Mr. BIDWELL. If the gentleman is through I will answer him.
Mr. LeBLOND. That is the point I want 1st to know.
Mr. BIDWELL. I will ask the Clerk to read the bill which passed at the last session of Congress; it is a very short one.
The Clerk read as follows: “Be it enacted by the Senate and HoRep, of the U.S.A. in Congress assembled, That the time in which the several States may colnply with the provisions of the act of July 2, 1862, entitled "An act donating public lands to the several States and Territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and d. ide chanic arts, ” is hereby extended so that the acceptance of the benefitsof the said act may be expressed within 3 years from the passage of this act, and the colleges required by the said act may be provided within 5 years from the date of the filing of such acceptance with the ComrGLO: Provided, That when any Territory shall become a State and be admitted into the Union, such new State shall be entitled to the benefitsof the said act of July 2, 1862, by expressing the acceptance therein required within 3 years from the date of its admission into the Union, and providing the college or colleges within 5 years after such acceptance, as prescribed in this act: Provided furthor, That any State which has heretofore expressed its acceptanceof the act hercin referred to shall have the period of 5 years within which to provide at least one college, as described in the 4th section of said act, after the time for providing said college, according to the act of July 2, 1862, shall have expired.”
Mr. BIDWELL. Now I presume the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. LeBLoWD] is familiar with the act of 1862. That act provided that its provisions should not be applicable to a State while in rebellion. In order that there might be no doubt as to the extension of the provisions of that act, and of the act which has just been read, to the State of Tennessee, it was thought proper to pass this special resolution making the provisions of the act of 1852 and the act of 1866 applicable to the State of Tennessee. Whether or not that be the best mode may be a question. If it be not the best mode, in order to clear up every doubt which may exist there certainly can be no harm in this action. If the law of 1862, and the law of 1866 amendatory thereof, do already apply to the State of Tennessee, as well as to all the other States which were in rebellion, then this JtResolution can have no bad effect. There ore I hope this JtResolution will be put upon its passage now.
Mr. LeBLOND. By permission of the gentleman I would like to add another remark. I understand the original act to apply to all the States lately in rebellion. This Jtresolution proposes to put Tennessee in advance of the rest of those States, thus making an invidious distinction between the other States which have been in rebellion and the State of Tennessee. Now, sir, the original act was for the purpose of advancing the interests of agriculture and arts. It does seem to me that this JtResolution should be so amended as to embrace every State in this Union, and not make any of these distinctions. There is no reason why Tennessee should be made an exception to the State of Virginia or Georgia or NCarolina. Every one of these States, upon a question of this kind at least, ought to be put upon the same footing in regard to the benefits of this land grant. There certainly has been no reason offered by the gentleman why that should not be done. I know of nothing that Tennessee has done which entitles her to more of our consideration than the other States should receive from us. I believe that this act of 1862 was infringed upon by a resolution introduced into this House some time ago; but whether it has been passed by the Senate or not I am not able to say. I am in favor of giving this privilege to all of the States, to extend it to all which may within 5 years come forward and signify their acceptance of the terms of the law.
Mr. MAYNARD. Will the Gentfrom California [Mr. Bidwell] yield to me for a few moments?
Mr. BIDWELL. I will yield to the gentleman for 5 minutes.
Mr. MAYNARD. I have nothing to say about the other States. If any gentleman thinks the provisions of this law should be extended for their benefit, then let him introduce a bill to that effect. But I protest against the State of Tennessee being at all complicated in any way with any of the other States lately in rebellion. As I have often stated before, she stands in a different attitude, moral, political, and in every respect, from the other of those States. I desire that she shall be heard and judged upon her own merits. She has organized a government which Congress has recognized as one which it is willing in the name of the U.S. to guaranty; and in consequence of this her Sens&Reps have been admitted to seats in Congress. This is not the case with the ten other States. Tennessee stands before the country in an attitude as far removed from that which they occupy as “From the center thrice to the utmost pole.” I desire in behalf of the State of Tennessee and of my colleagues, including the one now absent, who introduced this proposition, that the case of Tennessee shall be decided upon its merits; and let every other State through its advocates or its representatives be heard in the same way and upon the same principle. “Let every tub stand upon its own bottom” is an expression that has more force and justice perhaps than rhetorical beauty. On this principle I hope the House will accept the report of the ComAg, adopt this bill applicable to our State; and if gentlemen think it should be extended to other States, let them bring in a proposition for that purpose, and we will consider it respectfully and decide upon it justly; but I do hope that our claims o not e prejudiced or embarrassed by having those ten unrepresented States tied on to a proposition of this kind, introduced for the benefit of our State.
Mr. LeBLOND. Will the Gentfrom California [Mr. Bidwell] yield to me 5 minutes?
Mr. GRINNELL. I wish to inquire of the gentleman whether he has seen or heard of any request from those other ten States such as has been presented from the State of Tennessee in regard to this grant.
Mr. LeBLOND. It is not necessary that there should be such a request or application. If you pretend to legislate for the education of the people and sincerely desire that intelligence should be disseminated, why should you not extend the time for the acceptance of the grant so that those States may enjoy its advantages? Why should not the time be extended for the benefit of those States as well as for the benefitof Tennessee? It ought not to be necessary that they should ask before we will do them justice. Why, sir, by this act they propose to hold the children responsible for the misdeeds of the parents. The day for any such doctrine has gone by. They have no Representatives here from those States to ask for the benefit of this act, and the gentlemen on that side do not propose to give them a Representative here to speak for themselves as the Gentfrom Tennessee has spoken for his State.
Mr. GRINNELL.. Let me ask a question. I should like to ask the Gentfrom Ohio whether that is the fault of Congress or of the ten southern States which are not represented here? Did they themselves declare they were out of the Union and aliens?
Mr. LeBLOND. Is it the fault of the children in those States that those States are not now represented? That is the true question, and not whether the adults are not represented. This act is for the benefit of the rising generation, and not for the benefit of those who have grown up into manhood and womanhood. But, sir, the gentleman by this very legislation proposes to inflict the punishment of the parents upon the children that were unfortunately born in the States lately in rebellion. [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. LeBLOND. I ask the gentleman what was the necessity of the resolution that was introduced by my colleague [Mr. DELANo] during this session denying to the States latel in rebellion the privileges under that law until otherwise provided by Congress?
Mr. BIDWELL, Mr. Speaker, I think the 1st difficulty, as I understand the question, is due to the unconstitutional and unjustifiable action of the Executive of this Union. I understand steps were being taken to issue agricultural scrip to the States in rebellion, which was unjustifiable and not provided by any law upon the statute book. Now I yield for a few moments to the Gentfrom Tennessee.
Mr. STOKES. Yes, sir; and give them the land scrip. But I appeal to the House not to trammel this resolution with an amendment including all the other States lately in rebellion. If they have no Representatives here, let them present themselves through the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. LE. }} and I have no doubt they will be dealt with fairly. Tennessee came forward with a resolution obeying the orders and wishes of the loyal people of the State. We simply ask the House to extend the time which was granted under the act of 1862. We could not accept the grant of land; we were prohibited from accepting it, and after having what we have we come forward and ask Congress to grant us time in order that we may accept this liberal grant of land. Mr. Speaker, we ought not to be trammeled with the proposition to add the ten States. You may remember there was a school fund in the State of Tennessee that did belong to the poor children, but it went with the rebel governor of the State; the poor children were divested of their just rights by the act of the rebels. And now it is proposed to invest the loyal people of Tennessee with this fund, to confide it to them, so as to keep the rebels from running off with it again. Suppose you were to extend it to the ten unreconstructed States, have you any guarantee that they would take care of it and not squander it again? I think this House ought not to trammel this resolution with any amendment of that sort, and I appeal to the House to sustain it as reported from the committee.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would like to ask the gèntleman a question. I understand him to say that Tennessee has recently amended her constitution so that none but the loyal people of the State are now permitted to participate in the elections. Now, I wish to know from the gentleman, taking into consideration the letter that he wrote some time ago stating that he was for the patriot Davis and against the tyrant Lincoln, on which side he is now left by that constitutional amendment the side of Davis or the side of the Union. [Laughter]
Mr. STOKES. The gentleman has alluded to what is called the Duncan letter again. It was alluded to on the last day of the last ses.sion. That sir, is the only letter, the only word, of mine that any man can put his finger on where I have deviated from d. track. I will state that that letter was written on the 10th day of May, and on the 12th day of May I took the stump in favor of Lincoln and this Government. But not satisfied with even canvassing my district and filling my appointments up to the 8th of June, and voting against secession, I went to Nashville and there entered the Fede ral Army. I took my position in the Federal Army under the old flag, and I fought out of that Duncan letter as you ought to have done out of your Copperhead connections. [Great applause on the floor and in the galleries]
The SPEAKER. The House cannot be insulted by the spectators in the galleries. The asst doorkeepers are instructed to remove from the galleries all persons manifesting either applause or disapprobation.
Mr. LeBLOND. We, upon this side of the House have norebelletters to explain or defend. Sholt; of “Order!”]
The SPEAKER. Gentlemen upon the floor will set a good example to the spectators in the gallery by themselves observing the respect due to the House, and abstaining from demonstrations of applause. The respect due to the House must be observed both by members on the floor and by those in the galleries.
Mr. SPALDING. I object to this discussion as not pertinent to the issue before the House.
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the point of order; it is not pertinent to the issue.
Mr. STOKES. The Gentfrom Ohio was permitted to draw these remarks from me by his reference to my Duncan letter.
The SPEAKER. That may be, but when the point of order is made the debate must be confined to the bill before the House.
Mr. STOKES. I hope then the House will oustain the JtResolution reported by the ComAg. And Iall wish to say in conclusion is, that I shall stand upon the same side and be ready to take the saddle again when the time comes, if it ever does, and I am well and hearty and able to do service for 3 years and 3 months again in the federal Army.
Mr. BIDWELL. I will now yield for 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. GRINNELL]
Mr. JOHNSON, Will the Gentfrom Iowa yield to me for a moment?
Mr. JOHNSON. I am entirely, ignorant upon this subject or I would not ask for the information that I am about to ask for. I desire to inquire of the Gentfrom California what became of the bill which passed the House at the last session providing for the education of children in these southern States, without distinction as to those which had passed ordinances of secession, whether that bill ever passed the Senate or became a law? I refer to the bill introduced by the Gentfrom Minnesota, [Mr. DoNNELLY]
Mr. BIDWELL. That was a different bill altogether. It has no relation to and no bearing on this bill that I know of.
'Mr. JoHNSON. It strikes me that if it was proper to pass that bill last session providing for the education of children through out the Union it is proper now that we should put these means of education in the hands of the people of these States.
M. BIDWELL. I regret as much as anyone can do that any State should be deprived of the benefits of institutions established by the Government for the purpose of extending the privileges of education. But if they are derived of those benefits who is to blame for it but they who attempted to destroy the best Government on earth?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is entirely irrelevant to the question before the House. The gentleman is speaking about the punishment due to the fathers. My point is this: that if it was proper last summer to pass through this House a bill to provide an educational bureau for the purpose of educating the children of the South and to raise up the coming generation to be what they ought to be, why should we not to day extend to those children the benefit of this land grant which we have heretofore made?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. We will do it as soon as they are reorganized.
Mr. BIDWELL. I have only to say that I will go as far as he who goes farthest to extend the benefits of education to the people of the South, for I believe that one of the chief causes of the rebellion was the want of intelligence among the people. And I believe the great preventive will be to extend to them by every practicable mode the means of education. But do not believe we should begin by these mu nificent grants of land for the purpose of establishing colleges of agriculture; we ought to begin with the school book, with a kind of missionary enterprise.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman tell me how it is he makes a distinction between grants of land for this purpose and grants of money as in the proposition of the Gentfrom Minnesota, [Mr. DoNNELLY]
Mr. BIDWELL. The difference is very great. Grants of land are not available until they are disposed of, and in order that they may be.disposed of the person receiving the grant should be loyal to the government making the grant. The question must be settled whether this donation shall fall into the hands of persons who are truly loyal, and who will make proper use of it and educate their children in such a way that they will be loyal to the Government. I now yield to the Gentfrom Minnesota [Mr. DoNNELLY] for a few minutes.
Mr. BIDWELL. I now yield for 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. GRINNELL] After he shall have concluded, I will yield 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY]
Mr. GRINNELL. As a member of the ComAg, I desire to say that this is a very distinct and plain proposition. This JtResolution proposes that the loyal State of Tennessee shall have the advantage of the 300,000 acres of land granted to it under the law of 1862 for the purpose of establishing an agricultural college. Now, sir, I am utterly opposed to the rider proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. LeBLos D.) that the ten still unreconstructed States, without representation here, shall have the advantages accorded to the loyal State of Tennessee. I am most happy to be in accord with the eloquent gentleman on my right, [Mr. Srokes.) and tomention here, as it seems to be the most opportune occasion, that we will give the benefits of these land acts to Tennessee, because they are about to make education in that State, not select and partial, but universal. They are about enfranchising the black and the white people there, and providing a general system of com: mon school education; and they wish also to have a local agriqultural college. I shall act with the Gentfrom Ohio in conferring these benefits upon those ten States when they establish loyal State governments and send here loyal Representatives; not before. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. JOHNson] asks why we should refuse to educate the children in those ten States. Sir, at the last session of Congress we voted money to feed their children, white and black. This illustrates the charity which Congress is willing to extend, and this Congress will be equally ready to grant land or money for education when we can have assurance that the land and money granted will be devoted to universal education, the education of all, whether white or black.
Mr. LeBLOND. I desire to say to my friend that I think he has mistaken the object of this grant for educational purposes. It is a grant for the benefit of the youth of the States and Territories, and not for the benefit of the States or the Territories proper.
Mr. GRINNELL. Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is that it is not the youth themselves who are to assemble in their Legislatures and appropriate the proceeds of the land we may grant; it is the fathers. If this land should be granted to SCarolina for the education of her youth, the fathers in that State traitors still in spirit, I regret to say would vote away this land for purposes foreign to those designed by Congress, or would put it forever beyond the reach of the poor and loyal people of those States. I will ask the gentleman whether he would be willing to extend the benefits of education universally to the people of those States that he is now pleading for.
Mr. LeBLOND. That means to the negroes 2
Mr. LeBLOND. Why, sir, I should leave that question to the States, where it belongs. However they might decide it I should be content.
Mr. GRINNELL. Yes, sir; and the gentleman in leaving it to the States knows that those States would hunt down the black man because he is loyal and poor would not place the spelling book in their hands. He knows that those States would establish no institution for the promotion of agriculture in which the laborers who hew down the forests and reap the fields would enjoy any advantages.
Mr. JOHNSON. I desire to inquire of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. GRINNELL] whether any condition was imposed upon Pennsylvania or any of the northern States as to the class of persons to be educated under this grant?
Mr. GRINNELL. No, sir; but Pennsylvania was a loyal State; Pennsylvania was not on trial before the country.
Mr. JOHNSON. But my colleague [Mr. STEVENs] says that Pennsylvania must be reconstructed.
Mr. GRINNELL. Pennsylvania, had an educational institution, an agricultural college, which will be supported the better, I trust, by reason of this donation. On the other hand, the States that engaged in the rebellion are not asking this act of liberality from Congress. They are not in a condition to receive it. They must 1st reconstruct themselves on a loyal basis before they can be entitled to any favors at the hands of Congress.
Mr. BIDWELL. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY.
Mr. KELLEY. I cannot in a 5 minutes' speech. Mr. Speaker, how is, it that if such grants were faithfully applied whole regiments of 'white soldiers in. confederate army, when called upon to sign their names, had to employ other than their own hands, and to attest the signatures by their marks? Why? Because the men who are wielding AndrewJohnson's usurpations had corruptly used for other purposes, private or public, the grants of land. educational, common school, college, and university purposes. The intellectual eyes of the masses of the South were put out; their intellects were benumbed; their passions were excited by the men to whom we are asked now to grant lands for educational purposes. Sir, a man who has proven himself to be a false trustee shall never by my vote be made the custodian of a trust for the people of the South, or any State which may be established there. I shall vote for the resolution making the grant to Tennessee. Her schools, like her militia, are to be open to every child born in the Common wealth or coming to it as an immigrant. Therefore let us give this land to her; and let us show to the people of the insurrectionary districts that they too shall have organized republican constitutions such as the Congress of the U.S. can accept these beneficent grants will be open to them. [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. BIDWELL. I yield to the Gentfrom Minnesota, to submit an amendment to the bill.
Mr. DONNELLY. I offer the following amendment: Provided. The grant of land so made by the act to which this refers and is amendatory shall be held by the State of Tennessee subject to this condition: thatoshall ever be employed as a professor or teacher in the said agricultural college for the State of Tennessee who ever held any military or civil office in the socalled confederate government or in the rebel government of Tennessee.
Mr. BIDWELL. I now call for the previous question.
Mr. CHANLER. I hope the gentleman will not insist on it.
Mr. BIDWELL. I will give the gentleman 5 minutes after the previous question has been 2nded.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom California, who reported the bill, is now entitled to one hour in which to close the debate.
Mr. BIDWELL. In reference to the amendment offered by the Gentfrom Minnesota, I have only to say that I consider the bill all right without it; but there can be no serious objection to it with it. The State of Tennessee is loyal today, and I entertain the hope she will ever remain s;o but if there be any doubt of it, if there be any fear the State of Tennessee may at some time fall into the hands of those who entertain rebellious sentiments against the Government, then as a safe guard I will not object to the amendment of the Gentfrom Minnesota. Still, I am not tenacious of the amendment. I. will now yield for a short time to the Gentfrom Tennessee. I am pressed on all sides to call for a vote.
Skip Skip Mr. HILL. mtRtv The previous question was 2nded if it be decided that the result will be now to give the ComJudiciary 3 instead of 2 morning hours.
The SPEAKER. That motion can be made after the hour of the Gentfrom California.
Mr. BIDWELL. I yield to the Gentfrom Tennessee 5 minutes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the original resolution as reported by the committee in my opinion should be adopted. I think it is necessary and right that it should be. By the act of 1862 the donation of land was made to Tennessee, but owing to the rebellion the Legislature of that State did not accept it within the 2 years provided by the act. By the act of 1866 that limit was extended alone to those States at that time represented upon the floors of Congress. The State of Tennessee was not then represented, and that grant thus made to the State fell through; and now, sir, unless the time be extended to the State to accept it we shall lose the grant. This gives the proper authority, and that is all we ask. Mr. Speaker, I differ widely with the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY) in the views he has presented to this House in regard to these questions, but that does not interfere with my voting for a proposition right in itself, and when he charges the POTUS as a usurper, if it were permitted I would say, as Marmion said to Lord Douglas “Lord Angus, thou hast lied.” I believe the resolution to be right, and I ask the House to adopt it.
Mr. BIDWELL. I now yield to the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. CHANLER]
Mr. KELLEY. Will the Gentfrom California yield to me a moment?
Mr. KELLEY. I desire to catch the ear of the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] a moment. I did not, in the confusion around me, hear his language exactly. I want to ask him whether those around me are right in saying that he impugned my veracity.
Mr. COOPEit. Mr. Speaker, I said that when the Gentfrom Pennsylvania charged An drew Johnson with being a usurper, if I were. to quote the language of Marmion to ord Douglas I would say “Lord Angus, thou hast lied.”
Mr. KELLEY. if I were permitted Sir, while the usurpation was plotting he was the confidential paid agent of the usurper, and knew all the secrets of the usurpation, and if conscience has not been extinguished in him he is not permitted to deny my allegation.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is mistaken as to his facts. While I was the confidential agent and friend of the POTUS, and I glory in the fact, not one dollar of his money has ever been handled by me; and when the gentleman says that I was his paid agent he lies again. The No. The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. KELLEY. It was not AndrewJohnson's own money he handled; it was ours and that of the people of the U.S. The Gentfrom Tennessee was a member of the President's household, and was paid for his services. I will not bandy blackguardism with him on this floor.
Mr. JENCKES. I call these gentlemen to order. I submit that these remarks do not apply to the bill now before the House.
Mr. BIDWELL. I will now yield for 5 minutes to the Gentfrom Minnesota, [Mr. DoNNELLY]
Mr. DONNELLY. I have offered an amendment to the JtResolution, which has been read at the Cick's do. "I did not offer it without having 1st submitted it to the consideration and approval of some of the representatives from Tennessee upon this floor. The resolution under consideration will give the State of Tennessee 300,000 acres of the Government lands. These will not be to any extent lands located within the State of Tennessee, but they will be taken from the great West. It is a grant, therefore, given by the nation to the State of Tennessee. It will create a college there, a great institution of learning erected by the beneficence of the nation. It is just and right that that institution so existing by virtue of a grant made by the nation shall not foster or encourage the enemies of the nation. I have, therefore, offered this amendment that no man who has been an officer, civil or military, under the socalled confederate government or under the rebel government of Tennessee shall hold office in the college as professor or tutor. I urge this in no spirit of persecution, but it is just and right if we by our grant create an institution that our very grant shall not be turned into a means whereby the enemies of the country may teach their damnable heresies to the rising generation. We have already seen that in the State of Virginia the great military chieftain of the rebellion (General Lee) has been appointed a professor in one of its colleges; and it is within the probabilities that the time may come in the State of Tennessee when the author of the Fort Pillow massacre might preside over the college created under the very grant we are now engaged in making. I therefore trust that the amendment, I have offered may be added to the bill, so that if we make this grant and create this institution rebels shall not be its professors.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would like to ask the Gentfrom Minnesota whether his amendment would not be an attempt on the part of Congress to regulate the management of the affairs of a college which is under State juris diction, and whether that would not be a usurpation on the part of Congress of a power that does not belong to the General Government.
Mr. DONNELLY. I would say, in answer to the gentleman, that if we make a grant we have full power to affix the conditions upon which it shall be held. If the conditions do not suit the State she may refuse the grant. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the State of Maryland has but the other day, almost within sight of this Capitol, appointed a son of General Lee as one of the principal professors in one of its agricultural colleges; and we will be false to our duty as Representatives of the loyal people of the U.S. if we do not prevent such a contingency in the State of Tennessee.
Mr. ROGERS. I desire to move an amendment to the amendment.
The SPEAKER. That cannot be done, as the previous question is operating.
Mr. ROGERS. Then by what right does the Gentfrom Minnesota offer his amendment 7
The SPEAKER. If the Gentfrom NewJersey had been observant of the proceedings of the House he would have known that the amendment was offered some time since, and before
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nd ed.Mr. LeBLOND. Upon the adoption of the amendment I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 114, nays 35, not voting 42;. 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. Mr. BIDWELL. I call the previous question on the passage of the JtResolution. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the JtResolution was passed. Mr. BIDWELL mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. The Secretary read A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed an act (S.No.525) supplementary to an act to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes, approved July 18, 1856; in which the concurrence of the House was requested. SMALL ARMS.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the ComPrintg, reported the following resolution, upon which he called the previous question: Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the House 500, extra copies oftion from the SecyWar in anthsewecrommunica to a resolution of this House in referenceto small arms.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was agreed to. Mr. LAFLIN mtRtv the resolution was agreed to; on the table. agreed to. SOLDIERS OF WAR OF 1812.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the ComPrintg, reported the following resolution, upon which he called the previous question: Resolved, That 5,000 extra copies of the report of the ComInvalidPens on granting pensions the to the soldiers of the war of 1812be printed for the use of the House.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was adopted. Mr. LAFLIN mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. PAYMENT OF PENSIONS.
Mr. PERHAM., I ask unanimous consent of the House to take from The SPEAKer's table the amendments of the Senate to the amendments of the House to Senate bill No. 69, to provide for the payment of pensions. No objection was made.
Mr. PERHAM. I move that the amendments of the Senate be non-concurred in, and that a committee of conference be requested upon the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses.
Skip Skip The motion was agreed to. Mr. PERHAM mtRtv taken; upon the table. agreed to. RECONSTRUCTION.
The SPEAKER. The regular order is the consideration of House bill No. 543, for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights. Upon this bill, by unan imous order of the House, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] was to be regarded as entitled to the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I do not propose at present to call the previous question, but will leave the bill open for discussion today. I now yield to the Gentfrom NewYork, Mr. RAYMoND]
Mr. RAYMOND., Mr. Speaker, as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] has decided to leave this great and engrossing subject open for still further discussion, I will take advantage of his consent to present as briefly as possible some considerations upon the subject which I would be glad to bring to the attention of the House. And as I do not desHiroeustoe, treIspass unduly upon the patience of the shall feel under obligations to
The SPEAKER. Does the Gentfrom NewYork yield?
Mr. RAY MOND. Certainly, for correction if I have made an erroneous statement.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It is 1st to be in a provisional condition, and then the provisional government elected by the constitutional convention are to administer the State government until a constitutional government is recognized by Congress.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee. Will the Gentfrom NewYork allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. STEVENS. If the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Ross] will yield, I desire to move that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union. The Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] desires to deliver a speech which has been postponed a long time by the discussion on this bill.
Mr. STEVENS. Some gentlemen have asked me whether I propose to call the previous ue.stion on this bill tomorrow. In answer to I may say that while I do not regret the length of time which has been occupied by this debate, especially after the noble speech to which we have just listened, yet I see such diversity of opinion on this side of the House upon any question of reconstruction that if I do not change my mind I shall tomorrow relieve the House from any question upon the merits of this bill by moving to lay it on the table. The NORFOLK RIOT.
The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of December 10, 1866, a report relative to the riot, at Nor folk, Virginia, on the 16th of April, 1866; which, on motion of Mr. Eliot, was referrod to the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, and ordered to be printed. ReV. WILLIAM FINCHER.
The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, transmitting a letter and other documents from the Commissioner of Freedmen relative to the imprisonment 1n Georgia of Rev. William Fincher, a missionary to the freedmen in that State; which, on motion of Mr. ELIot, was referred to the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, and ordered to be printed.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed an act (S.No.503) for the relief of Mrs. Mary A. Dixon, of Alexan dria, in the State of Virginia, widow of the late Turner Dixon, deceased, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. PRESIDENT's MESSAGE.
Mr. STEVENS. I now move that the House reselve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union and resume the consideration of the President’s annual message.
Mr. MAYNARD. There are several bills on The SPEAKer's table which, as we are fast a.p.proaching the close of the session, it is desir e shall be referred to the appropriate committees. I ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania to yield so that those bills may be taken up and referred.
Mr. STEVENS. I cannot yield for that pur{pos.e; the Gentfrom Vermont has already delayed too long. I insist on my motion. The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. WELKER in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the President's annual message, on which Mr. MERCUR was entitled to the floor.
Mr. MERCUR. I yield to the Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. MoRRILL, with the understanding that I shall be entitled to the floor when he concludes. FINANCIAL POLICY.
Mr. SCOFIELD. My colleague yields to me to move that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and
The SPEAKer having resumed the chair, Mr. WELKER reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly the President's annual message, and had come to no resolution thereon. CAPTAIN J. THOMAS TURNER.
Mr. DELANO moved that the ComClaims be discharged from the further consideration of the petition and papers of J. Thomas Turner, for pay for travel from Balti more to SanFrancisco, and that the same be referred to the ComMilAffrs. The motion was agreed to. TAX ON COTTON.
Mr. TRIMBLE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Iesolved, That the ComWays&Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing the tax on cotton, if by them deemedexpedient; and that they be instructed to inquire into the expediency of permitting the cotton to be removed to market without bond, the tax to be there paid as provided; and to report by bill or otherwise. MILITIA.
Mr. PAINE, from the Committee on the Militia, by unanimous consent, reported a bill to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for other purposes; was read a 1st and 2nd time, ordere to be printed, and recommitted. REMOVAL OF PROTESTANT CIHURCH AT ROME.
Mr. DODGE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved.That the POTUS be, and is hereby, requested, if not inconsistent with the public interests, to communicate to the HoRep any information which may haye been received by the Government in relation to the removal of the Protestant Church or Religious Assembly meeting at the American Embassy at the city of Rome, by the order of that Government. And then, on motion of Mr. ALLISON, (at 5 o'clock p.m.,) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. FRIDAY, January 25, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. STEWART, and by unan imous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with. CredienTIALS.
The PRESIDENT protempore presented the credentials of Hon. Simon Cameron, elected by the Legislature of Pennsylvania a Senfrom that State for the term commencing March 4, 1867; which were ordered to be placed on the files of the Senate. The CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a communication from A. J. Bore man, Governor of WestVirginia, transmittin an authenticated copy of a resolution. by the Legislature of that State ratifying the amendment proposing a 14th article to the Constitution of the U.S.; which was ordered to lie upon the table.
