such an amount of pound interest notes comas may becomedue and be redeemed, within the year as may be in excess of 4 millions of currency now authorized by lawthteo be withdrawn from circulation eachmonth, the SecyTreasury ought to be authorized and required to without interiessstu.e U.S. legal tender notes
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move to suspend the rules. A bill was referred to the committee at the last session and no report has yet been made on this important subject. I think it is time we should have some expression by this House.
Mr. LeBLOND. I rise to a point of order. The rules have not been suspended, and debate is not in order.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. When the resolution is introduced will it be in order to move its reference to the ComBanking&Currency?
The SPEAKER. It will if the rules be sus. pended and the previous question be not sustained.
Mr. MORRILL. I will say, Mr. Speaker, I have been anxious for a fortnight to have this subject taken up, discussed, and acted on.
Skip Skip Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, demanded the yeas&nays on suspending the rules. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative–yeas 75, nays 67, not voting 39;. So (2/3rds not voting in the affirmative) the rules were not suspended. During the vote, Mr. LeBLOND stated that Mr. ELDRIDGE was detained at his room by illness. The vote was then announced as above recorded. NATIONAL BANK CIRCULATION.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move to suspend the rules to enable me to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That in the opinion of this House it is not expedient to increase the amount of the national bank,0noo0t, eoso0 for circulation beyond the amount of now authorized by law.
Skip Skip On suspending the rules there were ayes 65, noes 35. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were yeas 88, nays 51, not voting 52; So (2/3rds not having voted in the affirmative) the rules were not suspended. RECUSANT WITNESS.
Mr. ROLLINS. I rise to a question of privilege. I present the following preamble and resolution from the ComPublic Expenditures: Whereas Thomas H. Oakley, of the city of Now NewYork, was, on the 11th day of January, A. D. 1867, duly summoned to appear and testify beforethe standing Committee of this House onPublic Expenditures appointed to investigate the frauds in the NewYork, customhouse, and has appeared, and refused to testify before said committee pursuant tosaid sum mons: Therefore, Resolved, That The SPEAKer issue his warrant directed to the Sergeant at Arms, commanding him to take into his custody the body of said Thomas H. Qakley, wherever to be found, and to have the same forthwith brought before the bar of the House to answer for contempt of the authority of the House in committee failing and refusing to testify before said com.
Mr. ROLLINS. I move the previous question.
Mr. UPSON. I would inquire whether any report has been made upon which this resolution is based?
Mr. ROLLINS. I have a letter from the chairman of the committee, which I will read if desired.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I would inquire whether this party has been duly served with process.
Mr. ROLLINS. He has; he came before the committee and refused to testify at all.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the preamble and resolution were agreed to. Mr. ROLLINS mtRtv the preamble and resolution were agreed to; upon the table. agreed to. compeNSATION FOR SLAVES ENLISTED.
Mr. COOK. I am instructed by the ComJudiciary to move that the rules be suspended for the consideration of a JtResolution to amend an act entitled “An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes.” The JtResolution was read. It provides that so much of section 24 of an act approved February 24, 1864, entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes, ’” approved March 3, 1863, as provides that the SecyWar should appoint a commission in each of the slave States then represented in Congress charged to award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer might owe service just compensation, not exceeding $300 for each colored volunteer, be suspended until otherwise provided by law; and that the duties and compensation of the commissioners heretofore appointed under said section shall cease from the date of the passage of this resolution,
Skip Skip The question being upon suspending the rules in order to allow the ComJudiciary to report the JtResolution, Mr. FINCK demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and there were yeas 104, nays 39, not voting 48;: So (2/3rds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended. During the roll call, Mr. MORRILL said: I am requested to inform the House that my colleague, Mr. WooDBRIDGE, is detained from the House by sickness. The result of theyote having been announced as above recorded, the JtResolution was then read a 1st and 2nd time, and the question recurred upon ordering it to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. Mr. COOK demanded the previous question on the engrossment of the JtResolution. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. The question recurred on the passage of the JtResolution. Mr. COOK demanded the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main oordered. Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I call for the reading of the JtResolution. The JtResolution was again read. Mr. FINCK. I call for the yeas&nays on the passage of the JtResolution. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 107, nays 36, not voting 48;. So the JtResolution was passed. Mr. COOK mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. NATIONAL LEGAL TENDrer CURRENCY.
Mr. CULLOM. I move that the rules be suspended in order to allow me to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComWays&Means be instructed to report a bill providing for the repeal of all laws and parts of laws giving to the SecyTreasury authority to withdraw any of the national oluengda l interest cnuortreesn, cwy hfriocmh schiraclul labteiofnu, ndeexdceipnt the bonds of the U.S. as soon as they mature.