Mr. RAMSEY, from the ComPostOffices, to whom was referred the memorial of Dempsey Reece, praying to be relieved from any further performance of his contract to carry the mail on route No. 12008, between NewCastle and Mechanicsburg, in Indiana, submitted a report, accompanied by a JtResolution, (S.R.R. 160,) for the relief of Dempsey Reece, of Indiana. The JtResolution was read and passed to a 2nd read in: and the report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. MORRILL, from the ComDistCol, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.506) to authorize the trustees of the Foundry Methodist Episcopal church to sell and convey square No. 235 in the city of Washington, reported it without amendment.
Mr. CHANDLER, from the ComCommerce, to whom was referred the memorial of Edward Dodge, of Brooklyn, NewYork, praying that the name of the yacht May flower may be changed to the name of Silvie, reported a JtResolution (S.R.No. 159) authorizing the SecyTreasury to permit the owner of the yacht Mayflower to change the name of the same to that of Silvie; which was read and passed to a 2nd reading. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Rowland W. Griffith praying that the bark R. W. Griffith, now under the British flag, may be granted an American register, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of John A. Ragan, praying for an appropriation for the construetion of certain canals to prevent the inundation of the Mississippi river, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of members of the Union Republican Central Committee of the city of Elizabeth, NewJersey, praying that that city be made a port of entry, and that an appropriation be made for the purpose of erecting a suitable building for the accommo dation of the customhouse, postoffice, collector and assessor of internalrevenue, and for holding the Federal courts, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER, from the ComForRel, to whom the subject was referred, reported a JtResolution (S.R.No. 161) in addition to a JtResolution to enable the people of the U.S. to participate in the advantages of the Universal Exhibition at Paris, in 1867; which was read and passed to a 2nd reading.
Mr. CONNESS, from the ComPostOffices, to whom was referred the JtResolution (S.R.No. 157) in relation to ocean mail service between SanFrancisco, in California, and Portland, in Oregon, reported it with amendments, accompa nied by a written report; which were ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am instructed by the ComClaims, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 522) for the relief of Nathan Noyes, to make an adverse report. I move the indefinite postponement of the bill. The motion was agreed to. compeNSATION of civil employees.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am instructed by the ComFinance, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service in Washington, to report the same back with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and I will say, so as to make it unnecessary for those concerned to ask questions about it, that the amendment omits the exceptions in the original resolution, and provides for an addition of 20%. to the salaries of the all officers and empolyes of the Government at Washington whose sala ries do not exceed $3, 500, without respect to any advancement that they may have received in their salaries by the disbursement of the fund that was placed in the hands of the SecyTreasury. I give notice that I shall endeavor to call up this resolution tomorrow morning. PARIS EXHIBITION.
Mr. ANTHON.Y. I am instructed by the ComPrintg, to whom was referred a resolution to print extra copies of the message of the POTUS on the subject of the Paris Exhibition, to report it back to the Senate without amendment, and recommend its passage. I ask for its present consideration. There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to, as follows: Resolved, That 1,000 extra copiesof the messageof the President, with the accompanying documents, on the subject of the Paris Exhibition, transmitted to the Senate on the 21stof January last. be printed for the use of copies the Senate, and 2,000 for the use of the Dept of State. 1ST CONGREGATIONAL SOCIETY.
Mr. WILSON. I move that the bill (S.No.366) to reorganize the clerical force of the War Dept, and for other purposes, be taken up and recommitted to the ComMilAffrs . The motion was agreed to. HOUSE BILL REFERRED. The bill (H.R.No. 918) making appropriations for the service of the postoffice Dept during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance. PENSION AGENTS.
The PRESIDENT protempore appointed Messrs. LANE, TRUMBULL, and BUCKALEw as the committee of conference on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions. NOTICE OF A BILL.
Mr. WILSON gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to increase and othe pay of officers of the Army of the U.S., and for other purposes. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. BROWN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.535) for the benefit of Mrs. Jerusha Page; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPensions.
Mr. PATTERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.536) further to amend an act entitled “An act for the collection of direct taxes in the insurrectionary districts within the U.S., and for other purposes, ” approved June 7, 1862; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComFinance, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.537) for the relief of Harriet W. Pond; which was read twice by its title, and referre to the ComClaims.
Mr. POLAND asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.538) for the relief of the widow and children of Henry E. Morse; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Compensions.
Mr. FOWLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.539) to expedite the construction of the Southern Pacific railroad; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPacificRR.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed a JtResolution (H.R.No. 213) to extend the provisions of the act in regard to agricultural colleges to the State of Tennessee, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. HABEASCORPUS.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of ob. House bill No. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 755 amendatory of an act to amend an act entitl “An act relating to habeascorpus and regula ting judicial proceedings in certain cases, ” approved May 11, 1866. The bill provides that whenever any suit or prosecution which has been or may be commenced in any State court, and which the defendant is authorized to have removed from that court to the circuit court of the U.S., under and by virtue of the provisions of an act relating to habeascorpus, and reg ulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, approved March 3, 1863, or by virtue of the act amendatory thereof, approved May 11, 1866, and all the acts necessary for the removal of the cause to the circuit court shall have been performed, and the defendant in any suit shall e in actual custody on process issued by the State court, it is to be the duty of the clerk of the circuit court of the U.S. to issue a writ of habeascorpus cum causa; and it is to be the duty of the marshal, by virtue of the writ of habeascorpus, to take the body of the defendant into his custody to be dealt with in the circuit court according to rules of law, and the orders of the court, or of any judge thereof in vacation; and he is to file a duplicate copy of the writ of habeascorpus with the clerk of the State court in which the suit was commenced, or deliver the duplicate to the clerk of the court; and all attachments made, and all bail and other security given in any suit or owhich has been or shall be removed from any State court to the circuit court of the U.S., in pursuance of law, is to be and continue in like force and effect as if the suit had proceeded to final judgment and execution in the State court.
Mr. JONHSON. Was that bill referred to a committee and reported.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is reported from the ComJudiciary.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I will state to the Senfrom Maryland that the bill was reported at the last session of Congress, and has been on the Calendar ever since.
Mr. HENDRICKS. My recollection of this bill is, that it only relates to cases in which there has been an arrest in the State courts and relieves from that arrest after proceedings have been taken according to law to take the case into the U.S. court. I did not know the bill was to be called up this morning. If that be its purpose I have no objection to the bill. I will ask the chairman if it goes any further? I suppose it does not go any further.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think not. The bill was before the committee at the last session of Congress, and was reported without amendment. It is a House bill a very short bill, containing only one section. The Senator will see by running his eye over it how far it goes. The only effect of the bill, as I understand it, is, that where a suit is removed under the law as it exists from a State to the U.S. court, and the defendant is in custody under the authority of the State court, a writ of ha beascorpus may be issued by the Federal court for the purpose of bringing the party into that court. "I think that is the extent of the bill, as I recollect it; I have not examined it very care fully this morning. I presume there will be no objection to it. If a case is removed or authorized to be removed, as the law now stands, of course the custody of the party should go along with the case. I do not think there can be any objection to it.
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable chairman, I have no doubt, is right as to the extent of the bill. I think I concurred in the committee in reporting in favor of it. It does not enlarge the class of cases which are removed from the State courts to the court of the U.S. But the law as it stands now does not provide for what either has happened or may happen, the case of an arrest and confinement under arrest under the authority of the State court. The whole object of this bill is to . bring the of those arrests before the U.S. circuit court, to whom the case itself is to be transferred under the existing law. My friendfrom Indiana, I think, will concur in the bill if he will look at it carefully. It does nothing more than give the circuit court authority to ascertain whether there is a cause for the arrest or not.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I thought so, and I interposed no objection to the bill with that understanding. That is my impression of it. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. HOUSE BILL REFERRED. The JtResolution (H.R.No. 213) to extend the provisions of the act in regard to agricultural colleges to the State of Tennessee was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPubLands. rewArtids TO Pitis ONERS FOR GOOD CONDUCT.
Mr. HARRIS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill o. 460. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill (S.No.460) in relation to persons imprisoned under sentence for offenses against the laws of the U.S.
Mr. HARRIS. The ComJudiciary have reported an amendment to the bill in the nature of a substitute, and I presume it will only be necessary to read the substitute.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The substitute only will be read unless some Senator asks for the reading of the original bill.
The Secretary read the amendment of the committee, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill and to insert the following in lieu thereof: That all prisoners who have been, or shall here after be, convicted of any offense against the laws of the U.S., and confined in any State prison or penitentiary in execution of the judgment or tence such conviction, who senso conduct themselves that no charge for misconduct shall be sustained against them, shall have a deduction of one month in each year made from the term of their sentence, and shall be entitled to their discharge so much the sooner, upon the certificate of the warden or keeper of such prison or penitentiary, with the approval of the SecyInterior. Sec. 2. Abife: That it shall be the duty of the respective district judges of eral districts of the U.S. to causetthheisslaowv to be executed, and to receive and passupon the evidence authorized by the said State laws, and to give and 'furnish to the warden or other keeper of the rison the proper, certificate, warrant, or authority or the discharge of any convict imprisoned, as afore said, upon a conviction under the U.S. laws, before the expiration of the term of his sentence, or for other mitigation of his punishment, in pursuance of the provisions of the State laws aforesaid and such convict shall be thereupon discharged from impris onment or his punishment otherwise mitigated, as: caseshall require, in conformity to the said State aws.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in." The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. MARYLAND COLLECTION DISTRICTS.
Mr. CRESWELL. The ComCommerce, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.347) to change certain collection districts in Maryland and Virginia, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and to ask that the bill as amended may be put upon. It will take no time. If it leads to debate I shall not press it today. There being no objection, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill. The amendment reported by the ComCommerce was to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill, and to insert the following in lieu thereof: That the districts of Oxford and Vienna in the State of abolished, Maryland be, and the same are hereby and the office of collector of both said districts is hereby discontinued. SEC. 2. Abife: That the district Oxford in said State, shall be annexed to the district of Baltimore, and all that part of the district of Vienna in said State bordering on the sea coast, and all the waters which flow into the sea or bays on the east side of said district of Vienna be, and the same are hereby, annexed to the district of Cherry Stone in the State of Virginia; and that all the residue, o said district of Vienna be, and the same is hereby, made a new district, to becalled the eastern district: and that the collector of said eastern district shall receive an annual salary of $1, 200 and shall reside at Crisfield, which shall be the port of entry for said new district. SEC. 3. Abife:, That the officesof surveyor at Snow Hill and of deputy collector at An namasset be, and the same are hereby, discontinued, and that the collector of the district of Cherry Stone shall hereafter reside at Accomac Courthouse, which shall be the port of entry for the district. Sec. 4. Abife: That all acts and parts fo acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.
Mr. JOHNSON. I ask my friend and colleague if this is reported at the instance of the SecyTreasury?
Mr. CRESWELL. Yes, sir; I have a communication from the SecyTreasury recommending these changes.
Mr. CRESWELL. The bill has only been changed in some local matters of detail, which from my knowledge of the country I thought I better understood than the SecyTreasury.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. WRIT OF HABEASCORPUS.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 605. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 605) to amend an act to establish the judicial courts in the U.S., approved September 24, 1789.
Mr. JOHNSON. Now, if we are about to pass the bill we ought to understand exactly what will be the operation of it. Any man who may be imprisoned in any part of the U.S. may be brought out by this writ issued by a district judge of the U.S. farthest from the place of imprisonment. I think that is exceedingly inconvenient, embarrassing, and expensive, and I do not see the necessity for it. I do not see why the authority should not be limited to the circuit judge of the circuit where the party is imprisoned, or at least to the district judges within the same circuit. The bill would apply, I suppose, to the judges here in this District. They would be authorized to issue a writ of habeascorpus, and it could be sent down to the Tortugas or any where else the farthest from here, either south or north, and the party would be brought here to have his case decided here, and the decision, upon that writ of habeascorpus would be conclusive, no matter what might be the decision of the SCOTUS on the same question brought before them. I think perhaps the chairman had better let the bill lie on the table until the next session of the Senate, until tomorrow or Monday, so that in the mean time we may look at it and guard against what seems to me to be a very unnecessary measure, and what would be a very expensive one.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall not object to the bill lying over until tomorrow, if the Senfrom Maryland desires to examine it further. It was a bill which was called up at the last session and some discussion was had upon it then. There is certainly some force in the suggestion of the Senator, if it be true that the bill is susceptible of such a construction as he puts upon it, that a district judge in one part of the Union might issue a writ of habeascorpus to bring before him a person confined in a remote part of the Union from him. That would be objectionable. It would hardly be tolerated that the district judge of California should issue a writ of ha beascorpus to bring before him some person from Maryland. such, I apprehend, is not the design of the bill, and probably it is not susceptible of that construction; but if the Senator wishes to look into it further I shall not object at all to its going over to tomorrow.
Mr. TRUMBULL. As it is now one o'clock the special order cuts it off at any rate, I suppose. p
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday.
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 (S.No.99) for the relief of Paul S. Forbes, under his contract with the Navy Dept for building and furnishing the steam screw sloop of war Idaho, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message further announced that the House had passed the JtResolution (S.No.112) for the relief of Mrs. Abby Green. 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. 666) authorizing the SecyWar to purchase certain property for military purposes; A bill o R. No. 820) for the relief of Henry S. Davis; A bill (H.R.No. 967) for the relief of James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland; A bill (H.R.No. 1044) for the relief of John Gray, a revolutionary soldier; A bill (H.R.No. 1045) for the relief of Daniel Frederick Bateman, a revolutionary soldier; A JtResolution (B. R. No. 211) for the relief of George W. Lane, superintendent of the branch mint at Denver, Colorado, and Asst Treasurer of the U.S.; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 244) to amend existing laws relating to internalrevenue. ENIROLLED BILLS SIGNED. The message further announced that The SPEAKer of the House had signed the enrolled bill (H.R.No. 755) amendatory of an act to amend an act entititled “An act relating to habeascorpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, ” approved May 11, 1866; and the enrolled JtResolution (S.No.156) to provide for the removal of the wreck of the steamship Scotland; and they were thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate. The TA riff ibili, The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes.
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member from Maine is always instructive; no one is more conscious of that than I am, because I am almost always instructed by him; but on this occasion he has attempted to instruct me where I think I was instructed before. I was aware that under the reciprocity treaty coal was admitted free; and I was aware that to a certain extent the Maryland coal was produced and disposed of to a great extent.at that time. Whether the amount was 400 or 500 or 600,000 tons, as he states, I do not know. I suppose he is right as to the amount; but in point of fact the owners of the mines made little or no money.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They sold over 600,000 tons.
Mr. JOHNSON. No matter what it was, they made little or no money it; and they made little or nothing, because the demand for such coal was not equal to what they could have supplied; and the profit upon what they were able to supply was cemparatively trifling. Notwithstanding the otreaty they supplied all the wants of erence the county with ref. to this article this side of NewYork. That they do now; but that does not furnish a sufficient demand. There have been various companies chartered by Maryland for the purpose of mining coal and bringing it to market. The stock at one time went up to a very large figure beyond its parvalue, but it soon receded; and there is no one of the original stockholders who held on that has failed to lose. Having thus, as far as I am able, answered by denying the fact that there was any great value in the trade notwithstanding the reciprocity treaty, my honorable friend will permit me to ask if 50 cents is a sufficient protection for coal brought from this side of the prescribed line, why the committee have charged $150 upon coal that is brought from Europe. One would suppose that as it costs a great deal more to bring coal from Liverpool than to bring it from Nova Scotia, if there had been any discrimination between the importation from the 2 places, it would have been a discrimination in favor of the Liverpool coal. But that is not so; and I might ask him, too, why it is that the Committee charges $150 upon anthracite coal; what is the purpose of that? Is that for revenue? That must be answered in the negative, because no anthra cite coal is or can be imported; it is not to be found anywhere within reasonable reach. What is it put into the bill for, therefore?
Mr. JOHNSON. I speak of the bill as it originally stood. Why was it put in the bill?
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable members from Pennsylvania can answer that question. It was apparently inserted for the purpose of satisfying what it was supposed might be the wants of the Pennsylvania miner. i.why is there a difference now (to ask it in another form) between the duty imposed on coal imported from this side of the prescribed line and that imported from the other side? The only answer that I think can be given is, that the only coal that comes to the U.S. of this description is that which comes from this side of the prescribed line. Then there is a motive in it; and what is the motive? Is it to encourage the foreign coal owner certainly not as against ourselves. It has 2 objects. It has for its 1st object, perhaps the receipt of revenue; but it has for its 2nd and perhaps its more persuasive object the benefit of the manufacturers of the East. do not complain of protecting them reasona bly, but if it be right to protect them by means of a tariff, is it right to do so by sacrificing the interests of other American citizens in their own industry? I do not think any satisfactory answer can be given upon that point.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We deny the fact that it does. The Senator assumes that it sacrifices others.
Mr. JOHNSON. If it does not, and no particular revenue is to be derived from the 50 cents, I should suppose that my friend would have no objection to inserting $1 50 instead of 50 cents, for that, while it would benefit us, would not injure NewEngland. The honorable member says that the Maryland coal is used only as he understands of course he has been so informed in the manufacture of iron.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh, no. It is used for a great many other purposes. I said it was not used for gas.
Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is mistaken. It is used in the manufacture of gas, and it is not used exclusively in the manufacture of lron.
Mr. FESSENDEN, I did not say it was used exclusively for that purpose.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir; it is because the Pictou coal cannot be used for these purposes; it cannot be used for raising steam, or rather it is so inferior for that use that they can afford to pay a higher price and do pay a higher price, notwithstanding all the cost of transportation, for Cumberland coal. The Pictou is used principally for making gas in NewEngland; and, as I stated before, the only thing besides that which is wanted in reference to the matter is from 70 to 100,000 tons, used in the manufacture of iron, in which we compete at such immense disadvantages with Maryland and other iron producing States that have their iron and coal on the spot.
Mr. CRESWELL. Allow me to ask a question. Will the Senator inform me how it was that during the last years of the war the coal companies in Nova Scotia declared such immense dividends?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am now informed of it for the 1st time.
Mr. CRESWELL. They declared dividends equal to 175%. in one case, and varying from that down to 20%., and none lower.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is so easy to make I do not know that these statements that I should like to know where the Senator gets his authority.
Mr. CRESWELL. I get it from a gentle. man who is perhaps as well versed on the sub." the gentleman whose letter the Senator rea (1.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The gentleman whose letter I read is perfectly well known to me, and he is familiar with the coal and iron business and has been for years, and he does not import an ounce of the article or use an ounce of it in any shape or form.
Mr. CRESWELL. The member from the Cumberland district [Mr. Thomas] made that declaration in the House last year, and asserted it upon his own personal veracity that he had that information as direct as it could be obtained, that he was perfectly satisfied of its truth. He has given this subject more attention perhaps than any gentleman in either branch of Congress.
Mr. FESSENDEN. if I should assert on my own personal veracity all the things that have been stated to me by the most highly respectable gentlemen engaged in the different branches of business, I should undertake to carry a load that would break down any man or any set of men that might attempt it. The fact may be so; but I do not believe it, because the amount of sales would not justify any such statement. The sales are very small. The Senator appeals, as does every other Senator who has a particular interest in his State to look after, to the principle upon which all our tariff bills are founded as a general principle, namely, the encouragement of our own labor; and he speaks of the high% age placed upon some kinds of manufactures and the low% age upon others. If he will look through this bill he will see that there are many things that pay as low as ten%., for the reason that they come very near to raw materials, and the policy of the bill is, so far as we can, to let in raw materials without duty. There is another consideration, and that is a consideration which is somewhat important to us living near the Canadian frontier, with reference to trade. I will not now reply to what was said about the reciprocity treaty and the way in which it was made. I think I know as much about that as does the honorable representative from Vermont, who is soon to be in the Senate. No man has a more strong personal respect and regard for that gentleman than I have; but I think I know as much about that treaty as he does, inasmuch as I was here when it was adopted and know the principles upon which it was founded, and he was not; and I had very considerable to do with the guestion. I was in the Senate at the time it was adopted, and I was present at the discus. S10n.
Mr. CONNESS. I thought you never noticed what the papers said.
Mr. FESSENDEN. My attention was called to it or I should not have noticed it. I stated what I have just said, and it required a great deal ofingenuity in this correspondent to pick out 2 different parts of my speech and put them together in i.way, and it required not a little coolness to do it when on the same page of the newspaper was the report of the Asso ciated Press.stated correctly what I did say upon the subject, and the Globe stated it more at length; and both statements were to the same effect. It was a very silly misrepresentation as well as a malicious one. however, I have paid all the attention to it that I designed. I repeat what I said with reference to that point: it is of importance in my judgment that we should retain as much of our foreign trade as we can, if by so doing we are not affecting injuriously other interests, and those which may be considered by some gentlemen more peculiarly the interests of this country. Now, then, it is perfectly manifest that the Senfrom Maryland [Mr. CREswell] has argued from his apprehensions. It is utterly impossible that the light duty, compar.atively, of 50 cents per ton upon Pictou coal could interfere essentially with Cumberland coal or with any other coal in any way; and to raise that duty to the amount now proposed imposes a heavier burden by increasing the duty upon the few manufacturers of iron there are in NewEngland, and it makes a heavier tax on the light which the people get from the manufacture of gas. Now, cannot the Senator afford that little boon to NewEngland, which is so heavily burdened with reference to these taxes that are put on for the benefit of the iron interest in which his constituents are concerned?
Mr. CRESWELL. We should be glad to grant it if we could afford it; but our charities must be measured by our ability.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is the very point. I contend that it can be afforded, because the interests of one does not interfere with the other, as I have shown, unless the Senator can convince me that we could use the Cumberland coal for the purpose of making gas, and get enough of it.
Mr. CRESWELL. There is plenty of coal in the country to make gas from.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Where will the Senator find it?
Mr. CRESWELL. In the very place the Senatormentioned himself Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, and WestVirginia.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose you can in Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania. find some; but when you come to put on the freights upon an article so necessary as light for the people heavy railroad freights such as are imposed by the Baltimore and Ohio railroad and other roads, which make the price of coal so burdensome it becomes a serious question whether the article will bear such an increase. But, sir, I do not feel disposed to continue this debate. The matter is one in which my constituents are much interested; but really it is so small that it strikes me it is hardly worth while to insist upon the duty being raised upon this coal. The duty under the existing tariff is $1 25, and the amendment is to make it $1 50. As I said before, at the rate proposed by the committee, 50 cents, the protection is in fact $1 70, because in the 1st place Cum berland coal is worth one dollar a ton more for any purpose for which it is used, and in the 2nd place the 50 cents duty on gold amounts to nearly 70 cents in currency, bringing it up to what I stated.
Mr. CRESWELL. There is but one remark that fell from the Senfrom Maine to which I desire to reply, and that is as to the ine rdinate charges of the canals and railroads who are the carriers of our coal to market. Our theory on that is precisely the same as it is on all other manufactured articles. Our desire is to have so much coal produced in the country as to make a competition in that article inside of the country, not only as to the production of coal, but also as to the freightage of the coal, so that it may be brought down to the lowest possible figure at which the companies can by transportation make a living. The difficulty with the Baltimore and Ohio railroad and with the Chesapeake and Ohio canal was perhaps more owing to their location than their own fault. During the war they were broken up several times; the Baltimore and Ohio railroad was broken up 3 times; the Chesapeake and Ohio canal was broken up, boats were burned, the banks were destroyed, the locks were injured. But if these compa nies have charged ine rdinately, let other coin panies be organized for purposes of transportaition, and let those companies compete with gure and bring the prices down to the lowest "Mr. EDMUNDS. Your State will not organize them.
Mr. CRESWELL. She will organize them if necessary. Maryland is as much interested in having cheap coal as any other State, and we want to have our mines developed to such an extent that the amount produced shall always force a way to market and oblige those who produce coal and who carry coal to do it at the lowest possible figure.
Mr. WILLEY. Mr. President, these clauses of the bill which it is proposed to strike out as they now stand mean, I suppose, if they mean anything, to admit the principle of protection, and the propriety of applying the principle of protection to the production of coal in this country. Both the clauses propose to impose a certain sum per ton upon coal; therefore the necessity, the propriety of giving protection is conceded; the principle is admitted. That being admitted, the next question is, does the bill as it now stands aecomplish the purpose proposed by it. If it is necessary to have this principle of protection incorporated in the bill at all, if the principle itself be right, then the question is, how far shall it be 3. applied. Will insertion of a mere nominal sum in this bill, which does not accomplish the proposed purpose, satisfy the country or satisfy the implied understanding o incorporating this provision in the bill? What is the use of admitting the principle in the bill by imposing a duty unless such duty shall be imposed as accomplishes the purpose proposed by the bill? It seems to me that the 2 clauses of the bill are inconsistent with themselves. Coal from one side of a certain geographical line must pay $1 50; coal from within that geo graphical line is to pay only 50 cents perton of 28 bushels.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is not a new principle. We hopose different duties upon goods directly imported from the East Indies and goods imported from the East Indies by way of Europe. Why do we do it? It has been in our tariffs for a long time.
Mr. WILLEY. I confess, Mr. President, that I am not very familiar with the details of the tariff bills; but has not the Senator got the cart before the horse? Is not the discrimination the other way in the instance mentioned 2
Mr. FESSENDEN. The reason simply is that some other interests which are important to the country require it.
Mr. WILLEY. It may be so; but if there be anything in the Senator's point it would be proper. i. to show that different interests require the discrimination here. Now, the point to which I was wishing to direct the at tention of the Senate was this: if it be necessary to protect this branch of American industry from foreign competition at all, and to impose duty upon the foreign article, where is the propriety of imposing a greater duty upon the same article which comes from a different longitude? If we want to protect domestic industry against the introduction of a foreign article coming in competition with our own article, we fail ver much to accomplish it when we impose a hig duty upon the distant article, which perhaps would not or could not be so easily brought into competition with our article, and a lower duty upon an article in a foreign country lying nearer our shores. But then, Mr. President, I fully concur with the Senfrom Maine, and with other Senators, that we should have coal, it being an article of general consumption in the country, upon terms as reasonable as possible. I am willing to admit that it enters very largely into the comforts and conveniences and necessaries of society. But then, reverting again to the principle incorporated in the bill, that we propose to protect the domestic article and to protect our domestic industry engaged in producing this article, why should we not adopt a proposition which will accomplish that purpose? But, then, Mr. President, following out the policy of this principle of protection in regard to the production of coal, what would be the probable result? It may be, and I believe it is, the fact that the Cumberland coal is not very valuable as a gas producing article. The Senfrom Maine seems rather to doubt whether we had in this country any very considerable mines producing gas making coal.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, I do not. I said that in Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, it existed; and it exists very largely in Ohio. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me say to the senator that in the imposition of this duty protection was not in view at all, because the committee did not think that our bitumine us coal. needed any protection whatever against the coal that is imported from Nova Scotia; but a small duty was imposed by way of revenue; it was not made large, for the reason that other interests of the country require that it should not be. That is the simple reason.
Mr. HENDRICKS.R.President, I have found myself unable to bring my mind to support a tax upon an article depending altogether upon the longitude from whence it comes; and when this bill was read by the Secretary there was nothing in it that struck me as more singular than the proposition that coal coming from beyond a certain longitude should be taxed $1 50, while coal o; from within that longitude should be taxed 50 cents. If the chairman of the committee would say to us that the coal brought from beyond that line was worth 3 times as much as the coal that is brought from within that line, then perhaps his argument would have force.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought I stated once, and that the Senate understood completely, that the object of the clause was to let in Pictou coal at a low rate; but owing to the condition of our treaties we cannot make a distinction between countries. We can, however, draw a distinction generally, which does not nominally make a difference between one country and another. It is drawn as it is to avoid the operation of treaties which prevent our naming the place. That I understand to be the origin of the clause.
Mr. FESSENDEN. One word. The Senator. has said nothing new, nothing which has not been said half a dozen times before here almost in this very debate, particularly by the Senfrom Maryland. The answer I make is simply this: I agree to the idea of protection upon whatever needs it. My idea was founded on the argument that no protection in this case is necessary in point of fact.
Skip Skip Mr. BUCKALEW called for the yeas&nays on the amendment, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 26, nays 14; 12. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CHANDLER. The Senfrom connecticut will certainly have my support for this amendment, and I beg to inform. that in Michigan we are more interested in this manufacture than perhaps the State of Connec ticut.
Mr. FOSTER. Then you will not think I am sectional.
Mr. CHANDLER. Not at all. I shall with great pleasure support the amendment of the Senfrom Connecticut.
Mr. GRIMES. I ask for the reading of the clause as it will stand if the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Connecticut be adopted.