Skip Skip Mr. CULLOM. I ask for the yeas&nays on my motion to suspend the rules.
Skip Skip The question was taken on ordering the yeas&nays, and there were on a division ayes 14, noes not counted; not one 5th voting in the affirmative. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. CULLOM called for tellers upon ordering the yeas&nays. the question was taken; and upon a division there were ayes 17; not one 5th of a quorum voting in the affirmative. Tellers were accordingly refused, and the yeas&nays were refused. So the rules were not suspended. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a ifoft the following title: An act (S.No.383) for the relief of Lewis Dyer, late surgeon of the 8 1st regiment Illinois volunteers; when
The SPEAKer signed the same. 1ST COLLECTION DISTRICT OF H, LINE IS.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of January 4, 1867, a report of the ComrIntRev relative to collections in the 1st district of Illinois, penalties assessed therein, &c., during the year 1866.
Mr. WENTWORTH moved that the communication, with the accompanying documents be printed, and referred to the Committee of Wavs and Means. The motion was agreed to. WRECK OF STEAMER SCOTLAND.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the SecyTreasury, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of January 9, 1867, a report of the QuarterMGen relative to the wreck of the steamer Scotland; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. OCCupATION OF MATAMoiras.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep: In compliance with the resolution of the HoRep of the 19th ultimo, requesting information regarding the occupation of Mexican territory by the troops of the U.S., I transmit a report of the SecyState and one of the SecyWar, and the documents by which they were accompanied. ANDREWJOHNSON. ExEccTIve MANsion, WASHINGToN, January 14, 1867.
Mr. BANKS moved that the message and accompanying documents be printed and referred to the ComForAffrs. The motion was agreed to. Revolution IN CANDIA.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep: I transmit to the HoRep, in answer to a resolution of the 17th ultimo calling for information relative to the revolution in Candia, a report of the SecyState, with accompanying documents. ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGtoN, January 10, 1867.
Mr. BANKS moved that the message and accompanying documents be printed and referred to the ComWays&Means. agreed to. ENROLLED BILL SIGNEI).
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill (H.R.No. 715) entitled “An act setting aside certain proceeds from internalrevenue for the erection of penitentiaries in the Territories of Nebraska, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Dakota; whereupon The SPEAKer signed the same. SUPPRESSION OF THE COOLIE TRADRs.
Mr. BANKS. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution, which is rendered necessary by events that are transpiring every day: Whereas the traffic in laborers transported from China to other eastern countries, known as the coolie trade, is regardedby the people of the U.S. as inhuman and immoral; and whereas it is abhor: rent to the spirit of modern international, policy, law and which have substantially extirpated the African slave trade, to permit the establishment in its place of a mode of of men differing from the former in little else than the employment of fraud instead of force to ore, make its victims captives: There Be it resolved, That it is the duty of this Government to give effect to the moral sentiment of the nation, through all its agencies, for the purpose of preventing the further introduction of coolies into this hemisphere or the adjacent islands.
Skip Skip There being no objection to the introduction of the resolution, it was considered and unanimously adopted. Mr. BANKS mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. REPORT ON IMMIGRATION.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyState, transmitting the report of the Commissioner of Immigration, in o comwith the act of Congress, approved uly 4, 1864; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. COLORADO.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a copy of the laws of the Territory of Colorado; which was referred to the ComTerritor. Extra PAY of house EMPLoyees.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Clerk of the House in regard to extra compensation voted by various resolutions of the House at the last session; which with the accompanying documents was referred to the ComAppropriat, and ordered to be printed. ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA. /
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I call for the regular order.
The SPEAKER. The regular order is the bill (S.No.456) entitled “An act for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union.” The pending question is upon the motion of the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. INGERsoll) to refer the bill to the ComTerritories. The bill was read, as follows: Whereas on the 21stday of March, A. D. 1864, Congresspassedan act to enable the people of Nebraska to form a constitution and State government, and offeredto adulit said State, when so formed, into the Union upon compliance with certain conditions therein specified; and whereas it appears that the said people have adopted a constitution which, upon due examination, is found to conform to the provisions and comply with the conditions of said act, and to be republican in its form of they government, and that now askfor admissioninto the union: Therefore, Be it enactedbythe Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congressassem bled, That the constitution and State government which the people of Nebraska have formed for themselves be, and the same is hereby, accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said State of Nebraska shall be, and is hereby declared to be, one of the U.S.A., and is hereby admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States in all respectswhatsoever. SEc. 2. Abife:, That the said State of Nebraska shall be, and is hereby declared to be, entitled to all the rights, privileges, grants, and immunities, and to besubject to all the conditions and restrictions of an act entitled "An act to enable the people of Nebraska to form a government, and for the admicsosniosntiotuf stiuocnhaSntadte State the Union on an equal footing with the original States, ” approved April 19, 1864. Sec. 3. Abife:, That this act shall dtaitkioeneftfheacttwwiitthhitnhesafuidn State of Nebraska ptehteuraelschoanll be no abridgement or denial, of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to by any person foon of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEyl is entitled to the floor.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I propose to yield 15 minutes of my time to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Broom ALL]
Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to inquire, Mr. Speaker, whether this bill has been printed.
The SPEAKER." According to the recol. lection of the Chair, no order i. been made for the printing of the bill.
Mr. BLAINE. I desire to inquire of the gentleman, from Ohio to what extent he proposes to allow debate.
Mr. ASHLEY., of Ohio. At the expiration of my hour I shall ask the House to sustain the previous question.
Mr. DAWES:, Does the gentleman propose to confine the whole debate to an hour? I desire to offer a few remarks on this bill.
Mr. ASHLEY., of Ohio. I am entitled to 2 hours, one after the previous question shall have been sustained.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the Gentfrom Ohio that the usual rule does not apply in this case, as this bill is not reported from a committee. If this bill were reported back from a committee, the gentleman reporting it would be entitled to an hour after the previous question had been sustained. But in the present posture of the bill, debate, except by unanimous consent, will close when the previous question has been sustained.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. So far as I can control the matter the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] shall have all the time he wishes.
Mr. STEVENS. I trust I shall have consent to offer at this time an amendment.
The SPEAKER. The motion to refer, which is now pending, precludes any motion to amend the bill.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I yield to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. BroomALI] I desire to ask whether the bill is debatable generally under this motion to refer.
The SPEAKER. The motion to refer opens up the whole question.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I yield 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Maine, [Mr. BLAINE]
Mr. BLAINE. Mr. Speaker, I think the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, who has just taken his seat, has signally failed in the precedent which he has cited to sustain this kind of legislation. if I mistake not, the very citations which he makes all apply to just that kind of question over which Congress would have had the right to exercise its control, even had the provision not been inserted in the act admitting the States. For instance, the act declared that the rivers of Louisiana should be open to free navigation, and in the case of California it. i that the public domain should be wholly governed by the U.S. without interference by State legislation. Those are matters which, even if notmentioned at that time, would have been entirely within the power of Congress at }. any subsequent time. this is a matter wholly relating, according to the uniform practice of the Governmenthere tofore, to something internal, something which the States alone, without any.action or interference on the part of Congress, have had control and authority over since the foundation of the Government. Now, I wish to ask the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRoom.ALL,) or any other lawyer upon this floor and I want the chairman of the ComTerritor to answer it the question, whether he thinks this amendment will effect the end which he declares he desires?
Mr. BLAINE. That exposes the hollowness of the whole affair.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I yield now to my colleague from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] for 20 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask the Gentfrom Ohio what course he proposes to take with this bill?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I shall ask the evious question at House to sustain the pr the end of 2 hours, ' propose to have a vote on the bill tonight.
Mr. ROGERS. There are several gentlemen upon this side of the house who are opposed to the bill, and who would like to discuss the Qos?io.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. All the: which have been made thus far have been in opposition to the bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to get the gentleman's attention to this point: suppose this bill should be so amended as to send this limitation of the power of the State back to the people of the Territory to be accepted, and it should be so accepted, I ask the gentleman whether in his opinion that acceptance by the people of a proposition submitted by Congress would be binding upon them after their admission as a State to secure the right of suffrage to all?
Mr. BINGHAM. I do not believe it would at all, for the reason you cannot impose any condition on any State admitted into this Union as a perpetually binding condition save such conditions as stand with the text and spirit of the Constitution. The people of today in Nebraska have no. by contract to barter away the essential rights of the people of to rhorrow in that State under the Constitution. I say it is essential to the life of the Republic that the will of the majority in every State should rule, subject to the limitations of the Constitution, unless forfeited by crime. But in further response to the gentleman's question, in the language of the author of the ‘Spirit of Laws, ” i. E.Montesquieu, I would say “political liberty is a right of doin whatever the laws permit; and if a citizen. do what they forbid he would be no longer possessed of liberty, because all his fellow citizens would have the same power.” The Constitution of the U.S. is the supreme law; it is obligatory alike upon all the citizens and all the States, and forbids to be done what the gentleman would propose to do. It is the shield of our liberties, and we cannot consent to its violation.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. gentleman but one question.