The SECRETARY. If amended as proposed, the clause will read: On planters' or other hoes, wholly or infpart of steel or iron, 2 dollars per dozen.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senfrom Connecticut gave us a very thorough analysis of the cost of planters' hoes, but he failed to give us any information of the cost of the other kind of hoes, such as are used in the section of the country in which I happen to live.
Mr. FOSTER. I am perfectly willing that my amendment shall apply to planters' hoes only. The other hoes are not imported now,'s. 50 a dozen is unquestionably adequate protection to them; at all events I do not wish to disturb it. It is in regard to planters’ hoes, which are really the only ones in question, that my amendment applies.
Mr. GRIMES. I do not know whether they are imported or not; but I am very well aware that if the bill be passed with that amendment it will be made the excuse for putting an addi.tional price upon hoes furnished to the farmers of the country. I trust, therefore, that the Senator will modify his amendment so as to apply it specifically to planters' hoes and not extend it to all other hoes.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to ask the Senfrom Connecticut why the other hoes are not imported. He says these are the ouly ones imported.
Mr. FOSTER. Because they are made of different iron, and the manufacture has been so constantly in the hands of the American manufacturer that foreign competition is entirely out of the question now. The manufacture of planters' hoes, however, was entirely broken up during the war. If I mistake not, there were about 250,000 dozen used per annum formerly; but during the war this branch of business, which is a distinct business, entirely different from the manufacture of the common hoe, was broken up alto gether, and is now in the hands of foreigners, and without some protection will continue to be in their hands. It is not so, however, in regard to the ordinary hoe of the farmer.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The difference between them is that one, the common hoe that is made here is a very nice product, a product of considerable skilled labor, which has reached such a point that the business here cannot be interfered with. The other is a coarse, rough manufacture. The amount of it is, that that particular kind of hoe as it is made is about the simplest of all iron work, a very simple manufacture indeed, requiring very little skill, as little almost as anything that is made nothing to be compared with the ordinary hoe.
Mr. FOSTER. I wish I had here a planters' hoe which I have in my room, and the honorable Senator would find that he is mistaken when he calls it a coarse article or one not requiring skill. It is one of the most finished articles I ever saw.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose anybody could make a plausible statement by making out a list of various items entering into the cost of any manufacture, and assuming the wear and tear of the grindstones used in making a dozen hoes to be 5 cents, and other articles in proportion. A large calculation might be made out in that way. I do not think that the wear of a grind stone in grinding a dozen hoes would be 5 cents; nor do I think the quantity of coal guessed at is a safe criterion for us to go by. Sir, I have one answer to the Senator: does he know how much these hoes cost on the other side?
Mr. FESSENDEN. 2 dollars and a half a dozen. The tax is over 50% on this very common article.
Mr. FOSTER. I presume the same resort is had in that case as in others to the praetice of invoicing goods greatly below the cost. The invoice is one of the last evidences of real value.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There cannot be any fraud in an article of this sort, and there is none. The commissioner informs me that he heard testimony on the subject, and it seemed to him to be grossly unreasonable, upon so simple and plain an article as this was to Hi, put the so high. To require a duty of over 50% on the cost of so plain an article as a }. I think is unreasonable, and therefore I shall vote against the amendment.
Mr. CONNESS. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the ComFinance whether hoes are made abroad and imported?
Mr. CONNESS. But is it proposed to raise the duty upon this particular kind which is imported?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senfrom connecticut proposes, as I understand, to vary his onent so as to make it applicable only to these.
Mr. CONNESS. To hoes of the kind which are imported from abroad?
Mr. FOSTER. I said I was perfectly willing that the amendment should apply to plant ers' hoes only, and I will j?. amendment proposing to strike out, in line 264, the words “on othr “ hoes, ” and then to insert, after line 265, “on all other hoes, unade wholly or in part of steel or iron, $1 50 per dozen; ” so as to make the provision stand thus: On planters' hoes, wholly or in part of steel oriron. 2 dollars per dozen. On all other hoes, wholly or in part of steel or iron, $1 5oper dozen.
Mr. FOSTER. The honorable Senator will allow me to say that there is not a single element that I have stated as making up the amount of cost of the manufacture of these hoes which is an estimate of value merely. It is taken from the tariff bill as it stands, so much duty on so many pounds of iron, on so many pounds of steel, on so much borax, on so much emery. There is an estimate in regard to grindstones, and the honorable Senfrom Maine thinks I have got that a few cents too high. That item is 5 cents in the calculation. That is the only estimate there is in the whole. It is not an estimate of value; it is simply what the duty by law will be if this bill passes. There is no opinion about it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I suppose there is an opinion expressed as to the amount at any rate of these differentingredients it will take to make a dozen hoes.
Mr. FOSTER. So far as that is concerned it is true.
Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no absolute certainty as to that point. You assume it will take so much of one article and so much of another article to make a dozen hoes, and upon that basis I do not pretend to dispute the computation of the honorable Senator; but I say that I know that the committee in more than one case by undertaking to follow computations that were made by persons interested were misled. I have no doubt the statement of the Senator so far as he is concerned is entirely correct.
Mr. CHANDLER. I stated to the Senfrom Connecticut a few moments ago that I should support his amendment. I meant the original amendment. I cannot vote for a discrimination against anyone particular interest. Michigan is not interested in the manufacture of planters' hoes, but is largely interested in the manufacture of other hoes. I shall vote against the amendment as amended. I regret exceedingly that the Senator's constituents were so unfortunate as to be oppressed with that extra 6 cents per 100 pounds on salt, of which we spoke the other day. I was in hopes that the Senator would yield gracefully and think that his people could stand the enormous pressure; but it seems still to weigh upon his mind. I do not see any way that I can aid him out of the difficulty unless the Senate shall reverse its decision.
Mr. FOSTER. I am not asking that the honorable Senator should aid me out of the difficulty. Indeed it is a difficulty of his own creation, not of mine. If he gets along with his difficulties as I with that, happy as he is now I think his happiness will increase. But that is not the point. The honorable Senfrom Oregon says there must be some estimate here. There is an estimate that it takes 32 pounds of iron and steel to make a dozen of planters' hoes; and that is all the estimate there is in it; and that is based on actual experience in the manufacture. I can assure the honorable Senfrom Iowa that these planters' hoes are very dif: ferent affairs from the ordinary hoe used by the farmers. Their weight I should think is twice or 3 times as much as that of the ordinary hoe; and 32 pounds of the iron and steel I think is as little as would be sufficient to make a dozen. If, however, there is an error in that estimate, it is all the error there is. Everything else in the statement I Ere.sented showing that these manufactures but 7 cents protection from the government on their manufacture is as certain as the law. If there is any mistake about the law, there is a mistake about this calculation, but not otherwise. The manufacturer of a dozen hoes where a dollar and 50 cents protection is nominally given, has 7 cents only. The difference between free trade and this bill is 7 cents so far as he is concerned. I ask for the yeas&nays on the amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HENDRICKS. This a matter that affects the agricultural interest directly, though perhaps not very extensively. It seems to me that atax of $1 50 is enough on a dozen of hoes. The committe have come to that conclusion, and as one representing that interest, I hope the Senate will stand by the committee's report rather than adopt the amendment. The question being taken by reo. yeas,&nays, 11, nays 22; 19.
Mr. GRIMES. What are you talking about; poor cutlery?
Mr. FESSENDEN. If we discuss the general principles of the tariff bill, and protection to American labor, and the cost of labor on every amendment that is offered to this bill, I think we shall get through about this time next year if we keep in continuous session. believe this is the 3rd amendment that has been offered today, and it is now nearly half past 3 o'clock; we have been 2 hours and a half on the bill. I wish to suggest before saying what I have to say, that I have found myself for 2 successive days without a quorum. I do not know but that it will be so today; but I wish to notify the Senate that I shall ask them to remain until we finish the bill this evening. We ought to do it.
Mr. SHERMAN. We had better take a recess.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, I believe Senators can without going out of the building very easily stay the hungry edge of appetite, and the sacrifice is not a very great one to make for the business of the session. Now, Y. regard to this particular amendment, I should like to ask the Senfrom Connecticut how many pounds of steel it takes to make a dozen pocket knives?
Mr. FOSTER. I am not able to answer. I have not made the calculation.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator asks for an additional duty of 50 cents specific and 75 cents specific on certain grades of pocket knives. The reason why the committee did not put a specific duty on them was simply this: that to put a specific duty upon a very large portion of these pocket knives would necessarily exclude them from the country. They are of German manufacture ordinarily, and very low priced and used by children. such knives are not manufactured here in point of fact, and the original cost of them is not probably more than 50 cents a dozen or 75 cents a dozen. The result would be that the specific duty would be in excess perhaps of the whole price of the article.
Mr. FOSTER. The amendment does not propose at all to meddle with cutlery that is not invoiced at over 2 dollars a dozen.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think this is literally running the doctrine of protecting American labor into the ground and running it very deep into the ground, now into a mountain in WestVirginia, that somebody has bought there with a view to a large speculation, but which is a company of gentlemen of hardly begun to be developed as yet. What does the Senfrom WestVirginia ask? Because this mountain is in his State and may in process of time be developed, and because NewYork, speculators, very excellent gentlemen I have no doubt, have invested money there and mean to build a railroad in time, we should at once tax everybody that uses a pound of cement, everybody who uses anything of this quality for his roofing throughout the country; and, moreover, shut up all the factories in NewEngland where oil is manufactured out of this coal. Why, sir, one factory in my own town pays to the Government every year. I think something like 50 or 60,000 dollars of internalrevenue. The Senator would shut up all these factories and impose a very heavy duty upon the coal and everything they use because this undeveloped region exists in WestVirginia, which with a proper attention to the American system may in time be deve loped. I think it is unreasonable, and the mere statement of the case as the Senator has presented it shows the great impropriety of attempting to do any such thing. I. despair of stopping any movement that shall be made if this be successful. The same thing came before the committee and we did not regard it.”
Mr. WILLEY. I have no desire to wholly exclude this competition. All I desire is that the same principle shall be applied to this coal that we applied to merely bitumine us coal awhile ago, and that we are applying to every other article of American industry and devel: opment. All that I ask is that industry and capital in this direction shall have the same. that capital and industry in other irections have; that in developing our coal which we happen to have in WestVirginia we shall have the same protection that manufacturers have in other sections of the Union; that is to say, that our capital and industry shall be brought into a fair competition with foreign industry; and if we are to have protection given to anyone thing it seems to me we might as well have the same protection in this direction. I am asking for no exclusion; I am only asking for a reasonable protection, that kind of protection which has been extended all through this bill to every other article in it, that and no more. If the amount I ask is extravagant, let the Senate reduce it to what would be right. But if it was right in 1862 and 1863 to have a duty of 67 dollars a ton on this article, are we extravagant when we only ask 5 dollars a ton now? The existing tariff is 25%. advalorem, and if you look to the value of the article you will find that that amounts to 5 dollars a ton or about that. I only want this bill to stand upon the principles of fair play, that we shall have the same protection in this as in other directions. I do not want to ask anything of the Senfrom Maine or of any other senator that is unreasonable or unfair.
Mr. CHANDLER. I believe that this as phaltum deposit, in WestVirginia is a very rich one. I am informed that it yields a 120 gallons of oil to the ton. It is nearly as pure as resin. The Senate has this morning deliberately placed a duty of $1 50 a ton upon coal. The purest of coal yields from 20 to 40 gallons of oil to the ton. This yields 120 allons. I do not think the Senfrom WestVirginia asks an unreasonable protection when he asks 5 dollars upon this pure substance that is found in such vast quantities in his own State. I believe the mine in WestVirginia is the only one to be found in the U.S.; I have heard of no other having yet been discovered. They are now build:ing a railroad to that mine. I was informed. by a gentleman the other day that they were investing several 100,000 dollars, and in a very short time the oil would be produced in unlimited quantities. I really think the Senfrom WestVirginia makes but a fair demand when he asks for the small duty of 5 dollars a ton on this rich deposit.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If that deposit is so rich as it is said to be, what prevents these gentlemen from setting up their factories close along side of it and working it? Nothing can come in competition with it, surely. so rich, richer than anything on the face of the earth, why do they not set up their facto ries and begin to oit? Instead of that, before they have done a thing they ask the country to impose a duty upon every pound of cement that is used, everything that is used for roofing purposes, and everything that is made into oil, and to shut up the factories for the benefit of some unknown future. Now, let the Senator's friends who have investments in WestVirginia undertake to do their work in the 1st place and show what can be done before they ask us to lay this enormous tax on the country. I stated in the beginning that I do not hold to the doctrine of protection so far as this, that on a mere experiment we are to begin by laying heavy duties which tax the consumer very much until the production had become an object of interest and advanced so far that we can see what its benefit is. If we do that we shall not only get no revenue from customs, but we shall stop our internalrevenue by put ‘ting an end to the factories now existing.
Mr. CHANDLER. There are a great many interests that this comes in direct competition with. There is not a manufacturer of lard oil that is not interested in this kind of protection.
Mr. CONNESS. That is where you come in. [Laughter]
Mr. CHANDLER. No, sir; the State of Michigan does not produce lard oil at all. I do not think there is a gallon of it produced there; but there are many manufacturers of oil from coal and other substances, and they are all interested in this protection. I hope the amendment proposed by the Senfrom WestVirginia will be adopted.
Mr. SHERMAN. When this subject was under consideration in the committee my at tention was not called to it, and I supposed that this chap a po te, or asphaltum, bitumen, &c., was a very coarse material worth less than coal. I am now informed that the present duty of 25% is at least equal to 5 dollars per ton. On that point, if my friendfrom Maine has any information, I would like to have him give it. The present duty it seems does not operate injuriously to the interest or to the manufacture of oil.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The present duty is 25%. advalorem. I do not know what that would amount to per ton.
Mr. SHERMAN. I am told that the present rate of duty is at least 5 dollars a ton, at 25%. advalorem. If that is so, I do not see any occasion for reducing it. It is a very proper source of revenue. The business is prosperous if it yields anything like what is oil. if a ton of this product yields 100 gallons of oil. This same bifiewis a tax of. 20 or 40 cents a gallon on the oil extracted from the bitumen ”
Mr. SHERMAN. And 40 cents on the fine; so that it can very well bear a tax of 5 dollars a ton; and if 5 dollars a ton is not an increase of the present rate I shall vote for it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We do not know what it would be.
Mr. SHERMAN. I am imformed from the best information I can get
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is now 25%. advalorem.
Mr. SHERMAN. But I am informed that 25% is not more than 5 dollars a ton. If so, we had better make the duty specific and keep it at about its present rate. I certainly would not vote to reduce the duty, and when it was proposed to substitute 50 cents per ton for 25%, advalorem I supposed it was continuin the old rate, only making it specific; but i that be a mistake, as a matter of course we If it is: ought to continue the duty at about its present rate, making it specific. According to my present judgment I should vote for it at 5 dollars. The House have continued the old rate, 25%. advalorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Why should any heavier duty be levied on this than other kinds of coal?
Mr. SHERMAN. It is more expensive than coal. That is the information I have. I know nothing about the article myself, but I am in formed that it is much more valuable than coal. The Albertite is worth 3 times as much as coal, and if it is worth 3 times as much it ought to pay about the same rate advalorem that coal does, because that is the article with which it is brought in competition; and if 5 dollars a ton is equivalent to 20 5%. advalorem, that is about a fair rate. The information I get is that it is worth 20 dollars a ton.
Mr. HOWE. The way the case seems to be put is, that it is introducing a material which is equal to the production of 100 gallons of oil at a duty of 50 cents; that is, half a cent a gallon. It seems to me if our object in this bill is to raise revenue, that is making very slow progress toward it. I do not see why this oil cannot afford to pay as much duty as other oil.
Mr. WILLEY. The question, it strikes me, presents itself in this shape: if it will lead to the development of this rich mine in WestVirginia, as it will no doubt, and to the manufacture of oil to impose these rates, which are about equal to those now existing, under which the manufacturers of this article in the North have been able to live along and still pay a revenue to the Government, we can still get that revenue without diminution and increase our revenues by developing this great interest of the manufacture of oil and the duties upon it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The question is this: whether gentlemen wish to encourage manufactures. There are many things that are manufactured out of this article, of which it is a raw material, and the raw material is not yet developed in WestVirginia at all.
Mr. WILLEY. As the Senator seems to allude to that, I will state that the company are now erecting retorts at this point for the purpose of manufacturing the oil, and are buildin a railroad from th9 northwestern branch o the Baltimore and Ohio road, and expect to manufacture largely at that point, and also to manufacture it at Baltimore.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, Mr. President, I really cannot understand the process upon which gentlemen act on this subject. Here is an unde veloped mine, if you please, out of which the owners expect to make a large profit some day or other; and in the mean time, not having developed it, not having the raw material at all, not having begun even, except by building a railroad to get to it, they ask in advance that industries that have grown up out of the raw material ofrom abroad, which they have not at this time, shall suffer for their pros. ective benefit. That is just the amount of it. That is the question. I think that is cut ting pretty deep. I cannot go for this doctrine of protection to the extent to which gentlemen wish to carry it. I have no doubt if it shall be found in time that this coal, or whatever you please to call it, and it is for the ordinary uses of coal, merely used for the manufacture of coal, comes in competition with what shall turn out to be a great American interest, that at that time something will be done with regard to it to o: the matter; but to do it in advance and to stop the works which are already going on upon the foreign raw mate rial seems to me to be a very singular kind of Proof
Mr. WILLEY. The Senator will allow me to say that the specific duty which I propose is about the same as that now existing. The 3other a.rticle to which he alludes seems to have to the extent hementions with that duty upon it. I do not understand, therefore, the point of the Senator's remarks. We do not propose materially to increase the duty, if any at all, from what it now is. Our object is to prevent it from being reduced down to nothing, or to 50 cents a ton..It is 25%. advalorem now. Under the existing duty that interest has flourished, as the Senfrom Maine says, at Portland by the importation of the article from Nova Scotia and the manufacture of it here, thereby avoiding as you will see the 5 cents discrimination on every gallon of the oil under the provision of our revenue laws now, which imposes a higher duty on refined oil made out of petroleum than on that made out of cannel coal and other substances. In order to get the benefit of that discrimination, they send the crude material over to this country at $2.50 a ton or somewhere thereabouts, manufacture the oil, and then sell it for 5 cents less revenue duty upon a gallon than there is imposed upon the petroleum oil when refined, and in that way evade the duty and realize the handsome profit of 5 cents a gallon. But, sir, that is not the point. The point here is, that we have already expended in making arrangements for the manufacture of this article; indeed we manufacture to some extent already in WestVirginia from cannel coal and otherwise; but in regard to this as phaltum we have expended large amounts and are erecting retorts now to go into the manufacture and if the Nova Scotia article can live under a duty of 25%. advalorem, certainly I think it can live with a specific duty, amounting to about the same thing, of 5 dollars a ton.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The committee have one upon the principle in this bill, wherever they could, to reduce to the lowestP. point the duty on the raw material for the purpose of encouraging established manufactures. this not applied to this article alone, but to many other articles where the manufactures are established and progressing in this country. It was thought to be a part of the American system to encourage these manufactures. Gentlemen have been willing to apply it in a great many cases where they felt that interest with regard to their own sections; but now they wish to reverse it and overturn the manufactures for the benefit of the possible raw material that may be found hereafter. That is the argument. The Senator says that this duty is lower than it is upon petroleum. The reason is it costs much more to manufacture it, and the rate of duty upon the manufacturers of oil and the refiners of petroleum, and of this substance was fixed by agreement and compromise between the parties themselves as to what was right and just between them, and there have been no complaints from them. This business has not been prosperous. The works near my city have failed once. Senators talk about these great advantages, and yet they have had a very hard struggle to get along any how; and now the proposition is a they shall not have the benefit of the principle introduced into the tariff in regard to all other manufac. tures depending on raw material coming in from abroad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANThony.), The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom WestVirginia.
Mr. WILLEY called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. HOWE. I may be mistaken in the vote I am going to give. I am going to vote for this amendment, but without the slightest regard to the protection that is asked for this WestVirginia mine. I do not understand that the law or the duty of:. has anything to do with a mine. All the protection that ean be asked for, if any, is the difference between what it costs to take out from the deposit the raw material in this country and in any other country where there is a like deposit competing with it. That is all that protection has anything to do with. If you put duties beyond that point upon any such material it is. value to the article; it is not protection; but the people tax themselves to give an extraordinary value to that deposit; so that I do not vote upon the principle of protecting the WestVirgina mine. But I cannot understand for my ife, and nobody has told me yet, although I made an humble petition for it once, why this material, if it is capable of producing so much oil to the ton, cannot afford to pay a heavier duty than half a cent a gallon.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is the material that comes from WestVirginia.
Mr. HOWE. I have not understood that there was any difference between the 2 may terials. Then, on the other hand, it is said that this article is already paying now what is equivalent to 5 dollars a ton. I have not heard that disputed yet. I saw a paper here which states that but a few years since
Mr. SHERMAN. Allow me a word. Since I have spoken on this subject I have got a little further information from about the only source of information we have the special comrRev and it is no doubt reliable. He says the Albertite that is the most expen sive is worth more than 20 dollars, but shale, &c., the coarser produce, would be worth under 15 dollars; so that i suppose about 20 dollars is the average.
Mr. HOWE. Very: that would make this tax about 25%. But it is said that a few years since this same article E. 67 dollars a ton. I have not eard any explantion why that very extrava gant duty was placed upon it then; but for ‘mere purposes of revenue and guided by mere revenue considerations I do not understand why this should not be.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me say to the senator that that is an entire mistake. It came in free, the whole of it, up to a year ago, when the reciprocity treaty ceased to operate; and when the reciprocity ceased to operate, then it came under the general provision which was not made for that but for other articlesexported from other countries, of the same description. There was no duty on it whatever, and this duty that fell upon it in the course of the year, upon the repeal of the reciprocity treaty, is what has made it operate so enormously upon everybody that manufactured anything out of it. It was free entirely before that.
Mr. HOWE. Then this statement that that very large duty was levied upon it seems to be incorrect.
Mr. HOWE. But there is no mistake about the other proposition, that what is equivalent to 5 dollars a ton is levied on it now.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Undoubtedly, because it came under the existing tariff, which was not made for this particularly.
Mr. HOWE. I do not suppose it was made for this especial article, but it pays that duty now, and we are asked to reduce it in the interest of a single factory.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh, no; there are more than one.
Mr. HOWE. I have heard but one factory spoken of. But in the interest of the mere business of manufacturing or turning it into oil we are asked to reduce the duty from 5 dollars to 50 cents, and to yield up, so much revenue. That is encouraging manufactures rather too extensively, I think. I am just as fond of them as anybody else, and would do just as much for them; but it seems to me that is asking a little too much. I vote, therefore, for this amendment for the purpose of increasing the revenue. I have seen no evidence yet that the business of manufacturing will suffer if we continue that duty. They can still import it. I shall have to pay m art of the duty, Isuppose, if I use the H.who do use it will have to pay, as they pay all these taxes.
Skip Skip The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 20, nays 17 10. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Commissioner Wells, in his efforts to keep cotton machinery at 45%., makes use as an illustration of the duty on a pocket knife, and we are asked, Why do you want greater duties than we give upon pocket. knives? I reply, 1st, we do not get that, which is 55%. A spindle, that we have taken as an illustration, costs in currency $30 80, and weighs 124 pounds, and one dozen of knives, which would perhaps weigh 2 pounds, would cost 9 dollars per dozen. 3 and 1/3rd times 9 is 30 dollars, or about the cost of a spindle. If one dozen knives weigh 2 pounds, 3 and 1/3rd times 2 is 6 and 2/3rds pounds of imported material, or material affected by the tariff, enter into the construction of knives to 124 pounds of same material on spindles. We use in one construction of a spindle nearly 20 times the iron and steel that is used in the construction of a knife. We shall pay nearly 20 times the duty; 20 times more of the 70 to 150%. on iron and steel than is paid by knives. We ask but ten%. in addition. What a wide difference between the 2 branches of industry and how much of wisdom there is exhib ited in such an arrangement I leave to the Senate to determine. We make a basis of cotton machinery. We could make the same basis upon that of all other machinery. I therefore hope my amendment will prevail.
Mr. HEND RICKS. I do not know that I understand this amendment exactly; but I think it contains a new principle. Is it cus. tomary to provide in fo tariff that goods already contracted for and not shipped shall not be subject to the new duties? This propo.sition is that persons going into the manufac turing business who had contracted for their machinery before the 1st day of this month, shall be allowed to bring their machinery into the country under the old duties, and then when it comes in, if others want to go into the manufacturing business and buy machinery, they shall be embarrassed so far as the additional duties will embarrass them. If I understand the amendment that seems to be it.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I want in that connection to ask the Senator what cases he wants to provide for by this unusual legislation. I do not understand it. It is a proposition that the manufacturers who have already established their business and have purchased their machinery, and all manufacturers who want to enlarge their business or to commence a new establishment, but who made their contracts prior to the 1st of January, shall have the benefit of the old law, and then if anybody else wants to compete with them hereafter, he will be compelled to pay these high duties. if I understand it, it amounts to about that, and I do not think I can vote for it.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senfrom RhdIsland will offer the 2 propositions involved in his amendment separately.
Mr. JOHNSON. The question can be divided N Mr. CONNESS. Certainly. I am in favor of the 1st part of the Senator's amendment, but the latter part of iIt. should consider very unjust indeed. By another provision of this bill it will be remembered that we propose to collect duties upon all the goods of whatever kind in bond in our warehouses.
Mr. CONNESS. Already shipped and in bond; and yet here by a special provision the Senator proposes to exempt goods which are in foreign countries, not yet made. That is a proposition that I cannot support.
Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for a division of the question. I should like to have the amendment read again.
The Secretary read the 1st part of the amendment on page 37, section7, line 293, to strike out “45 ” and insert “65;” so as to make the clause read: On all machinery not herein otherwise provided for, composed in part of iron or steel, or of any other metal or material, complete or in parts, 65%. advalorem.
Mr. CONNESS. I move to amend the amendment by striking out “65 ” and inserting “ 60.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This being an amendment to an amendment the whole bill now under consideration is an amendment it is not amendable in the 3rd degree.
Mr. CONNESS. Then it will be in order to move to insert a somewhat lower rate, if this proposition be voted down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the 1st branch of the amendment offered by the Senfrom RhdIsland.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senator will modify his amendment to that extent, by inserting “ 60 ” instead of “65.”
Mr. SPRAGUE. The Senator might just as well ask me to say 40%., for it is as clear as that the sun rises and sets that these shops cannot be carried on at any less rate than that which I propose; and we need these shops. If you cut off the machine shops from the manufactories, you may just as well I ask that the question be throw your machine shops and manufactures into the ocean; the one is connected with the ootfher just as bread is connected with the life man almost.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not wish to oppose a matter of this kind; but this is an advance on the present rate of duty of 30%. The present rate of duty is 35%. The Senfrom RhdIsland proposes to make it 65.
Mr. SHERMAN. I mean it is an advance on the cost of the article of 30%., or an advance of nearly double the present duties. What reason is given for this? My friendfrom RhdIsland says we have added to the duties on steel and iron. When this subject was before the committee, and a gentleman was before us who was very much interested in this matter, I asked him, and I asked the question of dozens of others, what proportion do steel and iron bear to the cost of the article?
Mr. SHERMAN. My friend says one 5th. The general statement was one 10th. Now take his own statement, one 5th. Here is a machine that costs $100.
Mr. SHERMAN. Any machine. He says 30 dollars. Take a machine that costs 30 dollars. Now the raw material which enters into the manufacture of that machine, according to his statement, is 6 dollars; according to the general statement made before us 3 dollars. We have added to the cost of that raw material, 6 dollars, about 50 cents, or at most, one dollar. Now, because we have added to the cost of the raw material one dollar at the outside, therefore we must add 30%. on the cost of the completed article, or 9 dollars. That is the argument.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I go behind that, and say that before this increase of duty, it costs 3 times as much with the rates as now existing on iron and steel to produce this article of a spindle in this country as it does abroad.
Mr. SHERMAN. 2 years ago we framed a tariff law to meet that very difficulty; but now we have increased the duties generally about ten%. on certain leading and important staples, in order to protect our industry and to give us more revenue. In order to compensate for that increased duty for that is all there is required we are asked to give 30%. on the completed article of manufacture, when the addition to the cost of raw material is only about 5%. It seems to me that would destroy the object of this bill. I should like very much to accommodate my friendfrom RhdIsland; there is nobody whom I would more desire to accommodate; but the effect will be that at 65 r cent. we shall have no machinery imported into this country, and we shall get no revenue from it. The pretext, or the ground upon which this increase is proposed, is evidently delusive, because the whole increase to the raw material made by this tariff is probably not 3%, on the present rate of duty. The ComFinance have already allowed ten%., or nearly 30%. on the present rates. I believe they report 45%.; the old duty was 35; and I was perfectly willing at the urgent complaint of these manufacturers to vote for 50%, or even 55%., so as to put them on a footing with cutlery, although, as it is manifest, the rates of duty on cutlery being a more expensive article, are usually higher. The rates of duty I believe on table cutlery are 50%.; and I was perfectly willing to vote for 50%. on machinery; but to put it up to 65, it seems to me, would destroy o great object of this bill, to produce revenue, and I cannot vote for it.
Mr. CATTEJ, L. I was of the impression that this machinery was one of the items upon which the ComFinance did not put as much duty as was required to protect its manufacture; and I so expressed myself, and am in favor of some additional duty. I ask the Gentfrom RhdIsland if he will not consent to modify his motion so as to make it 55%. I will vote for that.
Mr. CONNESS. He has refused to make it o:
Mr. CATTELL. I was out of the Chamber for a few moments, and did not hear that proposition made. Then I shall most undoubt edly vote against the amendment as it stands, because I believe it to be more than is neces. sary. A motion to make the duty 55%. would meet with my approval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the senate ready for the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senfrom RhdIsland.
Mr. CONNESS. I will say to the Senfrom RhdIsland that the Senfrom NewJersey proposes that he modify his amendment so as to say 55%. I have already proposed that he should modify it so as to make it 60%. I believe that that is necessary. I believe that you are going to stop the workshops of the country engaged in producing machinery unless you give them a protection to this extent. I do not desire to enter into the question at this time, although I have thought upon it to some extent; but I hope the Senfrom RhdIsland will consent to modify his motion as I have suggested, and let us take a vote on 60%.
Mr. CONNESS. I understand that the senator consents to that modification of his motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr.ed MUNDs in the chair.) The question, then, is on the 1st branch of the amendment of the Senfrom RhdIsland, as modified, on page 37, section7, line 293, to strike out “45 ” and insert “ 60.”
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I do not know to what extent this sort of argumentation that has been presented by the honorable Senator will carry us. Now it is made mani fest, as it seems, that 100%. tariff is necessary to enable those engaged in manufacturing iron to conduct their business.
Mr. WILLIAMS. And this tariff bill gives it to them. Now the manufacturer of steel says, “You have fixed a tariff of 100%. on iron; our business is to make iron into steel, and you must favor us with the same duty that you do the manufacturer of iron;” and so you add another 100%., making 200%. And now here comes the man who makes that steel into machinery, and he says he must have 100%.; and so we pile one tariff upon another until the cost of the article, when it is finally finished, to the consumer is made fabu lous. There is some fallacy about this reasoning somewhere; because that is the legitimate result of it. That is the argument that is urged here on every hand. Every Senator who addresses the Senate with reference to these articles manufactured of steel commences by saying, “You have levied so much upon iron; we are entitled to as much as the men who make the iron; and so it goes on from one thin to another until the articles come to be so hig that nobody can afford to use them. I do not pretend to know as much about these things as many other Senators who live in manufacturing States; but one idea that operated upon my mind was this
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senate goes further than that and protects materials in the bowels of the earth, for fear they may be driven out of the country.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly, and that is a true proposition on the same system of argument. If a man discovers a mine in this country anywhere, immediately a tariff is imposed upon the article, and the effect of discovering a mine in this country is to make the article higher than it was before the mine was discovered. That is the general proposition; but that is not pertinent to this question.
Mr. ANTHONY. That is just what the Senate have done.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I know they have done it, but I did not help to do it. But I was about to state the idea which influenced me more than any other to vote for this report. I am not o: to oppose a reasonable increase; but the great cry in this country is, that the manufacturers, need protection; that the men who make the woolens and the cottons in the country need protection; and that was the reason I thought that if you put a high tariff upon the machinery, to that extent you injured the manufacturing interest of the country; that unless the manufacturin interest, which seems to be demanding an needs the most protection Mr. CONNESS. And so destroy another class to save them.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not suppose that a duty of 45%. would destroy them, and, as the honorable Senfrom Ohio said, it is impossible to show how it does destroy them; because the argument proceeds upon the assumption that the tariff upon iron and steel has increased the value of those 2 articles, and yet the same showing makes it appear that they constitute an inconsiderable part of this machinery; so that it is not because a high tariff is imposed upon the iron and the steel that this great duty is necessary; it must be for some other reason. I. suppose the main reason is because labor is higher in this country than it is in England. I should be willing, if it be the mind of those gentlemen of the Senate who understand the manufacturing business better than I do, to increase this duty. I do not propose to be obstinate in reference to the matter; but it is difficult to see, while the men who conduct the manufacturing business of the country are clamoring for protection, how we protect them if we impose an additional price upon the very articles they use in that business.
Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. President, I do not want to impose an additional tax upon the cot ton and woolen manufacturers; I do not want to make their machinery expensive; but this fact, in opinion, is abundantly proved, and I think the chairman of the ComFinance will agree with me that, unless there be some additional duty, the fabrication of iron machinery must, for the present at least, cease in this country. Whether that result is desir able or not others can judge for themselves; but I believe that will be the result. I expressly disclaimed, as the Senfrom Oregon would have heard if he had listened to me, demanding a higher duty upon machiney because there has been a higher duty imposed on iron. I know that the iron forms but a small part of the cost of the machinery.
Mr. WILSON. In some kinds of machinery it forms a good deal of the cost.
Mr. ANTHONY. It does in some kinds of machinery, but it does not form a 5th in this case, and generally not so much. I stated that an increased duty was necessary because at the present price of gold and at the present rate of duty machinery is brought from England and laid down here for 30%. less than we can make it. Senators will judge for themselves whether they wish to correct that or not. The difficulty that the Senfrom Oregon enlarges upon I perceive as well as he does. I perceive that when you put an enormous duty upon the manufacture of iron you are obliged to put a duty upon the manufactures made from iron, and when you put it on those manufactures you are obliged to put an equal duty upon the goods which the iron machines are employed to manufacture; but if that system is not right, then you must begin at the bottom and take the duty off the iron, because wherever you stop you destroy the industry that you stop with. If the edifice is going to topple over it is best to strengthen the foundation of it. With regard to the great duties that the manufacturers of cotton and wool demand I think the Senator exaggerates them. I do not think the manufacturers of cotton and woolens demand great duties. If they do they certainly have not been accommodated in this bill; for the duties on cottons are somewhat lower; the duties on linen are lower; and in the duties on wool and woolens the committee have accepted the House bill with regard to the advance on wool, but have not accepted it on woolens.
Mr. FESSENDEN. One of the items on which the charge was predicated on woolen manufactures in the House bill was the duty on dye stuffs, and we have taken off the duty on dye stuffs in almost every instance.
Mr. ANTHONY. That does not amount to so much as the reduction of duty on woolens from the rates of the House.bill.
Mr. ANTHONY. I am not so informed. The Senator probably knows better than I do.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We did not make the calculations ourselves, but had them made by an expert with the direction to make the duties conform.
Mr. ANTHONY. I submit to the superior information of the committee, and I have no doubt it is correct. But with regard to the great duties demanded by the woolen and cot ton manufacturers, one of the largest manufacturers and one of the most intelligent men in the country said to me the other day, “Give me the free importation of my raw material; relieve me from all internal taxes; impose, a duty of 25% and collect it, and it is all I want; that would be better than the present bill, and better than any bill I have d2: a(1.
Mr. ANTHONY. But with such enormous duties, duplicated and quadrupled upon every thing that enters into the fabrication of their goods, it is impossible for them to get along without corresponding duties.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have had the impression that there ought to be a slight increase of the duties on machinery; but by no means so much as is stated by the Senfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. SPRAGUE] I am informed, however, that a very accurate calculator, after cal culating the duties he made an accurate cal culation last night says that even 45% is one and one 8th cent over the duties imposed upon the raw material, iron and steel; so that in reality they have more protection. How true it is I do not know. He undoubtedly believes it.
Mr. ANTHONY. Than under the present tariff?
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir; as we have fixed it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In the bill as we reported it, taking the increased duties on steel and iron and the increased duties on machinery.
Mr. ANTHONY. That the increase on machinery is more than the increase on the raw material?
Mr. FESSENDEN. In proportion. I have no doubt it M. ANTHON." iono, likely. I expressly said that this demand was not made in consequence of the increase on iron; but it seemed to me the same principle that made the duty of 100 to 120%. upon iron and steel would justify a duty of more than 45%. upon machinery.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It depends entirely upon the proportion. If the increase now is greater than that on the raw material out of which it is made, that ought to be satisfactory, unless the business was languishing before.
Mr. ANTHONY. That is the case precisely. The reduction of the price of gold would have destroyed the business but for protection.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to state the whole case. There was one fact that was not denied, and that was that the business of the manufacture of machinery in this country was so pressing that the machine shops could not fill the orders offered them in the time the machinery was required, and in consequence those who offered them were obliged to send to Europe in order to get the machinery made in the time they wanted it. The orders were so great that the manufacturers of machinery could not fill them for want of time and ability to complete them.
Mr. ANTHONY. And also owing, if the Senator will allow me, to the diversion of a large portion of the fabricators of iron to the service of the country during the war. That made a great difference.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That may be. At any rate more orders were offered to them than they could fill, even at the old prices.
Mr. ANTHON.Y. That is undoubtedly so; but the fact upon which this demand is made is, that under the existing tariff machinery can be laid down in this country from abroad 30%. cheaper than it can be manufactured ere. I know that one of the largest machine makers and one of the best in the country, and I think from the Senator's own State, has gone out of the business of manufacturing and gone into the business of importing machinery Mr. Thompson, of your State, one of the best me chanics in the country.
Mr. CONNESS. More than that, they take orders and import the machinery and fill the orders, and make a profit on the transaction.
Mr. ANTHONY. Certainly; and one of the largest machine makers in my State told me that for himself he was very indifferent as to the increased duties on machinery; he could make quite as much by importing as he could by manufacturing it; but he employs 1000men, and they and their families consume 2 or 3,000 barrels of flour and a great deal of wheat, pork, and beef, and all that would be consumed in England if we shut up these shops.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not wish to be misunderstood. The Senator says the burden of my song yesterday was protection to commerce. I deny it entirely. I do not think Imentioned the subject much yesterday. What I said in the beginning I stick t;o that in the construction of a tariff bill of this description, while the main great object is followed of protecting American industry, we must, in some cases, take into consideration the effect that certain duties will have upon our commerce. That is what I stated, and I still maintain that position, for I do not wish to be considered a man of one idea. I would rather be able to look upon all the interests that are involved and have a tendency to produce benefitto our country and increase its wealth and its power. I shall not attempt to follow the Senator in what he has stated. He argues always precisely in the same line, and that is that there is nothing to be considered but protection, and principally the protection of cotton manufac. tures, and that, after all, if you look out and protect cottons well the whole object of legisation is accomplished. I do not agree with him in that particular, and therefore it is hardly worth while for us to enter into discussion.
Mr. SPRAGUE. In answer to that, I will simply call attention to the fact that I am an advocate of protection to other interests.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much% age does that propose?
Skip Skip The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr.ed MUNDs in the chair.) The question is on the 1st branch of the amendment proposed by the Senfrom RhdIsland. Mr. GRIMES called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 15, nays 17; 20.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 1st branch of the amendment is rejected, and the question now recurs on the 2nd branch, to insert after line 293 of section 7 the words: Provided, That all machinery contracted for in good faith before January 1, 1867, shall be admitted at the rate of duty provided for by law at the date of said contract.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How are you going to tell that?
Mr. ANTHONY. It will be determined under such regulations as the SecyTreasury shall prescribe. Several MEMBERs. Oh, no; vote it down.
Mr. ANTHONY. I think it ought to be adopted, and I will state the reason why. The case does not stand, as the Senfrom Indiana stated, on the same basis as imported goods bought in the open market. The date is fixed at which this bill is to go into effect, the 1st of April. That i.time for all goods that have already been bought in good faith to come in under the present rates of duty, which is mani festly proper, because the Government has told its citizens that they could import goods at certain rates, and on the faith of that law they have bought goods and they ought to be allowed to bring them in at that rate. Everybody admits that. I wish now to bring machinery contracted for under the same rule, because you cannot go into the market and buy machinery as you can buy cotton and woolen goods, car pets, and pig iron. It is not there; it is not made to order and sold in the markets of Europe; but it is contracted for. Therefore if you mean to give to the importer of machinery the same advantage you give to the importer of any other goods, you must give him, after he has contracted for the manufacture, the same privilege you give to others for the purchase of goods. It is manifestly inequitable to do otherwise.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If this machinery be kept out of the country by this tariff, does not that enable the American manufacturers to make the machinery and thus protect them?
Mr. ANTHONY. Certainly not, because the machinery is already contracted for. The question is ".you will allow a man to bring in his machinery at the rate of duty you told him he might when he agreed to have it manufactured, or whether, after he has made his contract on the faith of your tariff, you will increase the duty.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to know what distinction the Senator would make betweenthat case and the one I will state. A man imports a certain quantity of goods, no matter of what kind, oputs them in bond; and we pass a tariff bill, as we have done repeat edly, saying that upon those very goods in bond imported under that tariff he shall pay a higher duty.
Mr. ANTHONY. But you put the operation of the new tariff sufficiently ahead to let him take his goods out.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Repeatedly not. Some times we have made the bill go into effect the day it passes.
Mr. ANTHONY. But I think the Senator himself agreed with me that it was a very unjust proceeding.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I gave notice at one time that in that particular bill I would exempt goods in bond, but that afterward in all tariffs would insist upon putting on the duties of the new bill at once," have acted on that principle. In regard to this bill we have named the 1st day of April as the day for it to take effect. Whether that will be agreed to by the House, whether they will not put it sooner, or whether they will not put it precisely as the original bill was, that it hol? take effect immediately upon its passage, I do not know.
Mr. ANTHONY. We shall have to do as the Senator says about that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is very likely that the House will disagree to the time we have fixed, and then that will be a matter of compromise. Perhaps we have put it too far ahead. At any rate, it is only an expression of opinion on the part of the Senate, and at the time it was agreed to perhaps we did not think sufficiently of the ease with which an order can now. to Europe, and how our country might be lled up between now and the 1st day of April. Since we passed the last tariff bill the Atlantic telegraph has been put in operation. I only say this to show that it is uncertain what will finally be done on that point, and that any operations founded upon our action by people who send out orders simply because the Senate have fixed the 1st of April may prove entirely fallacious. But at any rate, as we have adopted that principle, and acted upon it in tariff after tariff, I see no reason why the importers of machinery not yet made should not precisely come under the same operation, and if they bring it in pay the duty prescribed. I have no idea of legislating exclusively for the benefit of those who are rich enough to send out and get their machinery made abroad and imported here at the same time that we put a heavy duty on anybody else who imports it.
Mr. ANTHONY. It does not require any richer man to import machinery at 66 cents than it does to manufacture it here at a dollar, and I think this amendment places the importer of machinery on precisely the same platform as the importer of other articles. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CONNESS. I now renew the 1st part of the amendment proposed by the Senfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. SPRAGUE, ] only substituting 55 for 60%; so as to make the clause read: On all machinery not herein otherwise provided for, composed in, part of iron or steel or any other metal or material, complete or in parts, 55%. advalorem.
Mr. CATTELL. I hope that amendment will prevail. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Whenever the duty is raised upon copper as the gentleman proposes, then again the argument will be urged that we have heard so often, “You have put a very high tariff upon the raw material, and now you must add to the duties upon every manufactured article into which that material enters;” and that illustrates, it seems to me, the folly of imposing these high duties upon what constitute raw materials for the manufacturing business of the country. This bill already adds very much to the duties upon eopper. On copper ore the bill places a duty opten%. advalorem; the present tariff is 5% advaloren; so that this bill, as it was reported by the committee, doubles the duty upon copper ore, and it would seem that that ought to be a sufficient advance of the duty upon the raw material. Then on the regulus of copper the bill of the committee puts a duty of 20%. advalorem, j. the present duty is only 5%. Here is an increase from 5%, to 20%. advalorem.
Mr. CHANDLER. It is only ten%. in the bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We have made it 15%. on regulus of copper.
Mr. STEWART. I hope this amendment will prevail. I represent a constituency that is not engaged in manufacturing at all, but still I am willing to vote for high tariffs on the articles they consume, because I want them to buy from the people of the U.S. The U.S. are building railroads to us and improving the country, and I prefer to buy in the U.S. I think the good of the country requires that these articles should be protected in a reasonable way. In regard to this matter of copper, the senate may not be aware that we have on the Pacific coast and in the interior of the country, between that and the Mississippi valley, a large amount of copper ore, veins undevel oped, but which are very rich. The other taxation. the production of copper ore is so great that the mines on the Pacific coast remain undeveloped. A mine in California must be very rich, very superior to one in Chili to justify, working it so as to come in competition with the product of the latter. In consequence of the high price our miners have to pay for their supplies, their clothing, and everything they consume, as compared with the cost of the same articles in Chili, the same class of copper mines cannot be worked there so as to compete with Chili. As the mining of copper is comparatively in its infancy in the U.S., and we have an abundance of copper ore enough to supply the world if we could only develop it it seems to me that it should be protected, and I hope that the amendment of the Senfrom Michigan will prevail. A duty of ten%. advalorem on copper ore imported is no protection. It is the most difficult thing in the world to ascertain the real value of it, and the provision can be evaded without the slightest difficulty in regard to the ores from Mexico and South America. If we are to have our mines developed under the existing state of things we must have some protection to this product.
Mr. CHANDLER. The mistake the Senfrom Oregon makes is in considering cop per ore a raw material. As I said, it just costs 3%. to smelt it; it is within 3% ofingot copper, and hence the error the committee have made in making so great a discrimination between the copper ore andingot copper. The fact is that copper mining has been carried on at a loss with prices at from 28 to 30 cents, when 6 years ago it was carried on at a profit at prices from 16 to 20 cents. such is the fact today. The increase in the price of labor, the increase of the cost of living, and the increase of the cost of transportation have carried the expenses up to double. If there has been a profit anywhere in copper mining it has been with the smelters, who had this large advantage over the miners. As has been justly said by the Senfrom Nevada, ten%. duty on the ore is almost inappreciable, because it is the duty paid on the value in Chili or Peru or wherever the ore comes from, without counting the additional cost of transportation, I ask for a less duty on the copper after it is smelted than is today and has been paid in the shape of internalrevenue tax upon every 100 pounds of copper raised in the U.S. certainly it is just and right and proper that we should have the same protection, which would be 3 and 55 /100ths cents instead of 3 cents a pound, which is Iall propose. I hope the amendment will prevail.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I find in a journal entitled the American Mining Index a statement of the production of copper in one county in the State of Michigan, the county Keweenaw, and I find there this extract from a paper published in that county: “It appears upon oil. with the previous iynegar (1865)that although therewere lessmineswork in the district, nevertheless there was a gratifying increase in the number of tons of copper shipped the present season over the previous one of 389 tons.” I find that from that one county there were shipped last year 3,600 sotons and 891 pounds of copper, and the increase over the previous year, in round numbers, was 389 tons, showing that the production of copper in that one county amounted to between 3 and 4,000 tons, and that the production increased in 1866 over that of 1865. On this statement I do not think the business is suffering; I do not think this tariff is necessary to enable those engaged in this mining business to prosecute their labor and produce copper. And, sir, if copper be not a raw material, there is no such thing as a raw material. There is comparatively, with the many other interests into which copper enters, but a small proportion of capital employed in the production of copper ore; and it is manifest that if this excessive protection is given to the capital and the labor employed in the production of cop per ore digging this ore out of the ground other great interests in the country which cannot be prosecuted without the use of copper raust necessarily suffer. It is a fact it does not seem to have much weight here, but it is a fact that the ship building business of this country is rapidly crossing the ocean, and that that immense interest is passing into the hands of the British ship builders. A tax of this kind upon copper will further tend to drive that business out of the country, and prevent persons who otherwise might engage in the of building ships from engaging in that pursuit.
Mr. FOSTER. The Senator will excuse me for interrupting him on that point. I can in form him that in the largest ship building district in this country at the present time there is but one ship on the stocks. I do not think, therefore, the business will be diminished a great deal.
Mr. CHANDLER. Let me tell the Senfrom Oregon that there is a clause in this very bill giving a drawback on all copper and iron materials used in ship building. I think that very unjust, but I shall not attack it if my amendment prevails.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It is true, that drawback is provided for; but I do not think that is a sufficient reason why the tariff on copper should be increased in the manner proposed by the Senfrom Michigan. Ionly refer to ship building as an illustration. suppose copper is used in a great many other ways beside in the business of building ships, and this will affect all the interests in which the use of copper is necessary.
Mr. HOWARD. I wish to ask the Senfrom Oregon from what paper it was that he read.
Mr. WILLIAMS. This paper is entitled the American Mining Index, and the extract contained in it which I read is taken from the Keweenaw Times.
Mr. HOWARD. I fancy the article in i. that simply relates to one single mine, which appens to have been very fortunate. I am somewhat familiar with the gentlemen engaged in the mining interests in my State, and it is the uniform complaint with those gentlemen that the internalrevenue tax upon their industry has been so onerous that it has produced the effect of discouraging the working of the mines, although there has been a small duty on the imported article. They have been the losers between the upper and nether millstone. The duty upon the imported article has not been sufficient by any means to counterbalance the burden imposed upon them under the internalrevenue laws; and instead of making money from this business, I believe it to be true that for the last year or so, as a general fact, they have been losing; and the fact is undoubtedly true that the companies are getting discouraged and are upon the point, many of them at least, of giving up their business and going into liquidation in consequence of the burdens which are thus imposed upon them. I really hope that this amendment of my colleague will be adopted. I think the country in the end will derive a very great benefit from it, because it will tend to encourage the production of copper, an article that enters into almost all the machinery of the country, upon railroads, upon ships, and almost every other description of machinery.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I was anxious myself that such duties should be placed upon copper as would tend to increase the manufacture of of it and protect it, and I thought this bill was so arranged as to accomplish that purpose. If the Senators from Michigan think it is not, I have no objection to letting them have it their own way, so far as I am individually concerned; but my opinion is, derived from the best information I can obtain on the subject, that the course they are taking is destroying their own object. Take copper ore. Nobody thinks of laying a very heavy duty on the ore or regulus.of copper. There is a very small quantity imported, and it is imported for the purpose of working the copper ores of this country. They cannot be worked without it, and that is what it is used for, and for that purpose it is imported to a small extent. Those who manufacture copper from imported ore mix it with the ores of California or the ores of Michigan in order to work it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is all a mistake, I suppose, but I get it from people who are engaged in the business, who import it for that purpose, and who seem to be very much interested in it. The statement certainly applies to the ores of California.
Mr. CHANDLER. It does not apply to the Michigan ores.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am inclined to think it does. The idea of imposing this very high duty upon ore which comes in in such small quantities for the mere purpose of being mixed with our ores, and especially for the benefit of the copper mines on the Pacific coast, whose ore cannot be worked without it, is to me some what mysterious. In order to protect copper you must build up the manufacture of copper. It is of no use to get out the ore and not manufacture it in this country. You must, therefore, do something to help the manufacturers reduce it to shape, and that is the principal and about the only purpose for which foreign copper ore is introduced. Even though that is the case, the committee have doubled the duty on copper ore, putting it up from 5%. to ten%., and trebled the duty on regulus of copper, putting that up from 5 to 15%.; and with reference to copper in pigs, we have carried that duty up from 2 and 1/2 to 4 cents a pound. The House put it at 5 cents. I think the rates we have fixed are high enough for all purposes, and that on the ore and on the regulus, if any fault can be found with it, is too high, and it will only produce an injurious effect on the very result my friends from Michigan want to accomplish, and that is a larger production. But, sir, I am not going to contest the matter. It is their interest particularly, and if they are willing to take the risk I am willing to let them do it, as far as I am concerned, I cannot vote for it, because it is against my judgment.
Mr. CHANDLER. Gentlemen call ore a raw material. I have seen ores taken out of the mines in blocks yielding 97%. of pure copper and weighing 4 or 5,000 pounds. In other words, they are copper blocks and yet they are ore.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If it is so pure and so much superior to all other copper ore, why is copper ore brought from foreign countries at all?
Mr. CHANDLER. Because it is more expensive to get out. It has to be cut out with a cold chisel, and it is more expensive to mine it than it is to mine ore that has only 4 or 5%. It is more expensive also to get it to market. And yet copper so taken from the mine in this way is called a raw material; and men talk of these blocks of pure copper, or at least yielding 97%, as raw material. There is a block in the Washington Monument of Michigan copper 97%. Anybody can go there and look at that block, Michigan's contribution to the Washington Monument; pure copper, just as it was mined from the mine. If.been thrown into the smelting mill it would have turned out 97%. The explanation of the article read by the Senfrom Oregon is very simple. The men at Keweenaw Point have added to their machinery very much. They had an immense amount of rock on hand, a great many 1,000 tons, which they could not work with their old machinery. They had been accumu lating for years, and I believe they have been at work for the past year grinding up that accumulation of years, and have increased their quantity there; but the mining interests of Lake Superior, as a whole, have fallen off more than 1/3rd, and I believe one half, and they have actually been compelled to abandon all but their richest mines. Now, if it is the policy of the Senate to have these mines abandoned and send your coin abroad or your bonds, at 66 cents on the dollar, to buy copper when your mountains are full of it, so be it; but I assure Senators that this is not a sufficient protection to keep our mines going. The House I think recommended 20%.
Mr. CHANDLER. 15%, on the ore and 20%. on the regulus, and 5 cents a pound, I think, as I have it, upon the copper in the pig. I prefer, if I can get, the specific sums of in my amendment. They amount substantially to the same rates that are fixed in the House bill. h; FESSENDEN. What% age are they?
Mr. CHANDLER. About the same as the House bill: 15 and 20%. respect ively as near that as you can possibly get at it. My amendment is virtually the same as the House proposition in this respect. I hope the Senate will sustain this amendment; it is but just, and it is the lowest sum that will enable our miners to work. The HoRep went into a thorough investigation; they took the sworn testimony of a great many witnesses. I have it before me; but I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate in reading it; but the best and most experienced miners swore that this is the lowest sum that will enable them to run their mines. The amendment to agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wish to submit to the Senate 2 or 3 amendments, occupying as little time as possible. The 1st relates to the subject of zinc.
Mr. SPRAGUE. If the Senator will give way I will move an adjournment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before put ting the question on that motion the Chair will lay before the Senate certain bills from the HoRep for reference. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The following bills from the HoRep were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below: A bill (H.R.No. 666) authorizing the SecyWar to purchase certain property for too, purposes to the ComMilAffrs . A bill (H.R.No. 820) for the relief of Henry S. Davis to the ComPubBldg and Grounds. A bill (H.R.No. 967) for the relief of James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland to the ComClaims. A bill (H.R.No. 1044) for the relief of John Gray, a revolutionary soldier to the ComPensions. A bill ( H.R.No. 1045) for the relief of Daniel Frederick Bakeman, a revolutionary soldier to the ComPensions. A JtResolution (H.R.No. 211) for the the amendment was relief of George W. Lane, superintendent of the branch mint at Denver, Colorado, and Asst Treasurer of the U.S. to the ComClaims. A JtResolution (H.R.No. 244) to amend existing laws relating to internalrevenue to the ComFinance. The amendments of the HoRep to the JtResolution (S.R.No. 99) for the relief of Paul S. Forbes, under his contract with the Navy Dept for building and furnishing the steam screw sloop of war Idaho, were referred to the ComNavAffrs. THE TARIFF BILL.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. House bill No. 718 is before the Senate, and the Senfrom RhdIsland moves that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. CONNESS. I ask the Senator to with draw that motion for a moment and I will renew it.
Mr. CONNESS. I am willing to stay here if there is the slightest chance of voting on this bill tonight, but we have been here already 6 hours and a quarter and I find that senators all around have amendments to offer; there is no prospect of getting through. I hope, therefore, we shall adjourn. I renew the motion.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I consider it my duty to ask for the yeas&nays. The matter is at the disposition of the Senate. They can do as they see fit. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 7, nays 21; 2. So the Senate refused to adjourn.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move an amendment: to strike out in line 692 of section 9 on page 69, the word “two, ” and insert “three;” so as to read: On white oxide of zinc, or zinc paint, dry, 3 cents per pound. This interest is a new and important interest in this country
Mr. FESSENDEN. The committee do not make any objection to that increase. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On the 40th page, line 70, of section 8, I move to strike out “three” and insert “4;” so as to read: On zinc in sheets, 4 cents per pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is rather high. Put it at 3 and a half cents and we shall make no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Very well. I will take 3 and a half, and I so modify my amendment. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Now in line 68 of that section I move to make the duty “on zinc, spelter, or teutenague, in blocks or pigs, ” 2 and half cents instead of 2 cents per pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I make no objection to that.