Mr. BINGHAM. I do not wish to be interrupted any further, as my time is limited; but if it is not to be taken out of my time I will answer with pleasure.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I wish to ask the Gentfrom Ohio whether, in his opinion, a majority has the right to deprive the minority of their fundamental rights?
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman omitted to notice what, I said in the opening of my remarks, that there was no limitation of the rights of the majority to exercise and control the political power in a State save that the constitution of the State should be republican in form of government and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the U.S. That is a republican form of State government, and invades no fundamental rights, I apprehend, Let me ask the in which an overwhelming majority of the male adult citizens of the U.S. resident therein have exclusive control of its political power.
Mr. GARFIELD. How large a majority would my colleague call an overwhelming majority? What%. of the citizens of a State can be disfranchised before its constitution will cease to be republican 7
Mr. BINGHAM. A majority as overwhelming, sir, as controls the political power of your own State. Does my colleague hold that the constitution of Ohio is not republican, or does he propose to reform it by act of Congress? I see, sir, that some gentlemen here are very vigilant on this subject now who, when I ven tured to assert long years ago that the majority should not discriminate against classes because of race or color, were then as dumb dogs. That has always been and now is my own opinion; the time is coming and I trust is not far distant when through the final action of the people where this question alone belongs in every State of this Union manhood, fidelity to the law, and citizenship shall be the only test of suffrage or elegibility to But office. it is not the way to hasten this consummation so devoutly wished for to undertake to force it by act of Congress upon new States, and thereby degrade them and deprive them of their just equality before the law. While we stand by the other section of this bill admit ting Nebraska into the Union as a State on an equal footing with the other States, we thereby give her no right to do wrong, but we secure to her the essential right of a government republican in form, adopted by her own people, and securing to the majority the exclusive right to govern.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask another question in connection with the last one. In the Territory of Nebraska, according to the information I have, there live citizens of the U.S. of African descent. When the initiatory steps were taken by the of. of the Territory to frame the constitution here presented, they denied to that class of citizens any voice in determining any of the steps so taken resulting in the formation of this constitution. I wish to ask the Gentfrom Ohio whether in his opinion that majority had the right to exclude from all participation in the 1st or initiatory steps taken for the organization of the government? And whether it is the right of the majority to say the minority shall have no voice in what the government shall be?
Mr. BINGHAM. Well, I answer the gentleman in the language of a profound states Illan:. There is no such thing as majority or minority without a corporate organization." “A number of men in capacity. themselveshave no collective The idea of a people is the idea of a corporation.” Those are the words of Burke, a man who was said to have “laid all nature under tribute.” Standing upon his words, I submit that no ma" jority spoke in Nebraska save in conformity to the act of Congress as declared in the preamble of this. What that majority did was expressly authorized by the act of congress of March 21, 1864, and by his vote on that bill the gentleman may have authorized the very act to be done of which he now complains. Sir, men who live in “glass houses ought not to t; throw stones.” [Laughter] the hammer fell.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I yield 20 minutes to the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. DAW;)
Mr. INGERSOLL.. Will the Gentfrom Massachusetts yield to me for a moment?
Mr. INGERSOLL. I rise for the purpose of withdrawing my motion to refer this JtResolution to the ComTerritor; and I may be permitted to say here that I made the motion on Saturday, not from any hostility that I entertained to the JtResolution, but in order that there might be time allowed to the House to debate it, or to a committee to reflect upon it. There has been an hour allowed for discussion this morning, and there will probably be an additional hour allowed, and I have no desire that the bill shall be committed. Sir, I voted for the admission of this Terri. as a State at the last session of Congress, and I shall do so again. The constitution pre: sented by the State of Nebraska is not exactly what I should desire it to be, but under the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case I shall vote to admit the State into the Union.
The SPEAKER protempore, (Mr. Pox.ERoy in the chair.) The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] is now entitled to one hour on the passage of the bill.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will yield a short portion of my time to the Gentfrom massachusetts [Mr. DAwes] to conclude his remarks.
Mr. ROGERS. I would ask the Gentfrom Ohio if he expects to allow any gentleman upon this side of the House to say anything upon this bill? Mr.o of Ohio. All the speeches that have been made thus far have been against the bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Every single one of those speeches has been made by a gentleman who expects to vote for the bill. We upon this side of the House have some rights.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will try to yield to some gentleman on that side.
Mr. DAWES resumed. In this condition of things we are asked to take from citizens of the U.S. resident in Nebraska and in Colorado the political rights guarantied to them by an act of this Congress, passed not one week ago.
Mr. DAWES. So far as we are concerned it is the law; and I doubt not it will belong the law before the bill now under consideration shall become one. I felt that we had achieved something when over the objections of the President and by a 2/3rd vote we secured to the colored men of this District the political rights we are now asked to take by the passage of this bill from a portion of the people of Nebraska.
Mr. DAWES. I would be willing to answer any question if I was not limited as to time. ASHLEY, of Ohio. But you are.
Mr. BLAINE, (in his seat.) Pure cursedness.
Mr. DAWES. Well, “pure cursedness;” the purest desire to persecute and still further press down this unhappy race. The State reserves to itself the to give to aliens the right to vote before they become citizens of the U.S. if only they are white. It can ive the right to vote to a man who but vester aylanded from the ship which $o: him. from a foreign land if only he be white. But under its constitution, which we are now asked to ratify, no colored man, whatsoever he may have done, however he may have testified by his blood his love for the country of his birth, can ever have the right to vote. And further, this was done a year ago, and this State has been from that day to this knocking at the doors of Congress for admission as one of the States of this Union, and it has known all along that the only obstacle to its immediate admission has been the fact that by its constitution the black man is deprived of his political mights, and that its people could in ten days' time have removed every obstacle in the world to its admission as a State.
Mr. BINGHAM. Does the gentleman suppose that that was the reason why President did not sign the bill which we passed last session for the admission of Nebraska?
Mr. DAWES. I do not suppose it was. But that is the reason the gentleman and myself have used for not voting for the admission of new States. Why, sir, 8 years ago the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] stood shoulder to shoulder with me, and in words of thunder, unequaled by those of anybody else who participated in the debate
Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him; but no such question at all arose on the bill for the admission of Oregon. The question then under consideration had regard to universal rights; and I stand today where I stood then.
Mr. DAWES. I was ". on to say when the gentleman interrupted me that he then, in words of thunder, unequaled by those of anybody else who participated in the debate, opposed the admission of Oregon for this, among other reasons: “that no negro, Chinaman, or mulatto shall be allowed the right of suffrage” in that State.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to correct a mistake of his before he goes further
Mr. BINGHAM. The mistake which the Igheisntloewmnanspeheacsh minasdteeadhasofbmeeinneine [Laughter] spoke against the provision of the Oregon constitution, which denied to colored citizens, ine t the right to vote, but the right to live in the State or to hold property therein, or to prosecute a suit in its courts either for the vindication of arigh rigtht or the redress of a wrong. Qf the of the majority to regulate the suffrage I spoke as follows: “Of my resistance to the oof this bill, sir, and to the enactment into a law of this Oregon constitution, let no demagogue say that it is a mere negro question, and for a negro equal, politically, with a white man. I ask no change of the law as it is written in the Federal Constitution. I leave the States as that Constitution leaves them, free to alate the elective franchise among citizens of the pulneiatesdure States: to extend it to or withhold it at their from all colored citizens, or only some of em; from all mine rs, white or black; and, if they e fits from the best portion of the citizens of the U.S. from all the free intelligent women of the land. But I protest against the attempt to gimnar that great charter of our rights, almost divine inteitrspocloanticoenption and in its spirit of equality, by the fyhite into it of any word of caste, such as in or black, male or female; for no such word is that great instrument now, and, by my act or word or vote, never shall be.”
Mr. DAWES. The gentleman is mistaken in supposing that I read an extract from my speech. I was a little too modest to do that: I read from the constitution of Oregon, and not one word from any speech. I stated to the House that I opposed the admission of Oregon for that among other reasons, that her constitution contained that provision; and I supposed the Gentfrom Ohio opposed her admission on the same groun
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman made a mistake; that is all.
Mr. DAWES. Well, it is not the 1st time.
Mr. BINGHAM. Oh, no, not at all. ILaughter.
Mr. DAWES. I f. must have mistaken the this morning when, I understood him to pronounce a section of this bill palpa bly unconstitutional, and yet to declare his intention to vote for it.
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman did misunderstand me. I pronounced that section void, and therefore said that I would vote for the bill with or without the section, because it is of no more effect than so much blank paper.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I cannot yield to the Gentfrom Massachusetts any further. I have given him already nearly 3 quarters of an hour., Mr. DAWES. I understood the gentleman would give me as much time as I needed., Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I cannot yield any further.