Mr. FOSTER. To that portion of the amendment which relates to spelter I must object: It will increase the cost of various manufactures that are made up of this article to a very great extent. The duties imposed by the bill to protect those manufactures are adjusted to the duty at the rate of 2 cents per pound; that is an increase on the present rate; and the increase of duties on the various manufactured articles is not so much relatively as on this item, as the bill stands. The attention of the chairman of the ComFinance was called to it, and I understood him to agree that, in his opinion, putting the duty on spelter at 2 cents a pound was putting it higher relatively than the duties on articles manufactured from spelter, as now arranged in the bill. This addition will make it impossible for the manufacturers to go on without an increase of duties on articles into the manufacture of which spelter enters as a component part. If you increase the duty on that, as now proposed, I think there will be an end to the manufacture of the articles into which this enters. That is my belief.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This article is imported from Prussia to a considerable extent, and there labor is 2 shillings a day; here it is $250 a day. This is an article which is found in very many of our States east and west, and an interest which ought to be fos tered in this country. It is not one of those interests that exist in the future and in mere imagination, but is now established, and this country is able to supply all that is required of this most important article. I hope that the amendment will prevail.
Mr. FOSTER. The article is used very little in the condition in which this clause of the bill supposes it to be. It is amalgamated with other metals, and so makes up various articles that go into use in the country. In that way a large amount of labor is employed. Now, if you increase the price of this material, which goes into and makes up a component part of many other articles of manufacture, without increasing the duties on those several articles, you will not be protecting home labor: you will be doing the exact reverse. If the protection given to this article as a raw material is greater than that to the articles manufactured from it, the foreign manufactured articles will be imported, and there will be no. demand for this. you will be giving to American labor with one hand and way with two.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is precisely the principle that has been adopted with regard to other things today.
Mr. FOSTER. I am aware of that; but I hoped the Senate would stop at some point possibly here. If they are not to stop at all, of course I must submit.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This article is imported at 5 cents in gold and sold in NewYork at 9 cents currency. If very little use be made of it by manufacturers, it will do those who the learned Senfrom Comecticut fears will be injured by it very little damage. I insist respectfully that, an interest like this, which is already established in this country for the production of an article that we have in a great many of the States, ought to be fostered and protected; and I hope the amendment, which it seems is not disagree able to the committee, will prevail.
Mr. GRIMES. I am really astonished to hear such an argument against this proposition as has been urged by the Senfrom connecticut, namely, that the effect of it will be to increase the price of materials that are to be used in the different households of this country. I understand that that is the very principle on which the bill is predicated; oit is upon that principle we propose that this nation shall grow rich and all the people in it. This article of zinc is an article of universal consumption. There is hardly a family in the land that has not articles of some description or other that are made of this material. I suppose there is not a stove in my State that has not a plate of zinc beneath it. The "Senfrom Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] suggests that in some portions of his State they make shoes of it. [Laughter] I have never seen it used in my State for that purpose. Now, it is proposed, for the sake of encouraging the production of zinc in the State of NewJersey, that we shall impose an additional tax on all the people throughout the country upon such articles as i. zinc and and teutenague may be made into. I shall of course vote against this amendment; but I cannot conceive how the Senfrom Connecticut, who I understand to be in favor of the general proposition of the bill, can interpose any objection to the amendment of the Senfrom NewJersey.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. President, I am in favor of protecting home industry, but I am not in favor of protecting it in the way that is here suggested; and if this bill is finally brought into such a position as a few amendments of this sort would place it, I shall be compelled, act.ing upon the principle of voting in favor of protecting American industry, to vote againstit.
Mr. GRIMES. I have been enlightened by the Senfrom NewYork on 2 points: 1st, that no question of political economy enters into or has controlled the committee in preparing this bill, or, should govern us in voting for it. I judged as much before, but I was not aware of it until I heard the statement authoritatively made by a gentleman who is a strong advocate, as I understand, of the measure. I should like to address to him one inquiry: if it be true, as I understand from his argument he asserts it is, that all classes in this country are to be equally protected under our tariff law this permanent tariff law that he speaks of : will we not occupy the same that we do now? Who is going to be benefited and who is going to be injured, and where is the money to come from with which to support the Government? But I am instructed upon another point, and that is, that the ComFinance have informed the Senate and the country that under this bill there will be a o: smaller amount of and a greater or an equal amount of gold realized to the Treasury o, under the present tariff law. I am aware that the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] made that statement the other day; and I undertook to ascer tain, if I could, in what manner he proved it; but I came to the conclusion that it was a mere expression of his judgment, such as all of us can entertain perhaps, one probably with as much accuracy as another. But the committee have made no such report as that. I have not heard any such declaration as that from the chairman of the ComFinance. I hardly think he will be willing to make that statement; I hardly think the SecyTreasury will be willing to make that statement; and I suspect there are hardly more than 2 or 3 members of this body who concur with the Senfrom Ohio in that expression of opinion. The truth is, Mr. President, you will not raise as much revenue under this tariff as you did last year by $50,000,000. That is a mere assertion of mine I know.
Mr. SHERMAN. Nobody claims that we shall.
Mr. GRIMES. I understand the Senfrom Ohio says that nobody claims that we shall raise won $50,000,000 as much as we did last year.
Mr. SHERMAN. But I say that this tariff as it stood not if you are going to pile duties upon duties, but as it stood I think will raise considerably more revenue than the existing tariff during the same time.
Mr. CATTELL. If the Senfrom Iowa will permit me, I made the same statement in my remarks, and I said I thought the distinguished chairman of the committee would perhaps agree with me, that the amount of revenue would be about the same under this as under the last tariff; that it would not change much; but I took occasion then to state that the amount of customs receipts would unquestionably, for certain causes, be reduced the coming year. I have no doubt it will be 40 or 50 millions less, and I hope it will be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the senate ready for the question on the amendment of the Senfrom NewJersey?
Skip Skip Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 'I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were not ordered. The question being put, there were on a division ayes 5. Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask for the yeas&nays. It will be necessary to have the yeas&nays in order to get a quorum. There is not a quorum voting on the division. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 8, nays 1;7 as follows: YEAS–8. NAYS 17. 27. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question the yeas are 8, and the nays 1;7 no quo rum voting. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I move that the Senate adiourn. he motion was agreed t;o and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, January 25, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoxNToN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. DEFENSE of THE N of the ASTERN FRONTIER.
Mr. PATTERSON, by unanimous consent, from the ComForAffrs, reported a bill to provide for the defense of the northeastern frontier; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, recommitted, and with the accompanying report ordered to be printed.
Mr.?, by unanimous consent, submitted the views of the minority of the committee; which were also ordered to be printed.
Mr. PATTERSON entered a mtRtv the bill was recommitted.
Mr. ORTH moved that 1,000 extra copies of the majority and minority reports be printed for the use of the House. The motion, under the law, was referred to the ComPrintg. REMOVAL OF WreCK IN NEWYORK HARBOR.
Mr. DODGE. I ask unanimous consent to take from The SPEAKer's table Senate JtResolution No. 156, to provide for the removal of the wreck of the iron steamship Scotland, on the bar outside of Sandy Hook, and to put it upon its passage. The JtResolution been here since the 10th instant. It is a matter of great importance this sunken wreck should be removed, as during the late storm, lying as it does at the entrance to NewYork harbor, it was a serious obstruction to navigation. There was no objection; and the JtResolution was taken up and read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution was then ordered to a 3rd reading; and it was accordingly read the 3rd time.
Skip Skip Mr. DODGE demanded the previous question on the passage of the JtResolution. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof, the JtResolution was passed. Mr. DODGE mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to. RAILROAD IN MICHIGAN.
Mr. LONGYEAR, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to extend the time for the reversion of the lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad from Amboy via Hills dale and Lansing to some point on or near Traverse bay, in the State of Michigan, and for the completion of said road, ” approved July 3, 1866; which was read a 2nd and 3rd time, and referred to the ComPublLands. INDIAN SUPERINTENDENCY IN COLORADO.
Mr. BRADFORD, by unanimous consent, offered the following preamble and resolutions; which were read, considered, and agreed to: i.rrWeghuelraeraitsiesit is represented that, gross frauds and have been committed in disbursing the ofor the Indian service in colorado and June 30, 1897.Therefore, be it resolved, That the ComIndAffrs be instructed to inquire in what manner and for what purposes pended by the moneysso appropriated have been exthe superintendent of Indian affairs for the Colorado superintendency, and particularly to ascertain how much money hasoto one M. I}. Cummings for services as clerk of said superintendency, what service the said M. B. Cummings has performed, and where, he or she resides, and report cthoenvfeanctiesnscoea, scertainedto this ifouse at their earliest Abif resolved, That said committeehave power to send for personsand papers. CALL OF COMMITTEES.
The SPEAKER stated as the regular order the call of committees for reports of a private nature, commencing with the ComNavAffrs, the pending question being on the report made last Saturday by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] from that committee. PAUL S. FOR des. The House accordingly resumed the consideration of JtResolution of the Senate No. 99, for the relief of Paul S. Forbes, under his contract with the Navy Dept for building and furnishing the steam screw sloop of war Idaho. The resolution authorizes the SecyNavy to accept the steam screw sloop of war Idaho of the contractor, Mr. Forbes, at the contract price of $600,000, or transfer the said vessel to the contractor on the latter giving bond with sufficient security to refund to the Dept, within 6 months from the date of such transfer, all advances of money made by the Government to the said Forbes on account of the construction and equipment of said vessel.
Mr. KELLEY. I request the reading of the petition of Mr. Forbes, being the most condensed statement that could be made of the case.
Mr. KELLEY. In reply to the Gentfrom Ohio, I will say that while the amendment proposes to give the contract price for this vessel, it will still leave this patriotic citizen who engaged in the work of improving our naval architecture a loser of $300,000.
Mr. KELLEY. With that statement I call the previous question.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would ask the Gentfrom o[Mr. KELLEY, ] if the ComNavAffrs was unanimous in this report?
Mr. KELLEY. I cannot answer that ques "tion precisely. My recollection is that all the gentlemen who were present at the meeting of the committee at which the amendment was adopted, and it was an unusually full meeting, favored it.
Mr. KELLEY. Then there was one, and only one, who was opposed to it.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman is mistaken as to the vote on the amendment.
Mr. KELLEY. I give my recollection of what took place in committee. I do not assert it as a fact.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I was present in the committee, and I did not agree to this amendment.
Mr. BAKER. I wish to ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania a question. It is this: whether the Government of the U.S. is now so far needing the ship as to justify us in paying $600,000 for it, though we are under no obligation to do it?
Mr. KELLEY. I do not know the needs of the Government in that respect.
Mr. PIKE. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] yield to me for a few moments?
Mr. BAKER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. BAKER. If the ship is of practically. but small value to the Government, and the Government is under no legal obligation to pay it, why should we pay $600,000 for the ship?
Mr. PIKE. I will reply to the gentleman. The Government has made many experiments during the war; and in that respect the Navy Dept has been very much misunder stood. It has expended very large sums in experimenting, as all Governments must do if they would produce that most difficult thing to produce, a perfect ship of war. Large sums of money have been expended, not only by this Government, but by the British Government and the French Government, in making exper iments which when they are accomplished and the money is spent prove to be of little practical benefit, except to direct the future exertions of the Government. Some years ago, Mr. Stevens, of NewJersey, attempted to produce an iron clad ship. The Government furnished him $500,000. The ship was made and she lay on the stocks a long time, and was known as Mr. Stevens's battery, and this House at a prior session, after considering all the facts in that case, said to Mr. Stevens: “We will give you $500,000, and you may keep your battery. This loss the Governmentis willing to share with the individual who attempts to improve the Navy.” Now, in the case of Mr. Forbes, I was willing that the Government should share the loss and not attempt to crush him. This sum, although very considerable to the individual, is very small to the Government when com. ared to the contribution it long would oblige the of Mr. Forbes to make if the contract is insisted upon. For that reason I was willing to have the Government receive this ship for the sum of $550,000, which is the sum already paid, and discharge Mr. Forbes from any further proceedings on the contract. The result will be that the Government will sustain a loss, and Mr. Forbes will also sustain a loss of $350,000. And I submit to the members of this House that this would be a very small contribution on the part of this Government to citizens who have endeavored to aid it.
Mr. GRINNELL. I would ask the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. PIKE] why he objected to this bill in committee?
Mr. PIKE. The original bill provides simply a discretionary authority on the part of the SecyNavy. The proposition I make is to give direction to the SecyNavy to receive the ship for the amount already paid. The question was upon the amendment re. } by the committee.
Skip Skip Mr. BAKER called for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative yeas 58, nays 84, not voting 49;. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. BAKER. mtRtv the amendment was rejected; on the table. agreed to. The question recurred on ordering the bill to be read a 3rd time. Mr. PIKE. mtRtv the main question was ordered on the bill.
The SPEAKER. That motion cannot be made at the present time. It will not be in order till after the vote on ordering the bill to a 3rd reading. The Digest states on page 143 that “it is not in order to move a reconsideration of the vote on ordering the main question when it is partly executed.” That is the case here. Mr. HILL. the table.
Mr. PIKE. What I desire is an opportunity to offer the amendment which I suggested to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. That is certainly a very proper amendment; and I hope by general consent it will be adopted. I am sure that no gentleman who understands this matter is willing to ruin Mr. Forbes.
Mr. SPALDING. Does the question turn now on the original proposition of the Senate?
Mr. SPALDING. I hope it will be adopted.
Mr. PIKE. I think that my friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING] when he understands this question, will act in conjunction with me.
Mr. HILL. At the suggestion of several gentlemen who desire a direct vote on the passage of the bill, I withdraw the motion to lay the bill on the table. The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading, and read the 3rd time.
Mr. PIKE. I now move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to a 3rd reading. If this motion shall be adopted I propose to offer an amendment which will simply allow Mr. Forbes to. retain the money in his hands, the Government taking the Snip.
Mr. PIKE. 550,000 dollars, for which the Government will receive a steamship that cost about 900,000 dollars. I cannot say what is her worth, and no man can tell what is her worth. There are various opinions of her worth. The Navy Dept estimates in one way and Mr. Forbes in another.
Mr. BAKER. The gentleman states that the Government will receive a ship costing $900,000 at an expenditure of about 550,000 dollars. My question is whether or not the gentleman is able to inform the House what the ship would be worth to the Government if it will not run more than 8 or ten miles an hour, as stated by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING.] I move that the bill be laid on
Mr. PIKE. I will state to the Gentfrom Illinois there are few ships in the American or any other Navy that will run over 8 or ten miles an hour with an armament aboard. It is very good speed, ten knots an hour. There were few ships in our old Navy previous to this w.ar, indeed I do not think there was a ship in old Navy, which could run ten knots an Out.
Mr. BROMWELL. If the ship cost $900,000, and that sum was in fact judiciously expended, why is the builder here now trying to get $600,000 for it?
Mr. PIKE. I will reply to the Gentfrom Illinois that the market for ships of war is limited, particularly when any foreign nations are engaged in war, for the SecyState steps in and says, “You shall not sell to either belligerents a ship of war.” Mr. Forbes attempted to do this last year and was prevented by the action of the Government. Of course when these Governments are not at war but in a state of peace, they have no need of armed ships; and when they are at war our Government will not allow armed ships to be sold to them.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would like to hear the Gentfrom Maine express his opinion whether this vessel is or can be made valuable to the Government for naval purposes.
Mr. PIKE. I will say in reply that, opinions are various in regard to this ship. The Navy Dept considers it of small value, while those who agree with Mr. Forbes in his ideas engines similar to the one in this ship having worked well in the mercantile marine think this ship will be of great value. Mr. Forbes is acquainted in the East, having been largely engaged in mercantile affairs there. He has no doubt that if he had taken the ship to Japan last year and exhibited her there so that.might be tested by actual performance they would have bought her; but in his crippled condition he could not afford to take the ship out of the hands of the government,consequently there was no way of testing whether or not this ship is of practial value.
Mr. MAYNARD. My question was whether the Government could make this ship available for naval purposes.
Mr. PIKE. I will reply that I can only take the judgment of others. This is a handsome ship, and I esteem myself a judge at least of a commercial ship, as I have been engaged in shipping for a o: time. But how valuable her engines are I cannot say. My motion is to reconsider for the purpose of submitting this Iamendment. I call the previous question, and do hope the House will agree with me.
Mr. RAYMOND. I ask the gentleman to ield to me.
Mr. RAYMOND. I will consume but a few moments in saying one or 2 words. I admit the entire propriety of the rule, as a rule, of enforcing all contracts made with those who undertake to serve it. I will refuse as a Generalthing to depart from that rule, but in this case I think there are considerations which make it an exception. If there was the slightest reason to believe there was any intention to make money out of the Government by this contract, if it were not absolutely certain the only motiveMr. Forbes had for entering into it was to serve the Navy during the rebellion, I should hesitate about voting for this JtResolution. But it is not so. Mr. Forbes has put into this ship every dollar he has received from the Government of the U.S. with $350,000 of his own money. It seems to me now no more than just, considering his motive, considering the sacrifice he must make in any case, the Government should not insist on his returning the money he has received, which it gets back in the ship together with $350,000 of his own, when, with some changes in machinery, which may be more or less expensive, it is the opinion of experts and engineers this ship may be made one of the most splendid ships in the Navy. He is deterred from selling her to any foreign government at the only time foreign Governments wish to buy. Unless it is considered proper for the government of the U.S. to press to his ruin every man who undertakes to serve it, who has been unfortunate, having been misled into ventures which he could not carry through, it seems to me wise and equitable to pass the amendment suggested by the Gentfrom Maine.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the vote by which the JtResolution was ordered to be read a 3rd time was reconsidered.
Mr. PIKE. I now move to amend by striking out “$600,000” and inserting in lieu thereof “$550,000;” and also by striking out the word “contract” before the word “price.” I move the Foquestion.
Mr. HILL. Will the gentleman yield me 3 or 4 minutes?
Mr. PIKE. 1st let the previous question be 2nded and then I will yield.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Maine [Mr. PIKE] will have no right to any time at this stage.
Mr. PIKE. if I have no time then I cannot yield of course.
Mr. SPALDING. How much of the morning hour is left?
Mr. SPALDING. Then I object to any further debate.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Mr. HILL. I demand the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were refused. The amendment of Mr. PIKE was agreed to; and the JtResolution, as amended, was ordered to be read a 3rd time; and it was ac othe 3rd time. Mr. PIKE. I call the previous question on the JtResolution. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Mr. HILL. I demand the yeas&nays on the o: The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 96, nays 52, not voting 43;. So the JtResolution was passed. During the roll call, Mr. RANDALL of Pennsylvania stated that his colleague, Mr. GLossBRENNER, was absent, being paired with Mr. O’NEILL on all questions. The result having been announced as above recorded, Mr. PIKE mtRtv the joint, resolution was adopted; upon the table. agreed to. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. BROOMALL. I rise to a question of.arising out of a part of yesterday's ebate as reported in the Globe of this morning. I ask that. To of the report which I have marked be read at the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows: “Mr. Cooper. Mr. Speaker, I gentleman said that when the from Pennsylvania chargedAndrewJohnson with being a usurper, if I were permitted to quote the language of Marmion to Lord Douglas, I would say “‘Lord Angus, thou hast lied.” “
Mr. KELLEY. If I were permitted! Sir, while the usurpation was plotting he was the confidential paid agentof the usurper, and knew all the secrets of the usurpation, and ifguished consciencehas not beenextin in him he is not permitted to donymy allega "if. Coopert. Mr. So, the gentleman is mistaken as to his facts. While I was the confidentSitaaltes agent and friend of the POTUS and I glory in money the fact, not one dollar of his has ever been handled by me; and when the gentleman says that I again.” was his paid agent he lies
Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask whether, before stating what I propose to offer under the rules of the House as a question of privilege
Mr. ROGERS. I rise to a point of order. Can this be a question of privilege, as the words were not taken down at the time?
Mr. BROOMALL. My question has relation to that very point.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not yet know what point the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. BRoomALL] desires to make.
Mr. BROOMALL. I desire to ask the Chair whether, inasmuch as the objectionable words were not taken down at the instance of some gentleman objecting at the time, it is too late for the House to censure the Gentfrom Tennessee.
Mr. JOHNSON. I submit that it is not a privileged question at all. The gentleman has stated no privileged question at all.
The SPEAKER. He stated that he rose to a question of privilege.
Mr. JOHNSON. Until he states what his question of privilege is he has no right to the oor.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. BRooMALL] must state what his question of privilege is.
Mr. BROQMALL. Under the impression that the Chair will answer my question of privilege in the affirmative, I offer the following resolution: Resolved.That the offensivelanguage of the member from the 4th district of Tennesseeon yesterday, during the remarks of sylvania, though the Gentfrom Penn well meriting a vote of censure, would degrade nobody as much as himself, and that if his constituents are satisfied with it o and him, of Representatives will not at present could plain.
Mr. FINCK. I submit that this is not a resolution of censure, and I object to its introduction.
The SPEAKER. The Chair refers to page 76 of the Rules, as follows: “If a member be called to order for words spoken in debate, the personcalling him to order shall repeat the words exceptedto, and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's table, and no membershall be held to answer, or be subject to the censure of the House for words spoken in debate if any other mem; ber has spoken or other, business has intervened after the wordsspoken and before exception to them shall have been taken.” The obvious inference from this rule is, that it is expected that some member upon the floor will certainly call a member who is out of order to order for using unparliamentary language, and then the rule provides that the words excepted to shall be taken down after being repeated by the member who has excepted to them. In this case no gentleman called the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] to order; and immediately after what has been read, at the request of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, is what the Clerk will now read.
Mr. SPALDING. I move to lay the resolution upon the table.
Mr. BANKS. If the resolution were before the House I should be very willing to sustain the motion of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING.] But the Speaker has stated that he submits to the House the question whether the resolution shall be entertained as a question of privilege. Now, I do not understand that this resolution affects the privilege of this House at all, and therefore I must vote against its reception. It appears to be a jo simple exof opinion in regard to the Gentfrom Tennessee, [Mr. Cooper] and in regard to the polities of his constituents. It does not touch the privilege of the House at all, and therefore I hope it will not be entertained in any shape or form whatever, and thus establish a precedent.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. Would it be in order at this time to move a vote of censure upon the Gentfrom Tennessee, [Mr. Coopek?]
The SPEAKER. That question is not before the House. The question is, whether the resolution of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Brooxi.ALL] shall be entertained by the House as a question of privilege.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I raise the point of order, that as this resolution is not yet before the House all debate upon it is out of order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that the question of receiving the resolution is not debatable except by unanimous consent.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would inquire of the Chair whether a mere sentimental resolution, which proposes no action, no censure whatever, is a question of privilege at all?
The SPEAKER. That is a question for the House to determine. The Digest states that it is the duty of the Chair to submit to the House for its determination any question which it is claimed relates in any way to the privileges of the House.
Mr. BROOMALL. If allowed by the House, I will withdraw the resolution for the purpose of amending it, so as to avoid the objections which have been made to it.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has the right to withdraw the resolution before any vote is taken upon it.
Mr. BANKS. I think it is important that the House should understand the exact position of the question.
Mr. BROOMALL. Is there any question before the House? I have withdrawn the resolution.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Had the gentleman any right to withdraw it after the Chair had submitted the question of its reception to the House?
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the rule.
The Clerk read as follows: “A motion may be withdrawn at any time before a decision or lo amendment; but not after the previous is recorded. It may, however, be with rawn while the House is dividing on demandfor the previous question.”
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair that rule applies to all motions. The question before the House was, whether this resolution should be entertained as a question of privilege. Before amendment or a vote the gentleman has a right to withdraw the resolution; and it has been withdrawn. A RECUSANT WITNESS.
Mr. COOK. I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote by which the House on yesterday ordered John F. Tracy to be brought before the House to answer for contempt. I wish to say that I have received communications from NewYork this morning which show that the Presence of Mr. Tracy is absolutely necessary this day, and was yesterday, before the board of directors of the Pacific railroad. I have brought this information to the attention of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HALE,) the chairman of the House portion of the JtCom on Retrenchment. It seems to me that these communications show that Mr. Tracy has not been guilty of a contempt of the House.
Mr. HALE. This is a subject upon which I have no personal feeling whatever. In regard to the person ordered to be brought to the bar of the House I have learned through several members that dispatches have been sent here from different sources and from different gentlemen, urging that Mr. Tracy be allowed to remain in NewYork today and tomorrow on account of private business. I have only to say that he was duly summoned to appear before the committee, but failed to do so, or to render any excuse for his non-appearance. The commit.tee, therefore, unanimously instructed me to make the motion which I made yesterday. I will leave to the House to determine whether a private business engagement is to be considered a reasonable excuse for a person failing to attend, pursuant to a summons, before a committee of this House, conducting an investigation which has been ordered by the House, and deemed of sufficient importance to be inquired into. On that point I will exPress no opinion whatever; I shall be entirely satisfied with whatever action the House may choose to take upon it. I will say that I am perfectly satisfied, as I think all the members of the committee are, that the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Cook,) who introduced the resolution joins this investigation, acted in entire good aith.
Mr. GRINNELL. It is known to many members of this House that Mr. Tracy is the resident of the Chicago, RockIsland, and acific railroad and a director of the Union Pacific railroad. He has, I am told, very important and Pressing business engagements, and I know that in failing to attend at the time appointed by the committee he meant no disrespect to the committee or the House. I hope there will be no objection to the motion to reconsider.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I would like to ask the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Cook] for how long this extension of time is desired.
Mr. COOK. The dispatch states that the board of directors of the Pacific Railroad Company require his Presence today and tomor row. the jfrom Hon. James Brooks, who, I believe, is one of the directors. Mr. Tracy will certainly be here on Monday, if this motion to reconsider be adopted.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I will agree to any arrangement that may be proposed provided that this gentleman will come here at the time the Gentfrom Illinois has indicated. I desire to say that I join with the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HALE] in defending the entire good faith with which the Gentfrom Illinois madethis proposition. He was perfectly warranted in making this inquiry and offering the resolution requiring the appearance of Mr. Tracy as a witness. I may say that the reason for this investigation has not been substantiated. I desire that the House and the country, shall know why and upon what grounds such an idle rumor was circulated, affecting the character of the SecyTreasury and also the sub Treasurer at NewYork. I think further that this occurrence will tend to give a wholesome lesson for the future to gentlemen in Wall street, who for their own purposes seek to influence the market so as to affect the values of Government stock and Government gold.
Mr. HALE. Will the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Cook] allow me a word further?
Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I ought to say that this is not a trifling case. Mr. Tracy, the person against whom process for contempt has issued, is the person on whose charges a reso:lution of inquiry was introduced here in regard to the improper loaning of gold in NewYork by an officer of the Government. The charges which have been made by this man, and which we have summoned him before us to sustain, are charges of felony against Mr. Van Dyke, the Asst Treasurer at NewYork. The committee thought that it was too important a subject to be allowed to sleep; that the investigation should proceed as rapidly as possible, so that the country might beinformed whether those charges are well founded or not.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Will my colleague allow me a word?
Mr. WENTWORTH. I desire to ask whether this gentleman is willing to be here by Monday or Tuesday?
Mr. WENTWORTH. I see no reason why we should resort to this process of attachment to bring this man here if he is willing to be here on Monday. I know Mr. Tracy, and I should be willing to guaranty to the House that if he promises to be here on Monday he will be here. I believe, however, that this matter should be promptly investigated. Ever since this question of currency was brought before the House every man who has dared to raise his voice against the banks and against the expansion of the currency has been attacked as the menial of Mr. McCulloch. It has been charged that Mr. McCulloch has been specu lating in the public securities; that he has been loaning the public funds. We have now a chance to drive these lies home, and we ought to do it. But if Mr. Tracy will pledge his honor that he will be here on Monday I for one am willing to wait for him. I hope that this committee will call before it not only Mr. Tracy, but every other man who charges that Mr. McCulloch has been guilty of a felony. Let us see who they are. If Mr. McCulloch has been guilty of official misconduct or malfeasance, let us impeach him; but if he is inno cent, let us brand these liars with the infamy they deserve.
Mr. JLTHOMAS. I wish to ask whether the attachment ordered by the House yesterday has not already been issued; and if so, whether it is not too late for the House to reconsider the matter.
The SPEAKER. The Chair signed the attachment yesterday during the session of the House.
Mr. JLTHOMAS. I make the point of order, whether it is not too late for the House to reconsider?
Mr. COOK. I will answer the question. I asked the Sergeant at Arms at what time the attachment left, and he said it left last night; and Mr. Tracy will be brought before the House tomorrow unless this vote is reconsidered. It seems to me from the evidence, Mr. Tracy is detained by the board of directors of the pay cific railroad on a matter of importance to the Government. He telegraphed to me and asked me to request the committee to excuse him until after that thing was over. That tele aphic dispatch I received too late, and there ore I had no opportunity to Present it. That he will be here on Monday morning next is perfectly certain. I think there is no doubt about it.
Mr. JOHNSON. How long has he been a delinquent?
Mr. COOK. I understand he was subpoenaed day before yesterday, and was oyester day morning.
Mr. JENCKES. I trust this resolution will not be reconsidered in the Present state of this business. This gentleman, whatever his character may be, has neither obeyed the summons nor sent to the committee any excuse.
Mr. COO.K. He telegraphed to me to lay the matter before the committee, and I did not get the telegram in time.
Mr. JENCKES. I submit that is not a proper mode of responding to a summons of this House. It was the duty of the committee to report his delinquency and to move his attachment. It has been done, and I trust we will see that gentleman here tomorrow to give his excuse at the bar of the House.
Mr. SCHENCK. I hope, Mr. Speaker, there will be no reconsideration of this vote. The ComRetrenchment, of which I also am a member, considered well what they were Presenting to the House when they asked an attachment against Mr. Tracy. What are the facts? Mr. Tracy is at NewYork, and is duly summoned as a witness. He has full 24 hours' notice, and he does not pretend not to have that notice, but makes his excuse, now when the matter comes to be inquired into, it was not convenient for him to come. Why not, sir?. Because Mr. Tracy is President of a railroad company, and Mr. Tracy is perhaps, like other gentlemen, specu lating at all times in stocks in Wall street. No matter what his engagements may be.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Brooks states Mr. Tracy was detained at the request of the board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Tracy, because he is serving with the board of directors of the Pacific Railroad Company, ought to keep this Congress waiting; is that it? Is Congress to wait upon this board of directors instead of the board of directors waiting upon Congress? Mr. Tracy gives no excuse, makes no explanation, does not attend to the notice of subpoena regularly served upon him. He does not attend here as he might have done at the time indicated. Now, what does it amount to? What does it mean? Would it be establishing a safe precedent that a President of a railroadcom. pany, at the request of a board of directors, shall come when summoned only at his conven. ience. When you summon a carpenter or shoe maker, who if he leaves his bench or plane, leaves his children to suffer during his absence, there is no sympathy for him. I do not pre: sent this for the purpose of drawing any distinction which may be demagogical, but I do it for the purpose of considering this case fairly. If anybody should attend it is this man, who should set an example, according to his intelli gence and high position, of obedience to the laws of the land. We do not take into consideration that it is inconvenient for Mr. Tracy to come here. But he did not let the committee know it was inconvenient; he did not ask to be excused; he did nothing, but refused and neglected, as the resolution which has been passed recites, to obey or give any regard to the subpoena served upon him.
Mr. JENCKES. I ask whether Mr. Tracy did not reply to the officer who served the summons that he would come that night.
Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir; he promised he would come, and the committee met for no other purpose whatever, on the morning indicated except to hear Mr. Tracy's testimony. They waited for 2 hours, and no witness appearing the committee adjourned. ow, sir, I think it time, when we take into consideration, particularly along with these facts, the fact that Mr. Tracy is himself the one important witness, the prosecuting witness, the witness who makes these grave charges, and he has declined or failed to appear as he was bound to do, that he should be made to understand that the processes of this body are to be regarded quite as much as the convenience or wishes of his fellow members of the board of directors of a railroad. That is really the whole case, I think.
Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, having had some little experience on investigating committees, it seems to me that if the House is desirous of rendering the work of its committees at all efficient, and making them anything more than a farce, it should be reluctant to excuse this witness at the Present time, in limine, before he comes before the House. It is important very often for investigating committees that a witness should appear when sum moned, and that we should have no reason to suppose that any convenience of his own or any indulgence of ours will permit him to fix his own time to appear before a committee. I do not mean to say that that is the case with this man; but I mean simply to speak of the general rule. Often the witness may have a day or 2 to consult his own interest or the pur.which he may think the committee may have in view; and
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion to reconsider.
The SPEAKER. The mover has an absolute right to withdraw the motion at any time; the rule makes no limitation.
Mr. DAWES. For the purpose, then, of stating just what I wanted to say I renew the motion to reconsider. I wish to say that there never can be any hardship in undertaking to enforce this proposition, for the reason that the witness, when he is brought up, the 1st thing, before any action of the House, is called upon to show cause. He can come in and make a statement himself on paper explaining the reason, and if the House sees there is no intent to treat its precept with contempt it will let him off. Now, it seems to me that this witness of all others is in a position where he should at least come before this body and explain why he did not even so much as notice the precept of the House. Therefore, in order that he may come and make his statement to the House and the House pass upon Iit, move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. Fort.NEY. its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment House bill No. 765 amendatory of an act to amend an act entified “An act relating to habeascorpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases.” Also, that the Senate passed a bill (S.No.347) entitled “An act to change certain collection districts in Maryland and Virginia.” Also, a bill (S.No.460) in relation to persons imprisoned under sentence for offenses against the laws of the U.S.; in which the concurrence of the House was requested. LOYAL CLAIMANTS IN EAST TENNESSEE.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee. I ask unan imous consent to submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComClaims be in: structed to report to by Hon.
Mr. TRow RetihdiGs EHouse the bill introlyteed at gress, the last session of Conand referred to said committee, establishing a commissionfor the investigation and adjustment of. claims of loyal persons of Governmentof the U.S.EaSt Tennessee against the
Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I object. TAX ON ALCO in Oi, A Nid duofrnING fluid.
Mr. HOGAN. I ask unanimous consent to report from the ComWays&Means a JtResolution to amend existing laws relating to the internalrevenue. The Comuissioner of internalrevenue desires action upon it at once, and it is very important that it should pass immediately. The JtResolution, which was read in full. provides that alcohol made or manufactured of distilled spirits upon which the tax imposed by law shall have been paid, and burning fluid made or manufactured of alcohol, or spirits of turpentine, or camphene, upon which the taxes imposed by law shall have been paid, shall be exempt from tax, and that so much of the act of June 30, 1864, as relates to alcohol and burning fluid is hereby repealed: and all prod ucts of distillation by whatever name known, which contain distilled spirits or alcohol on which the tax imposed by law has not been paid shall be considered and taxed as distilled spirits. The 2nd section amends the internalrevenue law by striking out the words “distillers of burning fluid and camphene.”
Skip Skip No objection was made; and the JtResolution was read a 1st and 2nd time, orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. HOGAN mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. HEIR OF JAMES Ibi, LL. On motion of Mr. PRICE, the ComRevPensions was discharged from the consideration of the papers in the case of the application of Rose A. Cameron, heir at law of.Bell, and the same were laid upon the table. Joli N. Gray.
Mr. PRICE also, from the ComRevPensions, reported a bill for the relief of John Gray; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill was read. It directs the SecyInterior to place the name of John Gray on the pension roll at the rate of $200 per annum during his natural life, payable semi annually.
Mr. DELANO. Has this bill the approbation of any committee?
Mr. PRICE. It has the approbation of the ComRevPensions. I will state that this applicant is 1three years old, and I have another similar case to report in which the applicant is 1seven years old, and both of these men are now supported by public charity:
Mr. SPALDING. to amend the bill by striking out “ 200 dollars” and joins in lieu thereof “ 500 dollars.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed it was accordingly read the 3rd time, ani passed Mr. BINGHAM mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. FREDERIer DANIEL baix.E.M.A.N.
Mr. PRICE also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Frederick Daniel Bakeman, a revolutionary soldier; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Frederick Daniel Bate man on the pension roll at the rate of $200 per annum during his natural life, payable semi annually
Mr. SPALDING, I offer the same amendment to this bill that I did to the last. I move to strike out “ 200 dollars” and insert in lieu thereof “500 dollars.”
Mr. DELANO. I desire to know if this amendment comes from any committee?
The SPEAKER. The original bill grants this man a pension of $200. The Gentfrom Ohio proposes to amend it so as to give him $500.
Mr. DRIGGS. He is 1seven years old, and he is now supported by public charity.
Mr. PRICE. He is one of the only 2 survivors of the soldiers of the revolutionary war so far as I know.
Mr. DELANO. Then I make no objection to the bill.
Mr. DAWES. I would like to make an inquiry as to the history of this man. Why has he not been placed upon the pension rolls already?
Mr. PRICE. This man's name is, as appears from the bill, Frederick Daniel Bake inan. He is evidently a German, and his name is Bochman, but it appears upon the rolls of the War Dept as Bakeman. I am informed on very good authority that application was made for a pension in the name of Bochman, but the name appeared as Bakeman on the rolls of the War Dept, and the case was held over, and has been since neg lected. It was merely a difference in spelling; his name was Bochman, but spelled in English they made it Bakeman.
Mr. DAWES. Were the committee satisfied that he actually served in the revolution ary war?
Mr. PRICE. We are satisfied of that fact by the testimony of several persons. This old gentleman is now 1seven years of age and is supported by public charity.
Mr. MAYNARD. Is the only reason why the Dept did not give this man his pension that he spelled his name “Bochman, ” and not Bakeman?”
Mr. PRICE. That is the only reason, according to the testimony before the committee.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. There must have been some very stupid man in the office.
Mr. DAWES. I would ask the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. PRICE] where this person served. I desire the information as an interesting historical fact.
Mr. DELANO. And I would also ask what is the evidence of identity?
Mr. PRICE. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. VANAERNAM] is personally acquainted with the applicant. $. served at Stanley, and Iis, am informed, one of the Mohawk Dutch.
Mr. DAWES. If he actually served I do not care what his name was.
Mr. PRICE. I call the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and main question ordered. The 1st question was upon the amendment of Mr. SPALDING, to increase the annual pension from $200 to $500
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill, as amended, was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD GRANT.
Mr. DELANO. I move that the House now resolve itself into the ComWhole House upon the Private Calendar. The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into a ComWhole House, (Mr. FARNs worth in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of bills and JtResolutions on the Private Calendar as on “objection day.”
The CHAIRMAN. There are 2 bills upon the Private Calendar which were not reached when the House was last in ComWhole on objection day, and which are subject to the objection of one member only. The Clerk will now report those bills. JAMES HOOPER. A bill (H.R.No. 967) for the relief of James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland. The bill was read at length. It directs the SecyTreasury to pay to James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland, the sum of $16,000, to reimburse 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. No objection being made, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the House. E. J. CURLEY. Senate bill No. 443, for the relief of E. J. Curley. H The bill was read at length. It requires the SecyTreasury to pay E. J. Curley 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. SPALDING. I call for the reading of the report.
Mr. SPALDING. Then I object to the bill.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM The SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had disagreed to the amendment of the House to the bill (S.No.253) to incorporate the 1st Congregational Society of Washington. The message further announced that the Senate had insisted on its amendment, disagreed to by the House, to the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions; had agreed to the conference asked by the House, and had appointed Messrs. LANE, TRUMBULL, and Buckalew as conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. DELANO moved that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. FARNs. WoRTH reported that the ComWhole House, according to order, had the Private Calendar generally under consideration, and had directed him to report the following bills and JtResolutions to the House, with the recommendation that they do pass: A bill (H.R.No. 267) for the relief of James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland; An act (S.No.435) for the relief of Alexander F. Pratt; A bili (H.R.No. 820) for the relief of Henry S. Davis;JtResolution (H.R.No. 211) for the relief of George W. Lane, superintendent of the branch mint at Denver, and Asst Treasurer of the U.S.;JtResolution (S.R.No. 112) for the relief of Mrs. Abby Green; and A bill (H.R.No. 666) authorizing the SecyWar to purchase certain property for military purposes. JAMES HOOPER. The 1st bill reported from the ComWhole was House bill No. 267, for the relief of James Hooper, of Baltimore, Maryland.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. Mr. io's O demanded 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. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. ALEXANDER F. PRATT. The next bill reported from the ComWhole was Senate bill No. 435, for the relief of Alexander F. Pratt. The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading; and it was accordingly read the 3rd time.
Mr. COBB. I should like, before this bill is passed, to have some explanation of it. It is a Wisconsin claim, I know, but I do not think it should pass.
Mr. DELANO. This bill has never been before the ComClaims, and I have no knowledge in regard to it.
Mr. PAINE. With the permission of the Gentfrom Ohio, I will undertake to give my colleague some information on the subject. I am acquainted with the claimant in this case, and I have no higher opinion of his political character than my colleague, but nevertheless, having looked into the claim, I am satisfied it is a just one and ought to be paid. At the time it accrued Mr. Pratt was sheriff of Waubeshaw county, in the State of Wisconsin. A prisoner was sent to the jail of that county by order of the district court judge, but he subsequently succeeded in making his escape from the jail. His escape arose from no fault on the part of the sheriff, because the jail was an insecure one. The expenses necessarily incurred in the capture of the prisoner were not allowed by the judge of the district court, because, he said, it was the duty of the State of Wisconsin to furnish him with a secure i. The State of Wisconsin, on the other land, said it was a jail good enough for the State of Wisconsin, and as he had selected it as the jail to which this prisoner should be sent he had no reason to complain. It was optional for the judge to send his prisoners to that jail or to some other jail, and if he selected that jail he ought to be satisfied with it. The State, therefore, refused to pay this demand, not because it was not a just demand so far as this claimant was concerned, but because the State thought the U.S. should pay the expenses of. recapturing the prisoner. it was that
Mr. Pratt was compelled to come here with his claim. I think it a just demand against the Federal Government, and think the bill ought to pass.
Mr. COBB. f'. to say in reply to my colleague I urged no objection to this claim on account of the polities of the claimant. My request merely was that some information be furnished to the House to show why the claim should be paid. I did not object on the ground of politics, although I knew
Mr. Pratt's polities were of the worst kind. While I differ with him politically, yet my personal relations are such that I would not object to any just claim he might bring before Congress. I do not say anything, therefore, about his politics, but I by no means regard this as a just claim against the Government. I do not know of any reason why I should support an unjust claim from my own State any more than from any other State. I am not one of those who believe that every claim which comes from my own State is thereby necessarily just. I do not desire, and I am sure I will not follow the example set here by many gentlemen of objecting to claims coming from another State and voting uniformly for every one that is Presented by citizens of one's own State. Nevertheless I am very loth to oppose a just claim coming either from another part of the country or from the State of Wisconsin.
Mr. SCOFIELD. Will the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DELANo] yield to me?
Mr. SCQFIELD. Mr. Speaker, Mr. COBB. I am not through. I know I am somewhat slow, but it is because half a dozen gentlemen around me are telling me what to say, and I happen to differ with them as to the oof what is (i.i.j to be said. hope my friends will not take offense. Now, I undertake to say that the facts stated by my colleague, good lawyer as he is and able as he is, establish no claim whatever against this Government. He says that the district court of the U.S., sitting in Milwaukee, committed a man to jail in Waubeshaw county, and that the prisoner broke jail, wherefore the sheriff took it for granted that that gave him a roving commission over that State, and perhaps over other portions of the country, to recap ture the man at any expense. Now, I think it should be considered that the simple fact of his being the sheriff of that county imposed no such duty upon him, and that the Government has the right to adopt its own means and its own way for the recapture of prisoners. That the fact of his having broken jail gives the sheriff any jurisdiction in the matter I deny. At the suggestion of several gentlemen I will move, if it is in order, to refer this bill to the ComClaims.
Mr. PAINE. If the Gentfrom Ohio will allow me, I wish to state that until this bill came from the Senate I had no knowledge that such a claim was before Congress. I have examined it only since it came to this House from the Senate.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the Gentfrom Ohio yield.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. The facts in regard to this bill I have no doubt are precisely as stated by my colleague, [Mr. PAINE.] I have soune knowledge.claim, which I obtained from the gentleman who preceded my colleague as the RePresentative from that district, and I have no doubt of the entire justice of the claim. I should be very sorry that any gentlemen should base their action in this case upon the political character of the party or the fact that e might differ from them in politics. This claim, if I am not very much mistaken, has passed this House at least twice before and failed for want of time to act upon it in the Senate during the last Congress. It. has now the Senate and comes to the House. I have no special desire to advocate a claim I have not been called upon to advocate, but it seems to me it is entirely just that we should act upon it favorably and without regard to the fact that the gentleman may differ or agree with us in politics.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I wish to inquire if this bill has been before any committee of this House?
The SPEAKER. It has not. It came from the Senate to the House during the closing days of the last session, and was referred to the ComWhole, instead of going to the ComClaims.
Mr. SCOFIELD. When it went to the ComWhole I raised no objection because I supposed it had passed to the ComClaims, and had great confidence in that committee. I think, as it has not been before a committee, " the friends of the bill ought to consent that it go to the ComClaims, and with their sanction of it I presumethere will be no objection to its passage. !. therefore support the motion to so reer it.
Mr. DELANO. I now yield to my colleague on the committee.
Mr. SLOAN. I should have no objection to having the motion now pending prevail; butfrom what I have heard of this claim I am satisfied it is a just one, and as the amount is small I think it had better be finally disposed of now rather than have a reference of it to the ComClaims. It has already occupied the attention of Congress to a much greater extent than the amount involved in it in my opinion justifies. The facts of the case are simply these: the prisoner, under sentence of the U.S. court in the district of Wisconsin, was put in ail in Waubeshaw county by the sheriff. The prisoner escaped from the jail. The pursuit wasa very long one and involved considerable expense. This bill is simply brought in for the purpose of reimbursing this
Mr. Pratt for the expenses he incurred in making this purtouring the prisoner, and bringing him I believe with my colleague on the other side [Mr. SLoAN] that the character, either moral or political, of the claimant ought not to be considered in the consideration of his claim. When a man arrests a prisoner who has been sentenced by a U.S. court and has escaped he surely Presents a proper ground for being reimbursed by the Government for the expense he incurred in the capture. And, as my colleague has stated, the ground on which the allowance was rejected by the disjudge was technical, and I think unten e
Mr. DELANO. I now demand the previous question.
Mr. COBB. I ask the gentleman to allow me 2 minutes.
Mr. COBB. My colleagues on both sides seem to insist upon it that I have attacked this claimant on account of his politics. Sir, I said nothing about his politics. I disclaim having said anything against the polities of this man; and I desire to say that while I could say many things about him and not be outside of the truth, I object to that line of argument which has been suggested by my colleague. I have never known a scheme to be passedthrough Congress, or any other legislative body without somebody saying that improper influences were brought to bear. This bill has not been examined by any committee of this House. [Here the hammer fell, the gentleman's 5 minutes having expired]
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was referred to the ComClaims. L. L. MERRY. On motion of Mr. CONKLING, by unanimous consent, the ComWays&Means was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of L. L. Merry, for relief from payment for stamps burglariously taken; and the same was referred to the ComClaims. REPORT ON internalrevenue.
Mr. MORRILL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, and under the law referred to the ComPrintg: copRieessolved. That there be printed 6,000 of the of the ComrIntRev 4,200 ufsoer othf ethueseoofffitcheeoHf oiunsteerannadl revenue. HeNRY S. DAVIs. The next bill reported from the ComWhole House was the bill of the House No. 820, for the relief of Henry S. Davis.
Mr. DELANO. I wish to say to the House that this claim has never undergone an examination by any committee of this House.
The SPEAKER. The bill was reported from the ComPubBldg and Grounds.
Mr. ALLISON. I move that it be referred to the ComClaims.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to say that this claim has been 3 times examined by the ComAppropriat when it was referred to them; but it has always failed between the House and the Senate for some reason or other.
Mr. DELANO. I did not intend to interpose any objection to the passage of the bill.
The SPEAKER. The bill was reported by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. RICE] from the ComPubBldg and Grounds.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. RICE, of Maine, mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. GEORGE W. LANE. The next business reported from the ComWhole House was JtResolution of the House No. 211, for the relief of George W. Lane, superintendent of the branch mint at Denver, Colorado, and Asst Treasurer of the U.S.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the thir time and passed. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. The latter action was agreed to. AMidrose Morrison.
The Clerk read The next business reported from the ComWhole was House bill No. 666, authorizing the SecyWar to purchase property for military purposes.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. jANO mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. MRS. ABBY GREEN. The last business reported from the ComWhole was Senate JtResolution No. 112, for the relief of Mrs. Abby Green. The JtResolution was read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. DELANO mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. NIBLACK asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. KERR, for the remainder of this week. Mr. BERGEN asked and obtained leave of absence for himself for a week. speAKER's TABLE.
Mr. DELANO. I move that the House now proceed to the consideration of business upon the Speaker'stable of a private character. The motion was agreed to. WASHINGTON COUNTY HORSE RAILROAD. The 1st private business upon the Speaker's table were Senate amendments to the amendments of the House to the bill (S.R.No. 380) to incorporate the Washington County Horse Railroad Company in the DistCol. The amendments of the Senate were merel verbal, except the one to add to 4th amendment of the House the following: repAenadl Congressmay at any time alter, amend, or this act. The amendments of the Senate were concurred in. 1ST CONGREGATIONAL SOCIETY. The next business was the amendment of the House to Senate bill No. 253, incorporating the 1st Congregational Society of the cit of Washington, to which the Senate disa.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I move that the House insist upon its amendment, and ask a committee of conference.
Mr. W. ENT WORTH. What is the issue between the 2 Houses in regard to this bill?
Mr. INGERSOLL. The ComDistCol of this House reported a substitute for the Senate bill, which the House adopted, but to which the Senate disagree.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Well, what is the question at issue between the 2 Houses?. it a matter of church discipline? [Laughter]
Mr. INGERSOLL. It is not. The House substitute proposes some.among the corporators different from those which the senate bill proposed. The Senate disagree to our substitute, and I ask the House to insist upon it, and ask for a committee of conference.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Is it all for the same society and the same church?
Mr. WENTWORTH. bantism?” W.ingERSOLL. The gentleman is get ting into almost too deep water for me. [Laughter]
Mr. WENTWORTH. The 2 Houses have disagreed about something. The chairman of the ComDistCol tells us that both the bill and the substitute are feovrerthytehsinagm. e cThhuerenh, the same society, the same I ask, what is it that the 2.are differing about? Ilet that difference be pointed out; if it is merely a difference in men that is one thing. I want to know why the time of the 2 Houses should be taken up by a disagreement when they are both in favor of the same thing? I would ask the gentleman if there are not other differences than those in regard to men?
Mr. WENTWORTH. Is the treasurer in both cases the same?
Mr. INGERSOLL. The bill does not provide for or name a treasurer; that is. to the corporators.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I understand that the Senate placed the name of GenlHoward in the as one of the trustees, and the House struck out the name of GenlHoward and others and put in a new list.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest that a motion to recede from the House amendment will take priority of a motion to insist; as a motion to bring the 2 Houses together takes precedence of one to continue a disagreement between the 2 Houses.
Mr. DELANO. I move that the House recede from its amendment to the bill of the Senate; that will leave the name of GenlHoward in the bill.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and upon a division there were ayes 66; noes not counted. So the House receded from its amendment. “One faith and one MRs. ELIZABETH R. SMITH. The next business on the Speaker's table was the bill (S.No.451) for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth R. Smith; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. hEIRS OF JOHN E. BOULIGN.Y. The next business on the Speaker's table was the bill (S.No.438) for the relief of the heirs of John E. Bouligny; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPrivLandClms. Mrs. MARY E. FINNEY. The next business on the Speaker's table was the bill (S.No.511) for the relief of Mrs. Mary E. Finney, widow of 1st Lieutenant Solon H. Finney, late of the 6th regiment Michigan cavalry; tlme. which was read d a 1st and 2nd Mr. PRICE. I hope this bill will be put on its Mpa.ssage now. ANCONA. I move that the bill be referred to the ComMilAffrs. The motion was not agreed to. The bill, which was read, provides for paying to Mrs. Finney the 3 months' extra pay proper, which her husband, would have been entitled to receive had he been mustered out of service after April 9, 1865, he having died of wounds.o.battle on that day.
Mr. SCHENCR. This case has been brought to my attention, and althqugh it has not been referred to the ComMilAffrs I have no doubt that committee would report upon it favorably. I trust the bill will be passed.
Skip Skip The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. TROWBRIDGE mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill and JtResolution of the following titles, which were there upon signed by the Speaker: An act (H.R.No. 755) amendatory of an act to amend an act entitled “An act relating to habeascorpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, ” approved May 11, 1866; andJtResolution (S.R.No. 156) to provide for the removal of the wreck of the steamship Scotland. MIRS. MARY J. Dixon. The next business on the Speaker's table was the bill (S.No.503) for the relief of Mrs. Mary J. Dixon, of Alexandria, in the State of Virginia, widow of the late Turner Dixon, deceased; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. ORDER OF BUSINESS TOMORROW.
Mr. NIBLACK. Mr. Speaker, I understand there are several gentlemen who desire to speak upon some of the questions pending before the House. I suppose it is not the intention of the House to cut off all general debate on these questions. It has been suggested to me that tomorrow ought to be set apart for debate alone. I therefore ask that, by unanimous consent, we may have an understanding that tomorrow shall be appropriated for that purpose.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I must object. There are only 40 days practically only about 30 remaining of the session. I am very anxious that gentlemen desiring to deliver speeches shall have an opportunity to do so, and I will vote for the holding of night sessions for that purpose; but I cannot consent that another day shall be spent in speech making alone.
Mr. NIBLACK. I beg leave to inquire of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] whether he designs to Press his bill to a vote before next week?
Mr. STEVENS. I could not think it fair to deprive gentlemen who have held the floor for several days of the opportunity of speaking; and as the discussion, if resumed today, would extend beyond 4 o'clock, I shall not ask a vote today.
Mr. NIBLACK. Does the gentleman ask for a vote today?
Mr. NIBLACK. Will he ask for a vote tomorrow 2
Mr. STEVENS. I intend to ask the House in some way to dispose of this matter to: ine rrow.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield to me, I will move that the House take a recess at half past 4 o'clock to meet at half past 7 o'clock this evening for debate only.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not know of any gentleman who desires to speak at the evening session. The Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Ross] who has the floor wishes to submit his remarks in the day session.
Mr. NIBLACK. I was requested to ask it on the part of gentlemen who desire to speak on the various questions before the House.
The SPEAKER. There are several gentlemen who desire to speak on other questions than the one now immediately pending before the House, but the Chair is not aware that they want to make their remarks ining the even session.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. As it appears no one wants to speak this evening I will with draw my motion for a recess.
Mr. COBB. If we are to have an evening session I want the Gentfrom Ohio to Preside as Speaker protempore. [Laughter.)
The SPEAKER. That would be perfectly satisfactory to the Chair.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will agree to that if the gentleman will consent to make an hour's speech. [Laughter] CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF IOW.A.
Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to this House what steps have beentaken to carry into effectthe act of Congress, approvedJuly 25, 1866, entitled “An act to provide for the appointment of a commissioner to examine and report on certain claims of the State of Iowa, including the name of report, the commissioner, when appointel, and the if any, which hehas made undersaid act. INCREASE OF PENSIONS.
Mr. DONNELLY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill increasing the pensions of widows and orphans, and for other purposes; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. GENERAL LAND OFFICE REPORT.
Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, submitted a resolution that 10,000 copies of the report of the ComrGLO be printed for the use of the House; which under the law was referred to the ComPrintg. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Mr. GRISWOLD, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to expedite the construction of the Southern Pacific railroad; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPacificRR.
Mr. CONKLING mtRtv the bill was referred to the ComPacificRR; upon the table.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I voted for that at the last session on condition that the road should not ask for money. omotion to reconsider was laid upon the table. I will yield for that mo JOSIA H 0. AIRMES.
Mr. DELANO. I ask that by unanimous consent the ComWhole on the Private Calendar be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (S.No.16) for the relief of Josiah O. Armes, and that the same be referred to the ComClaims.
Mr. WINDOM. I object. I should be very glad, however, to have the bill taken up now and acted on, either passed or rejected.
The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the ComWhole on the Private Calendar will be discharged from the further consideration of the bill, and it will be taken up by the House to be disposed of finally at the Present time. There was no objection. The bill, which was read, directs the SecyTreasury to pay to Josiah O. Armes $9, 500 in full for damages sustained by him in consequence of the burning of his building and the destruction of his property at Anandale, Fairfax county, Virginia, by U.S. troops.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom minnesota, [Mr. WINDow] who has charge of the bill proposes to explain it.
Mr. SPALDING. Why, more than 5 members objected to that bill.
The SPEAKER. The ComWhole was discharged from its further consideration by unanimous consent.
Mr. SPALDING. I give notice I shall move that it be laid upon the table.
Mr. DELANO. I simply desire to have such an understanding of my rights in this case as to know whether I may make a brief expla.nation to the House or not? SPEAKER. As the Gentfrom Ohio made the 1st suggestion he is entitled to the floor.
Mr. WINDOM. The gentleman may proceed now, and I will take the floor afterward. I do not want more that 5 or ten minutes.
Mr. DELANO. Then I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WINDOM. That is how I understand the bill. I do not desire to discuss it further, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. BLAINE. If this claimant had the sanction of both branches of Congress, would you, because of a blunder, and I should say a culpable blunder, on the part of a clerk, deprive the claimant of that which Congress had, so far as its action could go, granted to him?
Mr. SPALDING. I would ask the member from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] if he expects those of us who voted against this bill in the former Congress to vote for it now?.
Mr. BLA INE. They must determine that for themselves.
Mr. SPALDING. Certainly; we must be allowed to judge of that.
Mr. BLAINE. I am only saying what I shall do.
Mr. DELANO. I do not stand here, either as a member of this House or of the ComClaims, to vote for or against any claim because of the peculiarities or circumstances which surround it. This House has adopted a rule, which is or should be a law to its members, which declares that a claim situated as this is shall not be paid.
Mr. BLAINE. Was not that rule passed long after this claim had passed both Houses, and failed to become a law by reason of an accident merely?
Mr. HOTCHKISS. Will the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DeLANo] yield to me for a few moments?
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. I desire to inquire of the gentleman whether it is not a universally acknowledged principle of the common law, and the common law is nothing but a mantle of charity, that property destroyed by an army in the work of putting down arebellion stands on the ground of inevitable accident, and the owner has no claim upon the Government, either in law or in equity, for remuneration.
Mr. HOTCHIKISS. I never heard of any such principle of law. I deny the existence of any such princ inle.
Mr. STEVo. Will the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DELANo] yield to me for a mo Inent? "
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at the question just asked by the learned Gentfrom Connecticut. I had supposed there was nothing better understood than that when the army of a country, by reason of military necessity, destroys the property of a loyal citizen of the country, the Government always pays for it among the very 1st claims that are paid. The Goverment in such a case is liable under the law of nations; and it ought to be ashamed if under any pretext it refuses remuneration. Here was a house owned by a loyal man a building used as an academy or liter ary institution; the rebels took shelter behind it, and in order to get at them it was necessary to batter it down. This was done as a military necessity by the order of one of our commanders. Will any man who has ever read Montesquieu or Vattel tell me that our government is not liable for every dollar's worth of property destroyed under such circumstances 7
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. If the gentleman will permit me I want to make a single suggestion. Suppose that while the Union forces were before the city of Charleston, throwing shells into that city, the house of a Union man was set on fire and destroyed, will the gentleman say that by the law of nations or the law of equity the o is bound to indemnify that loyal citizen for the destruction of his property under those circumstances? I place such cases upon the ground of inevitable accident; and I am sustained by the law as reported in every book. I am sure I will be justified by every gentleman who has read the common law or the law of nations. I know I am right on this subject. Let the Gentfrom Pennsylvania cite his case so we may know what it is.
Mr. STEVENS. There is no inevitable accident about it. This was a deliberate order to destroy the property of Mr. Armes, growing out of military necessity. I am quite sure no one learned in the law will for a moment deny our Government is liable for the property. For instance, the Government burned a bridge across the Susquehanna river in order to prevent the rebel army from crossing: will any man tell me this Government is not liable for it? It has once already been reported here. To be reportesdure the Gentfrom Ohio has not it. et me say another thing. The resolution introduced here and adopted the gentleman, I think, called a law. I do not call that a law a resolution of this House reported by that committee. Why, sir, it is no more binding than any other resolution. It was got up after this bill was once reported and passed upon favorably. It is a resolution, in my judgment, the most iniquitous that ever an honest Government adopted to say we shall not pay for property, belonging to our own people destroyed for the use of the Government by its own officers.
Mr. DELANO. Let me ask the gentleman a question.
Mr. DELANO. Do I orland the gentleman to say these inhabitants of the rebel States are in that category? I thought he regarded that country as conquered territory and the inhabitants of it as aliens.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman had listened to about one 20th art of what I have said in the world he would have learned
Mr. DELANO. That would have been a good deal.
Mr. STEVENS. He would have learned that long ago, while I considered and do consider, as I think every lawyer does, that the territory belonging to the rebel States is conquered territory, as territory conquered by us, still that the loyal men in those States stand upon an entirely different footing in a civilWar from the inhabitants of a foreign nation which has been conquered, as I can show in many instances.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. Let me say a word.
Mr. STEVENS. Oh, no; the gentleman has talked more now than I have. [Laughter] I have only to say, Mr. Speaker, we are not assing upon an original question. I W. say that Armes is entitled under the law to this money. Both branches of the Government passed it and ordered it to be sent to the President for his signature; but one of our agents took another bill and it was returned signed when no one wanted it done. If we were private individuals Mr. Armes could sue that agent and recover every dollar. I put it upon the ground we are perfecting what we did before, declaring by JtResolution what both branches of the Government have him before, and what ought to have been aw, and would have been but for our own negligence. There is no law and certainly no equity in our depriving Mr. Armes of his property.
Mr. KASSON. I ask the Gentfrom Ohio to yield to me for a few moments.
Mr. DELANO. I yield 1st to the Gentfrom WestVirginia.
Mr. DELANO. I call the previous question.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. Will the gentlemaanllowme a word further?
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is the furthest from my wish to interpose any objection, to the payment of this claim to thisold gentleman. nly put it on the ground of charity and I will not object to it at all. I will open my own hand in charity to any manthat has suffered as much as he has at any timeand at all times. What I object to is the precedentt, he baleful precedent, that will be introducedinto this Congress for the allowance of claims to the amount of more than 500 million dollars before the conclusion of thissession. I trust there is no well read lawyer in this House who has so far forgotten the principle of law as not to understand that whereproperty was destroyed by the Union army in endeavoring to save the life of the Republic it stands on the ground of unavoid ableaccident, the act of God, or of the king's enemy. That pole is spread over every commonlaw that any lawyer in this House haseverread. There is no question about it at all.
Mr. DELANO. I yield a moment to the chairman of the comWays&Means.
Mr. MORRILL. I know that my friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] never flinches from the logic of his position. My own idea is, that to undertake to carry out the principle which he has announced would involve the Government in an expenditure of at least $1,000,000,000. Now, I desire to ask the chairman of the ComClaims what his estimate would be of the amount involved provided the Gentfrom Pennsylvania is correct in his position, which I do not think he is.
Mr. DELANO. I must say that it is impos.siblefor me to approximate with any certainty to the amount that the Government would assume under the interpretation of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania; but I think the ComClaims will agree with me that $1,000,000,000 would not cover it, and I have no idea that $2,000,000,000 would do it. Be causethe proposition, if Founderstand it, places the Government under the obligation of paying for all the destruction of property and for all the appropriation of property everywhere. Why, sir, there are millions in Pennsylvania.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman allow me to say that he entirely misunderstood what I said. I spoke of property belonging to the U.S. destroyed by military necessity by order of the commander of our Army. property which belonged to the enemy nobody ever thought of paying for, nor property destroyed by the enemy did anybody ever think of paying for. Why, sir, I venture to say that half of $300,000,000 would pay it all. But if it takes a little more, rather than deliberately cheat the people out of it I would steal the money to pay it. [Laughter]
Mr. DELANO. Mr. Speaker, how much more time have I? The SPEAKER Ten minutes.
Mr. DELANO. Then I will only ask the House, in conclusion as jurors, to bearin mind that what they do now is settling a principle. I have stated the case to the House. I know what the human heartisin a case like this, and I have endeavored so to pront it to the House that it can decide intelligently. I assure the House that understand the gentleman correctly in reference to his rule or paying damages for the war, and I assure him. moreover, that that rule will not, in my opinion, be made available to involve the goverument in a cost of less than $2,000,000,000.
Mr. KASSON. I will ask the gentleman a single question for information. A bill was reported to the House today, and was passed upon the gentleman's recommendation, approPages to carry up to adverse reports on priating money to pay for some property in Nashville, Tennessee, destroyed by the military. If there was any difference between that case and this I would be glad to know it.
Mr. DELANO. There was no such bill as that passed today; there was a bill passed which authorized the SecyWar, if he deemed it necessary, to purchase the remains of MGre.rtKaiAnSpSroOpNer.ty. I refer to a bill to for certain property destroyed by the U.S. troops.
Mr. DELANO. I know exactl gentleman refers to; and now I previous question on the bill.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading; and it was accordingly read the 3rd time. The question being upon its passage, Mr. ROLLINS demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 99, nays 27, not voting 65;. So the bill was passed. Mr. WINDOM mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PRINTING OF A REPORT.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the ComPrintg, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the following resolution: Resolved, That therebeprinted 6,000 copies nouf e, the report of the ComrIntRev 2,000 for the useof the House, and 4,000 for the use of the office of internalrevenue. The resolution was agreed to. SURVEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyWar be, and he is hereby, requested to furnish to the House a copy of the report and estimatesof GenlWilson in ref erence to the survey, and improvement of the rapids of the Mississippi river, known as the Des Moines and RockIsland rapids. And then, on motion of Mr. SPALDING (at 20 minutes before 5 o'clock p. m.) the House adjourned. what the emand the
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. SATURDAY, January 26, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. LANE, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate, a letter of the 2nd Auditor of the Treasury, communicating, in obedience to law, copies of all accounts which have been received at that office from persons charged or intrusted with the disbursement of money, goods, or effects for the benefit of the Indians from July 1, 1865, to June 30, 1866, with a list of the names of all persons to whom such disbursements have been committed, the amount accounted for, and the balance of appropriation under eath specific head remaining in their hands; which was referred to the ComIndAffrs.
Skip Skip PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. Mr. MORGAN Presented a memorial, of importers and dealers in China merchandise, remonstrating against the proposed prohibition of the importation of fire crackers in the tariff bill now pending in the Senate; which was ordered to lie upon the table. He also Presented a memorial of merchants and citizens of NewYork, remonstrating against the passage of the provision in the House tariff bill imposing a duty of $1 50 per ton on coal mined in the British Provinces; which was ordered to lie upon the table. Mr. SHERMAN Presented a petition of citizens of Ohio, praying for the passage of House bill No. 718, to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes, now pending in the Senate; which was ordered to lie upon the table. Mr. HENDERSON Presented a petition of the North Missouri fl. Company of missouri, asking for a credit on the duties to be on the importation of certain iron rails to e used upon that road; which was referred to the ComFinance. CONDITION OF THE INDIAN TRIBES.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senator ask for the printing of the report?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, sir. An order has already been entered that the report be printed, and the same number of extra copies as were ordered to be printed of the appendix.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The same order will be entered if there be no objection. AMENDMENT of internalrevenue LAw.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am directed by the ComFinance, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 244) to amend existing laws relating to internalrevenue, to report it back without amendment, and to ask that it be considered and passed. I do not think there can be any objection to it. It is regarded as very important by the revenue. dept, as i. we are losing 1000s of every day on account of a practice that has prevailed and which this resolution will correct. It is very short, and I can explain it if any explanation is necessary. There being no objection, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the JtResolution. It proposes to exempt from tax alcohol made or manufactured of distilled spirits upon which the taxes imposed by law shall have been paid, and burn:ing fluid made or manufactured from alcohol or spirits of turpentine, or camphene, upon which the taxes imposed by law shall have been paid; and to repeal so much of section 96 of the act of June 30, 1864, as relates to alcohol and burning fluid, and all prod ucts of distillation, by whatever name known, which contain distilled spirits or alcohol on which the tax imposed by law has not been paid, are to be considered and taxed as distilled spirits. It also proposes to amend paragraph 19 of section 79 of the act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866, entitled “An act to reduce internal taxation, and to amend an act entitled ‘An act to provide internalrevenue to support the Government, to pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes, ’ approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof, ” by striking out the words “and distillers of burning fluid and camphene.” The JtResolution was reported to the senate without amendment, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. REPORT OF A COMMITTEE.
Mr. HOWE, from the ComClaims, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.457) for the relief of Hiram Paulding, rear admiral U.S. Navy, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComForRel; which was agreed to. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. LANE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.540) to amend an act entitled “An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermaster's stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the U.S., ” approved July 4, 1864; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WADE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.541) to regulate the care and supervision of the Capitol and Capitol grounds, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPubBldg and Grounds.
Mr. HENDERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.542) for the relief of the North Missouri Railroad Company of Missouri, by allowing a credit on duties to be paid on imported railroad iron; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance.
Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.543) to abolish and forever prohibit the system of peonage in the Territory of NewMexico.d.parts of the U.S.; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComMilAffrs , and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SUMNER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.544) to amend an act entitled “An act to incorporate the Newsboys' Home, ” and also for the relief of abandoned children in the DistCol; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComDistCol, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. FOWLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.545) for the relief of John F. Stewart; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComMilAffrs .
Mr. WILSON, in pursuance of previous no tice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill (S.No.546) to increase and equalize the pay of officers in the Army of the U.S., and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComMilAffrs , and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CHANDLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.547) to amend an act entitled “An act to extend the time for the reversion to the U.S. of the lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad from Amboy by Hillsdale and Lansing to some point on or near Traverse bay, in the State of Michigan, and for other purposes;” which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPubLands.. CAPTURE of JeffersonDavis.
Mr. WILSON submitted the following resolution; whichr was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the SecyWar be directed to furnish for the use.9f the Senate the report of Major General J. M. Wilson on the capture of JeffersonDavis. BALTIMORE AND POTOMAC RAILROAD.
Mr. WADE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 388. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 388) to authorize the extension, construction, and use of a lateral branch of the Baltimore and Poto mac railroad into and within the DistCol The bill was reported to the Senate as Camended.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Ought that bill to be considered in the absence of the Maryland Senators? Neither of them is in his seat. It is a bill of some importance.
Mr. WADE. I believe both those Senators have been here this morning, if they are not here now. I do not know that they take any interest in it. I told one of the Senators from Maryland that I should call it up this morning. He was here then. I do not suppose he takes any interest.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not know whether they do or not; but it is a question of some importance, and I think it had better be post poned until they are here.
Mr. WADE. It has been postponed one week because one of them was absent. They have been here today. I do not think they take much interest in it. I spoke to the Senfrom Maryland [Mr. CRESWELL] for whose accommodation it was postponed before and he said he had no objection to my calling it up at any time.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is, Will the Senate concur in the amendments made as in ComWhole? The amendments were concurred in. The amendments were ordered to fo be en and the bill to be read a 3rd time. t was read the 3rd time, and passed. compeNSATION OF CIVIL EMPLOYees.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House JtResolution No. 224. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service of the Government at Washington.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The ComFinance report an amendment to the JtResolution, which is to strike out all after the enacting clause and to insert a substitute. The substitute only will be read unless some Senator asks for the reading of the original resolution.
The Secretary read the substitute, as follows: That there shall be allowed and paid, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the following described persons employed in civil service at Washington, namely: the to clerks, messengers watchmen, and laborers, and all the civil employees whose salaries are fixed by law and do not exceed the saurmycolefr$k3s, 500 each per annum, and includ female clerks, employees in the Dept of State, in the Treasury, War, Navy, interior. postoffice, and Agriculturafil depts: in the offices of the AttyGen, CoastSurvey, Naval Observatory, navy yard, PayMGen, including the division of referred claims, Commissary General of Prisoners; in the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands; in the office of the Capitol extension; in the city postoffice: to all enlisted men of the Army, Navy, Marine corps, or generalserviceof the U.S., oft.clerks, messengers, watchmen, or laborers in any bureau of the War Dept: to all female glerks, or employees in either of Agricultural Dept , depts, including the or in anybureau or thereof, division whose compensation does not exceed 60 dollars per month: to the superintendent of meters, lamp lighters, anddraw keepersemployedunderthe direction of the ComrPubBldg, and oneclerk in the office of said Commissioner, and to the detectivesof the Metropolitan police, an additional compensation of 20%. on their respective salaries or pay from one year from and after the 30thday of June, 1856: provided, That the above named additional compensation to ployees the em of the Patent Officebepaid out of the fundsof saidoffice: And providedfurther, That thisresolution shall apply only to such persons as may be in service at the time of the passage thereof: And provided further, That this resolution shall not be, so construed as to give any greater amount as additional othan an increase of 20%. Qn the salary or pay for, the time of during the period hereinbeforespecifieadc.tual service
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to amend the amendment in the 16th and 17th lines by striking out the words “in the city postoffice” and inserting the words “and also.”
Mr. MORRILL. I should like to ask the mover of this amendment on what ground it is made.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have inserted them in another place.
Mr. MORRILL. Then I do not object if they are provided for in another place.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I intend to make that motion. You will see that provision is made for them according to the suggestion of the city postmaster.
Mr. MORRILL., Still I suppose it was proper to make the inquiry before the question was taken.
Mr. MORRILL. The inquiry was as to the reason for striking this out.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The city postmaster came to me this morning and told me that the clerks in the city postoffice were not salaried officers, and he desired to have them embraced in that part of the resolution that provides for persons who do not receive salaries; and according to that suggestion I have moved to strike out the words “in the city postoffice” in the 16th and 17th lines, and I shall move to insert the same words or equivalent words in a subsequent part of the resolution.
Mr. MORRILL. That is satisfactory, of course. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire to offer some additional amendments to the amendment. I move to amend in the 20th line, after the word “Dept, ” by inserting the words “and also;” and in the same line I move to strike out the words “clerks or” before the word “employees;” so that the clause will read: And also to all female employees in Depts, either of the &c. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to insert in the 2/3rd line, after the words “per month, ” the words “and also to clerks and employees in the city postoffice, and.”
Mr. MORRILL. I inquire if it is in order to amend that amendment?
The PRESIDENT protempore. This is an amendment to an amendment, and a motion to amend in the 3rd degree is not admissible.
Mr. HEND RICKS. Will it be in order to include other postoffices?
Mr. MORRILL. That is just what I inquired.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If so, I thought of including the Indianapolis postoffice.
Mr. MORRILL. Oh, no; that is not in order.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It is an ordinary postoffice, and of course if we are to provide for the postoffice here we ought to provide for others where living is equally expensive.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move further to amend the amendment in the 26th and 20 7th lines by striking out the words “and to the detectives of the Metropolitan police.” I do this at the instance of members of the Metropolitan police.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question upon the amendment to the amendment last offered is not yet disposed of.
The Secretary read the amendment to the amendment, to insert in the 2/3rd line the words “and also to clerks and employees of the city postoffice, and.”
Mr. ENo. Is not that amendable by adding other postoffices? The soT protempore. Not at this stage. This is an amendment to an amendment, and an amendment in the 3rd degree is not admissible; but such an amendment will be in order to the amendment of the cominittee subsequently.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not know whether we ought to go into the general system of increasing the pay of the employees of postoffices; I am not sufficiently informed on the subject; but if the clerks in one postoffice are provided for at 20% additional increase, it should be extended to the other cities where it is fully as expensive to live as it is in this city. These are mere postoffice clerks, and the same reasons will apply to other cases.
Skip Skip The question being put on the amendment to the amendment, there were, on a division ayes 8, noes 3; no quorum voting. Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for the yeas&nays.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a quorum Present. I think if we have another division we can decide the question without the yeas&nays, if gentlemen will vote. I will explain precisely what this proposition is. The clerks in the city postoffice were included in the resolution as it came from the House, but were placed among those whose salary is fixed by law. We have ascertained that their salary is notfixed by law, and therefore we are obliged to transfer them to another portion of the resolution; and the amendment to the amendment is madenecessary for that purpose. The House included these clerks in the city postoffice in this increased compensation, and the Senate committee agreed to it as being proper. The question now is, whether they shall be transferred to a point in the resolution where that intention can be carried out.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. I should like to ask the Senator a question. Will not this be made a ground upon which increased compensation will be claimed in all the postoffices all over the country?
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir. It only relates to clerks in the city postoffice in Washington.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. But will it not furnish a ground for similar claims from all the postoffice clerks throughout the country?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope not. We should then resist it if such a claim was made. This resolution is confined to clerks employed in the city of Washington, and is intended to be so confined, and the committee, I Presume, would oppose an addition to anybody out of Wash:ington. It stands on its own peculiar ground with reference to the expenses of living in Washington.
Mr. VANWINKLE. I have not been able to hear the explanations that have been made on the other side of the Chamber, but I find in the 16th line of the amendment reported by the committee these words: “in the city postoffice.” That portion of the amendment applies to “the clerks, female clerks and employees in all the other Depts.” and includes the city postoffice. I should like to ask the gentleman having the proposition in charge to explain wherein his amendment differs from what is already apparently in the resolution.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think a sufficient explanation has already been made.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I said that these words were included in the 1st part of the amendment upon the assumption that the clerks and employees in the postoffice of the city were sala fied officers; but I am informed by the postmaster of this city that they are not salaried officers, but that their wages are fixed by the postmaster, and he desires to have authority by this measure to increase their pay to the same extent that the pay of the other officers mentioned in the resolution is increased; and therefore the words in the 16th and 17th lines were stricken out, and I propose to transfer them to that portion of the resolution which is intended to include persons whose salaries are not fixed by law.
Mr HEN DRICKS. I wish to ask the senator, before he takes his seat, whether it is not in this office just like it is in all other offices: the number of clerks is controlled by the Postmaster &eneral, and the rates of their compensation.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not hear the question.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Is not this an ordinary postoffice like the postoffices in other cities in regard to its employees?
Mr. WILLIAMS, I suppose that this postoffice is like any other postoffice in the U.S. so far as the employment and salaries of the clerks are concerned.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes, the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday without a motion. The tariff bill is now before the Senate. THE TARIFF BILL. The Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposeS.R.FESSENDEN. If I can get the attention of the Senate for a few moments I will eixp.lain an amendment that I propose to move. reference to the amendment that was made yesterday on the motion of the Senfrom WestVirginia, [Mr. WILLEY] I move to strike out the word “Albertite” in the 30 1st line, on page 85.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will state that there is an amendment pending. The question is on the amendment moved by the Senfrom NewJersey [Mr. FRELINGHuysen] on page 40, section 8, line 60 8, after the word “two” to insert “and one half;” so as to make the clause read: On zinc, spelter, or teutenague, in blocks or pigs, 2 and a half cents per pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If there is an amendment pending of course I will not interfere with it. I will move my amendment afterward.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, it seems to me if the Senate comprehended fully the facts in reference to spelter they would not hesitate to adopt the pending amendment, which is to increase the tariff from 2 cents to 2 and a half cents on spelter. This mineral is found in many parts of this country. It is found in NewJersey, in Pennsylvania, in Virginia, in Tennessee, in Arkansas, in Missouri, and in the lead regions of Wisconsin; and there are many works established in NewJersey, in Pennsylvania, in Illinois, in Wisconsin, and in Massachusetts. The increase that is asked is half a cent a pound. This article is used as a component part of brass, and the duty on brass is 7 cents a pound, so that this increase would not seri ously affect the value of brass. The manufacturer can afford to import this article, but it is the country that is interested in having the foreign article excluded and in having this wealth of the country developed.. I hope that the Senate will adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. On this question the yeas&nays have been ordered. rTheoques.tion being taken by yeas&nays, 10, nays 1;7 25. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I now move, on page 85, section 13, line 31, to strike out the word “Albertite, ” and I will make a statement in regard to it, unless the Senfrom WestVirginia is willing to agree to strike it out, so that it may come under the head of coal. If it is stricken out here it comes in under the head of coal, and pays a duty of $150, like other coal.
Mr. WILLEY. Albertite, as I understand it, is a species of asphaltum. Here it is what in Nova Scotia they call Albertite, and here is a specimen from WestVirginia that they call asphaltum. [Exhibiting specimens to the senate] If there be any difference I am not able to see it. It is a species of asphaltum almost identical in quality.
Mr. WILLEY. Of course, if it came in as coal it did not pay duty as asphaltum.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Exactly; but what many Senators founded their votes upon yesterday was the statement that the motion of the honorable Senfrom WestVirginia was only to make it pay exactly what it had been paying.
Mr. WILLEY. If it was coal, then of course it would pay a smaller duty; but if it was asphaltum it would pay more. That is the question exactly.
Mr. HOWE. Then the duty is more than 25%.
Mr. FESSENI) EN. I do not know but that it may be. It came in as coal, as I said before, at $1.25 a ton. I propose to strike this out so that it may come in now as other coal does under this bill at $150, making no distinction. Let me call attention to another statement to show the way in which the person who wrote this paper tried to influence the members of the Senate: “Albertite comesfrom Nova Scotia.” That is true. “It is a vein of asphaltum, of great value, and it is largely, if not principally, owned by foreigners.” Here are 2 errors, intentional, or unintentional, I do not know which. “The owners, have a manufactory of oil in Scotia, Nova but the duty on the importation of crude, oil itnhteoythhaeve U.S. established a nboetihnegr tmenancuefnatestopreyr gallon, at land, Maine, where, by Port a cheap and simple process, similar to the retorting of coal in gas works, the Albertite is convertedinto oil, yielding over 100 gallons to the ton of mineral.
Mr. WILLEY. On that point I wish to ascertain from the Senator whether it is true that this coal, as he calls it, yields over 100 gallons of oil to the ton.
Mr. FESSENDEN. About 100 of crudeoil, not of refined oil.
Mr. JOHNSON. What does the Senator propose to make the duty?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The same as the coal duty, $1 50 a ton. I move simply to strike out “Albertite” here; and then it will come in as coal, as it has done before.
Mr. WILLEY. I know how hopeless a task it is to interpose objections on a question of this character to any position which the chair man of the ComFinance may deem it his duty to take in regard to a proposition; but I beg, after having listened to his statement, the Senate will have notice that, after all, the ". raised by the statement of the Senfrom Maine is whether, in point of fact, a rose would not smell as sweet by another name. The proposition is to strike the word “Alber tite” out of the lines alluded to and place it under the head of coal, so that it may be subject to the same duty as ordinary coal. Now let us. look at the proposition, and let us look at the result of this thing. How much oil can be exressed out of , ordinary bitumine us coal? That very much upon its quality, for there is a difference of quality in the ordinary bitu mine us coal. So far as my experience” is concerned and living in the midst of iIt have some personal knowledge in regard to that matter 40 gallons a ton is about the highest that you can get from a ton of the richest bitumine us coal in our section of the country.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is about all they get from this after it is reduced.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How much would the revenue have been increased if the article had been excluded?
Mr. EDMUNDS. It would probably have increased it to about as much as it would to exelude Albertite from the works of Maine. I do not know how much it would increase it to exclude it altogether; but where there is a net profit of more than 100%. upon each cubic foot that the importer now brings in, I take it there is not much danger in increasing the tariff 50 cents per foot, which is just about ten%. on the retail price of his sales.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will notice a difference between marble and Albertite, as he calls it. Whereas he desires a double duty to be put upon marble, we are content with an increased duty on Albertite.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Very well, I am not complaining of my friend's Albertite; I am only saying that that kind of justice which he dee. mands for himself and for the interest that he rePresents he o to be willing to extend to other sections of the country.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am, and if the Senator will only demonstrate that there has been any change to render it any more burdensome for the Vermont marble to contend with foreign marble since 1864, when we know there has been a fall in the prices of living and no increase in the price of wages, and it was fixed then to suit what they demanded, I shall be inclined to favor an increase of the duty.
Mr. EDMUNDS. We have yet to learn in my section of country that there has been any fall in the prices of wages or in the price of living.
Mr. FESSENDEN. .do not ask any increase.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I desire simply to say, in reference to this amendment proposed by the Senfrom Vermont, that the rePresentatives of this interest and the rePresentatives of those who are engaged in the working of marble were before the committee, and both sides of this question were there heard, and this report was fixed with reference to the interests of all concerned as well with reference to the interest of the country so far as the question related to revenue.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Allow me to ask my friend a question. May I inquire what representatives of the marble producing interest were before the committee’?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know their names: I cannot remember their names.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Can you tell where their uarries were 2
Mr. WILLIAMS. I suppose they were in Vermont, but I am not certain about that.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I should be very glad to have more definite information on that subject.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not think any Wermont marble men were before us.
Mr. EDMUNDS. My information is that the marble workers of NewYork and Philadelphia, 3/4ths of whom are unnaturalized foreigners, Italians, as I am told, (and from my own experience I think that"is so,) were before the committee; but the marble producers, relying upon the examination which was had upon the House bill, and not informed that there was going to be any attack upon it, had no opportunity of being heard., I am not complaining that the committee did not give them a hearing; they ought to have attended to Iit, agree.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Only a word. I will not occupy the time of the Senate. The trouble with my friend and the committee evidently has been this: that in the multiplicity of their occupations, and in the great number of parties whom they have had before them, they have had only one side of this question before them, and, the other side not appearing at all, they have taken the vague, general statements of these gentlemen, who do not want to part with their profits which they enjoy in Europe toward supporting this Government, for proof that there !.a great oa wrong to them, if this duty be enhanced.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Allow me to say, in justice to the committee, they have not taken any such foolish course. They do not take things for granted. There has been no matter that has come before the committee, whether one side or the other, but they have taken special pains to examine closely into the subject and see the true ground of the statements made, and arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to our own minds. We do not do our business in the committee in the way the Senator supposes.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I did not say the committee took anything for granted; I said that the committee evidently acted upon vague representations rather than upon data, because I invite either of my friends on that committee now to tell this Senate if they can what is the invoice cost of Cararra marble, not the stat nary, but the other marble, that is imported into the city of NewYork. I wish to know what the data they had before them were upon which it was made manifest to them that these Italians are going to be ruined if they pay a dollar a cubic foot and diminish their profits.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say to the Senator that there was a printed memorial submitted to the committee (f supposed when he commenced the discussion that I had it in my drawer, but I am not able to lay my hand on it now:) there was an elaborate memorial that contained all the figures necessary to make it appear that those persons would be ruined in case this tariff was imposed. As to their being Italians, I can only say they speak the English language and appeared to be Amer 1Cans.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I have no doubt that they had a printed memorial, and that was the evidence upon which the committee appear to have proceeded the statistics in this printed memorial, which is not now forthcoming. I venture to say that if my friendfrom Oregon, whose reputation as a good lawyer is very high, and justly, had cross examined one of those gentlemen a little, and had asked him definitely what was the invoice price, the sworn invoice price, of these marbles, in the city of NewYork, and then had asked him what was the price the same men got for the same marble in the city of NewYork, he would have found that where the invoice price may have been a little above 2 dollars, including all costs and charges and everything, as I have stated, the price that the dealer got for his marble exceeded 5 dollars. he had spent a little of his skill in cross exam ining that man he would have demonstrated that he ought to share with the Government a little more of the enormous profits he was making. I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 13, nays 22; 17. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRIMES. That is only just at this moment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But there is a demand for all they can raise, and if we undertake to check the manufacture by imposing a high duty the result will be a falling off in the price of the article. Now, while I am perfectly willing to put upon hemp any duty that it is demonstratedought to go on to it for the protection of the grower and to have it raised in this country I do not think it advisable to place so large a duty as is here proposed.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, they made no change in that duty. 45 dollars a ton was put on unmanufactured flax and hackled flax. The commissioner proposed 20 dollars, and we put it at 25 dollars, where it wasbefore. The House proposed no change.
Mr. HENDERSON. On that point I am mistaken. But if the Senator's argument is correct, that the only way to protect the raw material is to build up manufactures whereby there will be a demand created for the raw material, I would suggest that that plan be od in regard to wool and all other mate Tials.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator misun derstandsme. I said that was not the policy of the bill, but its policy was to put on a suffi. cient protection to encourage the working of theraw material. I said that while that is done the true protection is to build up manufactures to use the article make a demand for the article, in other words. "I do not reject the idea, the Senate does not reject the idea, of protect.ing raw materials.
Mr. HENDERSON. I think, then, we should have something like equality of taxation. I was about to remark that on manufactures in this bill there is a tax of from 60 Wo 130%. advalorem, mestic industry of the country and on the raw material the tax is generally quite small. The great disproportion in rates is perhaps subject to criticism. The disproportion in this very article is too great. The Senator knows perfectly well that the increase upon many articles of manufacture is large in this bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Upon some, and upon others not.
Mr. HENDERSON. It will make perhaps an average increase of not less than from 20 to 25%. on the gross amount of importations that may be made under it. The precise increase cannot, of course, be known without actual test or trial. But while I am up I desire to exPress the wish that the distinguished Senfrom Maine will consent very soon, at least after he shall have perfected the bill according to his notions and the wishes of the ComFinance, to postpone it for at least a week or ten days, until we can ascertain what the HoRep will do and what we ourselves intend to do upon the internalrevenue policy.
Mr. SHERMAN. The House is waiting for our action on this bill to determine what they will do on that question.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, this bill has been dragging on for a great while, and we do not seem to be any nearer to the end of it than we were some time ago. For 3 evenings successively I have been left here without a quorum, and I suppose that state of things is to continue. If. Senate mean to pass this bill, in which the majority of them seem to be so very deeply interested, I think it would be well to adopt a little different.Now, after we get into the Senate all these amendments can be moved just exactly as well as in ComWhole. The result is, that if we keep moving amendments here and making o:upon them, it will just double the time and the labor that will be expended. I suggest, therefore, to Senators who have amendments that they desire to move to the bill whether it would not be as well to take the bill into the Senate, and after we have acted in the ordinary form upon those amendments which have been adopted in ComWhole, then every Senator can offer his amendments in the 1st instance there just as well as in committee, and save us a good deal of time. If that is done I shall be able to accommodate the wishes of Senators who desire to have an executive session this evening. The bill will then be out of committee and we can take it up on Monday, when I hope it may be finished. I suggest this for the purpose of expediting business, and I hope that the Senate will agree to it. After the pending amendment has been disposed of one way or the other, I suggest that the bill be taken out of committee and into the Senate, and I will then yield to the motion to go into executive session; otherwise I shall be obliged to continue. This way of moving amendments twice, once in committee and once in the Senate, is very burdensome and takes up a great deal of time. I believe there is an amendment pending which must 1st be disposed of.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Kentucky.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I supposed it was the intention of the Senfrom Maine to close this bill tonight, and I think he might just as well do it. "
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should be very glad to do it.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will cheerfully stay here until we close the bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But gentlemen would not be willing to stayhereafter 12 o'clock, as it is Saturday night, and we should then find ourselves still not out of committee with these numeroo amendmentsand all these speeches; and I will say to theSenatorthat if he had stayed here so as to make a quorum the 3 last nights, and enabled us to go on with business we should not be in the position we are now.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I stayed here to keep a quorum every evening until yesterday.
Mr. FESSENDEN. And I suppose some body else stayed every evening but the night before.
Mr. HENDRICKS. And on yesterday evening at half past 5 o'clock I left. But suppo: that the Senator intended to bring the bill to a vote to night, I am prepared now to stay with him.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I would have tried very hard last night if the Senator had stayed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. And I will now cheer fully go on with the bill until we bring it to a close. I do not suppose there will i. very much general debate upon it.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the senate.; for the question on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Kentucky?
Mr. GRIMES. I suggest to the Senator that he can offer his amendment in the Senate when the bill is reported, and make his remarks then.
Mr. DAVIS. I have no objection to allowing the question to be taken on my amendment now, and making the few remarks which I in tend to make upon it in the Senate.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If it should not be adopted now, the Senator can move it again in the Senate and take the yeas&nays upon it, if he desires to do so at that time. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The amendment of the ComFinance, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Now let the bill be reported to the Senate, if there be no objection. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is, Will the Senate concur in the amendment made as in ComWhole.
Mr. GRIMES. Now, I move that the senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope the Senator will allow me to make a report, which will take but a moment.
Mr. GRIMES. that purpose. PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF OFFICE.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The ComJudiciary, to whom was referred a JtResolution (S.R.No. 33) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. so as to limit the tenure of office of the President to one term, have instructed me to report the resolution back to the Senate with an amendment.
Mr. WADE. I wish to give notice to the Senate that I shall avail myself of the 1st opportunity to call up that resolution and have it acted upon. I hope it will not be debated long, and I do not believe it will be, because the subject has been so long before the public that everybody’s mind is made up upon it, and I am anxious it should pass while the State Legislatures are in session that they may adopt it. I will say a word or 2 on I withdraw the motion for PENSION AGENTS.
Mr. LANE. The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions, having met, after full and free conference have agreed on a report which I now Present. They recommend: That the Senate recede from their 1st amendment to the amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: strike out the word “October” and insert “July;' and strike out all after the word, “act” in line 11 of the House amendment to the end of said amendment. That the Senate recedefrom their 2nd, amendment to the amendment of the House, and in lieu thereof agree to insert the words: “and the commissions df all other pension agents now in office shall continue for 4 yearsfrom the passage of this act, unlesssuchagentsare sooner removed.” The only important change from the bill as it stood by the action of the Senate, effected by this report is to strike out “October, 1866” and insert “July, 1866, ” making the last provision go back 3 months. The other amendment is as to the power of the President to remove these officers at his discretion, providing that the officers shall continue in office for 4 years unless sooner removed. That is inserted out of abundant caution. We supposed he had the power under existing laws.
Mr. SUMNER. if I understand the operation of this bill now, it vacates certain offices from the 1st of July, 1866.
Mr. LANE. Yes, sir; that is it. The report was concurred in.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, January 26, 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. BALTIMORE AND OTH0 RAILROAD.
Mr. KOONTZ. I ask unanimous consent to have taken from the Speaker's table, for reference to the ComDistCol, the bill (S.No.507) entitled “An act to amend an act entitled “An act to au. thorize the extension, construction, and use by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, of a railroad from between Rockville and the Monocacy Junction into and within the DistCol approved July 25, 1866.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I object; and lest this objection should seem discourteous on my part, I desire to explain the reason of it. This bill contemplates an enterprise of considerable importance to the Government of the U.S.; and I think it should be passed without delay rather than be referred. I fear that the ComDistCol may not be called again for reports during the Present session. If the bill remains upon the Speaker's table it may be disposed of at some time when business on the Speaker's table shall be taken up. MARY bond.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the comInvalidPens be instructed to inquire into the justice and expe diency of granting a pension to Mary. Bond, widow of John Bond, deceased, late of who died the U.S. in the Army service of tales. the U.S. SALES OF CONFISCATED WHISKY.
Mr. DARLING, by unanimous consent, submitted the following reslution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That the SecyTreasury requested be to suspend the sales of confiscated whisky, unlessthe price offered is equal to Saline. the tax upon the
Mr. DARLING mtRtv the resolution was adopted; upon the table. agreed to. RIVER THAMES, CONNECTICUT.
Mr. BRANDEGEE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComAppropriat be instructed to inquire into the expediency ofing report an appropriation recommendedby the engineer dept of the U.S., for the dredging and maintaining of the channel of near Norwich, the river Thames, in the state of Connecticut. BOUNTIES.
Mr. ANCONA, by unanimous consent, reported from the ComMilAffrs a bill to amend an act entitled “An act making appropriations, &c., ” approved July 28, 1856, giving additional bounties to discharged soldiers in certain cases; which was recommitted, and ordered to be printed. PACKAGE Post.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Reso/red, That the comPostOfficebe instructed to pediency inquire info the exof establishing, under the chargeanddirection of the postofficeDept, a packageposton the several railway and steamboatmail routesof the U.S. for the conveyanceof parcels of merchandise, &c., money, at such ratesof compensationand under such regulations as may be establishedbylaw; and that the committeereport by bill or otherwise. WISCONSIN AND LAKE SUPERIOR RAILROAD.
Mr. DRIGGS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill granting lands to the States of Wisconsin and Michigan to aid in the construction of the Wisconsin and Lake Superior railroad; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BLAINE mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. PUBLIC BUILDING IN PEorl.A, r Illinois.
Mr. INGERSOLL, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution to provide for the erection of a building in Peoria, Illinois, for the accommodation of the postoffice and internalrevenue offices; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the comPostOffice, and ordered to be printed. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in order during the morning hour is the call of committees for reports of a private character, beginning with the ComForAffrs. GEORGE W. Fish.
Mr. CULLOM, from the ComForAffrs, reported back Senate bill No. 446, for the relief of George W. Fish, with a recommendation that the same do pass. The bill was read at length. It directs the SecyTreasury to pay to George W. Fish the sum of $1, 825 04 in lar full pay for consu services as U.S.. at Ningpo, China, and for exchange due him. The bill was read the 3rd time and passed.
Mr. CULLOM mtRtv the bill was passed; on table. agreed to. TOWNSEND HARRIS.
Mr. RAYMOND, from the ComForAffrs, reported a JtResolution for the relief of Townsend Harris; which was road a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution was read at length. The reamble sets forth that Townsend Harris, of NewYork, while holding the office of consul general of the U.S. at Simoda, Japan, under instructions from the State Dept of October, 1856, opened diplomatic negotiations with the Japanese Government, and continued the same until January, 1858, which negotiations resulted in the conclusion of the convention of Simoda and the treaty of Jeddo, which diplomatic services were beyond the sphere of his duties as consul general, and for which he has received no compensation. The joint_resolution directs the payment to Townsend Harris of the sum of $4, 645 83, for such services, as compensation from October 1, 1856, until August 18, 1857, at the rate of $9,000 per annum, 1st deducting therefrom his salary as consul general for the same time; and from August 18, 1857, until January, 1858, inclusive, compensation at the rate of $2, 500 per annum, in addition to his salary as consul general as provided by law.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the time, and passed. Mr. RAY MOND mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to. JAMES reen An.
Mr. DAWSON, from the ComForAffrs, reported a JtResolution for the relief of the legal rePresentatives of James Keenan; which was read a time. 1st and 2nd The JtResolution was read at length. It directs the SecyTreasury. in the settlement of the accounts of James Keenan, late consul at HongKong, China, to pay his legal rePresentatives the amount of exchange to which he would have been entitled had he drawn the several balanees due him on the adjustment of his accounts.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the time, and passed. Mr. DAWSON mtRtv the joint, resolution was passed; upon the table. agreed to. HENRY P. BLANCHARD.
Mr. PATTERSON, from the ComForAffrs, reported a bill for the relief of Henry P. Blanchard; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill was read at length. It directs the SecyTreasury to pay to Henry P. Blanchard, for his services as marshal at the port of Canton, in China, from February 22, 1858, to the 1st of July, 1860, the sum of $2, 35424. The report was read.
Skip Skip The bill was then orderengross andreada 3rd time; and being engrossed, it wasaccordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. PATTERSON mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. MRS. L. HOUTON.
Mr. PERHAM, from the ComInvalidPensions, reported adversely upon the application of Mrs. L. Houton for a pension; whichwas laid upon the table. ALLEN WILSON.
Mr. PERHAM, from the ComInvalidPens, also reported back, with a recommendation that it do not pass, House bill No. 1086, for the relief of Allen Wilson, of Wilson county, Tennessee; and the same was laid upon the table. INCREASE OF PENSIONS. On motion of Mr. PERHAM, the ComInvalidPens were discharged from the furtherconsideration of the memorial of generalC. W. Van Wyck, of Orange county, NewYork, asking that pensions may be increased, and the laws so modified that persons entitled thereto may obtain the same with less delay andothan at Present; and the same waslaid upon the table. MRS. LY DIA WINTER.
Mr. PERHAM. I ask that the ComInvalidPens be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Mrs. Lydia Winter for a pension, and that the same be laid Rogo the table.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I would ask the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. PERHAM] what are the grounds for reporting against this petition.
Mr. PERHAM. The subject of the memorial is embraced in the provisions of a general W.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I think this case of Mrs. Winter is a meritorious one, and I would like to have the committee consider it still further.
Mr. PERHAM. Very well; I will with draw the report in this case for the Present. The report was accordingly withdrawn. son,0MON P. S.Mitii.
Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, also reported back Senate bill No. 410, for the relief of Solomon P. Smith, with the recommendation that it do pass. The bill provides that there shall be paid to Solomon P. Smith, late a captain in the 115th regiment of NewYork volunteers, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $260 for his pension. the 14th of January, 1865, when he was mustered out of the service, until the 15th of February, 1866, the date of the filing of his application for a pension with the omrPensions.
Skip Skip The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. PERHAM mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. REUBEN CLOUGHI.
Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, alsoreported back adversely Senate bill No. 171, for the relief of Reuben Clough, and moved that it be laid upon the table. The motion was agreed to. WILLIAM A. HINSHAW AND J. M. HINSHAW.
Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, alsoreported back Senate bill No. 476, for the relief of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, of Green county, Tennessee, with the recommendation that it do pass, with an amendment. The bill directs the SecyInterior to place the names of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, of Green county, Tennessee, upon the pension roll at the rate of 8 dollars per month, to commence on the 27th of November, 1866, and to continue until they severally obtain 16 years of age. The amendment of o committee was to strike out all after the word “roll” in the 7th line, and insert in lieu thereof: Subject to pension the privileges and limitations of the laws in regard to orphan children, to commence27thNovember, 1866
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to sand the bill as amended was ordere and it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. PERHAM mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. PETER ANDERSON.
Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, also reported back adversely Senate bill No. 79, for the relief of Peter Anderson, and moved that it be laid upon the table. The motion was agreed to. MRS. BARBARA Firy, Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, also reported back Senate bill No. 455, for the relief of the widow of Henry Fry, with amendments. The bill directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Mrs. Henry Fry upon the pension roll, at the rate of 8 dollars per month, to commence the 27th of November, 1861, and to continue during her widowhood. The committee's amendments were to strike out “Mrs. Henry Fry” and insert “Mrs. Bar bara Fry, ” and to amend the title so as to read, “A bill for the relief of Mrs. Barbara Fry.”
Skip Skip The amendments were agreed to. The bill, as amended, was ordered to a 3rd reading; and it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. PERHAM mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, from the same committee, reported back the following adversely; and the same were laid upon the table. Petition of William McBryan, of Jay county, Indiana, for a pension. House bill No. 955, for the relief of John B. Cothran, of Tennessee. Mits. JANE CLEMENTS.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, from the same committee, reported a bill granting a pension to Mrs. Jane Clements; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the SecyInterior to place the name of Mrs. Jane Clements, of the DistCol, widow of Ignatius Clements, deceased, upon the pension roll at the rate of 8 dollars per month during her widowhood, to commence on the 1st of August, 1864, the date of her husband's death; and it also provides she shall have the benefits of the 2nd section of the act approved July 25, 1866, in regard to mine r children of deceased soldiers, if she shall show, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner on Pensions that she has such mine r child or children as will entitle her to the same.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. to a 3rd reading; JOHN J. SOHAN.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, from the same committee, also reported a bill granting an increased pension to John J. Sohan; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill allows John J. Sohan, in conse. quence of total blindness resulting from disease contracted in the line of duty as a marine in the U.S. Navy, a pension of 25 dollars per month, to commence 16th August, 1866, and to continue during said disa bility; and to be in lieu of the pension hereto fore allowed.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. ADWERSE REPORTS.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, from the some committee, made an adverse report on House bill No. 870, for the relief of Charles McCarty; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. LEFTWICH, from the same committee made an adverse report on the memorial of George H. Finley for a pension; also on the memorial of Lewis M. Luckett, a soldier during the Mexican war, asking for a pension; also on the petition of James te; which were severally laid on the table and ordered to be printed. HIRAM HEDRICK.
Mr. LEFTWICH, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Hiram Hedrick; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill authorizes the payment of a pension at the rate of 25 dollars per month in lieu of the pension now received.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. LEFTWICH mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. ADWERSE REPORTS.
Mr. VANAERNAM, from the same committee, made an adverse report on the petition of J. M. Miller; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Also on the petition of Henry Coleman, late seaman on board the U.S. steamer McClellan; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. MELINDA. HARMON.
Mr. VANAFRNAM, from the same committee, reported back Senate bill No. 454, for the relief of the widow of Jacob Harmon, with an amendment. The bill authorizes the SecyInte rior to place the name of Mrs. Jacob Harmon, of Greene county, Tennessee, on the pension roll at 8 dollars per month, commencing from the 7th of December, 1861, and to continue during her widowhood. The amendment reported by the committee was to strike out the words “Mrs. Jacob” and insert “Melinda, ” and to insert the words “widow of Jacob Harmon.” The amendment was agreed t;o and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a 3rd time; and was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. The title of the bill was amended by strikin out the words “the widow of Jacob” an inserting “Melinda.”
Mr. VANAERNAM mtRtv the bill was passed and the title amended; upon the table. agreed to. JoHN MOREAU.
Mr. VANAERNAM, from the same com: mittee, reported back a bill for the relief of John Moreau, of Machias, NewYork, with a recommendation that it do pass. The bill directs the payment of a pension at 8 dollars per mont i.his natural life.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. VANAERNAM mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. ADVERSE REPORTS.
Mr. STILWELL, from the same commit: tee, made an adverse report on the petition of Louisa McCarty, widow of Eli McCarty, late captain in the U.S. Army, who was killed while notifying drafted men in Illinois, praying for a pension; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BENJAMIN, from the same committee, made an adverse report on House bill No. 469, for the relief of Rebecca Bower; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SAWYER, from the same committee, made an adverse report on House bill No. 163, for the relief of A. W. Fleming; also on the petition of Mary C. Booz, praying for a pension on account of services of her husband; also on the petition of Ellen Hayes, widow of John Hayes; also on the petition of Henry W. Earl, jr., praying for a pension; also on the memorial of Elizabeth W. Stiles for relief; also on the petition of Jackson Squire, asking for a pension, &c.; which were severally laid on the table, and ordered to be o LEMU ei, WORSter.
Mr. SAWYER also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of Lemuel Worster; which was read a 1st and 2nd time by its title. The bill was read. It provides that the SecryInterior shall place the name of Lemuel Worster, of Machias, York county, in the State of Maine, upon the pension roll, and Poio at the rate of 8 dollars per month.
Skip Skip Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, asked for the reading of the report. The report was read. The bill was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. SAWYER mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. MINE R CHILDREN OF SOLOMON LONG.
Mr. SAWYER also, from the same committee, reported a bill for the relief of the mine r children of Solomon Long; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill directs the SecyInterior to place upon the pension roll the names of the mine r children of Solomon Long, with the same benefits and subject to the same restrictions as other orphan children of deceased soldiers, the act to take effect in 1865.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed it was accordingly read the 3rd time and passed. Mr. SAWYER mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. Dept OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, from the ComAg, reported a bili to amend the act to establish a Dept of Agriculture; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, recommitted to the Commit.tee on Agriculture, and ordered to be printed. SYLVANUS SAWYER.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, from the ComPatents, reported a bill for the relief of Sylvanus Sawyer; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The bill authorizes an extension of the pat ent of Sylvanus Sawyer for the cutting of rattan.
Skip skip Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, asked that the evidence in the case be read. The evidence was read. The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, mtRtv the bill was passed; upon the table. agreed to. HEIRS OF THOMAS W. HARVEY
Mr. BROMWELL, from the ComPatents, reported a bill extending certain letters patent for the benefit of the heirs of Thomas W. Harvey; which was read a time. 1st and 2nd The bill was read at length. It directs the ComrPatents to receive and consider an application for, and if in his opinion correct and expedient to grant, extensions of the patents for improved machinery for cutting screws and improved machinery for drawing screw heads, for the benefit of the heirs of Thomas W. Harvey, the inventor and patentee of the same. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I would ask the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. BRomwell] if these patents have not been extended once already?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Then I hope they will not be extended again.
Mr. BROMWELL. I will give to those gentlemen who desire to say anything in opposition to this bill the greater part of the time I shall be entitled to, after the previous question shall have been 2nded, which I propose to call. '
The SPEAKER. The Chair will suggest to the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Bromwell] that even should the call for the previous question be sustained, a motion to lay the bill on the table would have the priority, and the gentleman might be prevented from saying anything on the bill.
Mr. BROMWELL. Then I will not call the oquestion, but will proceed to state riefly the facts in this case. It is true, this inventor has had his patents for 21 years. But the nature of the inventions is such that many years, must necessarily have elapsed in bringing the business Wor the patents into such a condition that any.emol uments could be derived from them. The ex. of setting up that business must have been very great. ne machine by itself is of no use, but 100s of them are necessary in order to enable the manufacturer to fill the commonest order. The inventions are exceedinglyingenious; not the results of a lucky thought, but evidently of long study and exeriment. Those inventions have revolutionized the mode of making screws, and have reduced their price. There are many other machines by which wood screws are made besides the machines covered by these patents The extensions asked for by this bill relate only to 2 of a great number of patents, for the purpose of conferring some small benefit upon the widow and heirs of the inventor, Thomas W. Harvey. The inventor spent a large for tune and many years of his life in bringing these inventions to perfection, and when he died he left his family not one cent remuneration for them, for he had received none himself, either from the patents themselves or the money he had invested in putting them into operation.
The SPEAKER..The morning hour has expired, and the bill goes over to the next Friday morning hour. ENROLLEDJtResolution SLGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had exam imed and found truly enrolled a JtResolution (S.R.No. 112) for the relief of Mrs. Abby Green; when the Speaker signed the same.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. MCDonALD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on Senate bill No. 69, providing for the payment of pensions. PETITION PRINTED.
Mr. ROGERS. I ask unanimous consent to Present a petition from loyal colored people of K. Carolina, and to have it printed. No objection being made, it was ordered to be printed. RECONSTRUCTION.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in order after the expiration of the morning hour is the consideration of House bill No. 543, to restore to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights, upon which the Gentfrom Illinois. Ross] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask the gentleman when Congress so determined?
Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman is mistaken, as we have passed no such resolution.
Mr. COOK, I desire to make a suggestion as my colleague has referred to a bill reported by me from the ComJudiciary. It is very apparent from what he has said that he has not read it so as to understand it.
Mr. ROSS. I think I understand it very well. I think my colleague will not deny the commission of the offense is made primafacie evidence of authority to commit it. That is the bill I know. I say it is trampling upon the right of the private citizen.
Mr. COOK. There is no such provision in the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to mention now what conclusion I have come to with regard to the management of this bill. I shall not attempt to take a vote upon it today. There are several gentleman who wish to speak, but I desire to have the floor when the House adjourns tonight, so that on Monday I can call the previous question. I will mention, however, that before I call Iit, intend to ask the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] and his colleague [Mr. BINGHAM] to withdraw their motions, which prevent amendments, so as to enable the House to go on under the 5 minute rule, as in ComWhole, and try to amend the bill before taking final action on it. If they will do that I shall not call the previous question on Monday morning, but allow amendments to be made until the ii is satisfied one way or the other with the bill. If not satisfied the motion may be renewed.
The SPEAKER. That can be done by unanimous consent now, or by a suspension of the rules on Monday.
The SPEAKER. Then it can only be done on Monday.
Mr. CONKLING. I ask the gentleman to state his objection to having a subject like this, with regard to which a number of bills have been brought forward, committed to a committee which has now no work upon its hands and which has a right to report at any time.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. My answer to the Gentfrom NewYork is, that the ComReconstruction have held no meetings during this entire session up to this hour. Several bills proposed by gentlemen have been referred to that committee during this session upon which they have taken no action. If the committee ever gets together again, which I doubt, as it is a large committee composed of both branches of Congress, I have but little hope of their being able to agree. The chair man of the committee on the part of the Senate, as is well known, is absorbed in his efforts to perfect the financial measures of the country, and I fear that if this bill goes to that committee it will go to its grave, and that it will not during the life of the 39th Congress see the light. if I were opposed to these bills I would vote to send them to that committee as sending them to their tomb. is my answer to the Gentfrom NewYork.
Mr. CONKLING. I do not know whether the Gentfrom Ohio would like my opinion as to whether that is a good answer or not.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I have no objection to the gentleman giving his opinion.
Mr. CONKLING. I think it is not very good considering that it comes from such a.source. There is no difficulty in having prompt consideration of anything which may be sent to the committee. It was created originally solely to deal with this subject. It was at 1st broken into 4 sub committees that the work of gathering evidence might be more advantageously and speedily carried on. It became one committee, usually working together, only during a few weeks immediately preceding the bringing forward of its ultimate propositions. It would not be decorous for me to praise the committee or the work it did; but I may say with propriety that if it ever was a good committee, if it ever should have been created and composed as it was, it is a good committee now better than it ever was before; better, because more familiar with this subject, because its members having now become acquainted with each other's views, and having become accustomed to act with each other, and having studied the whole subject committed to them, can proceed with much more hope of good results than ever before. Having a right to report at any time, and being led; on the part of this House, by the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEvens] I see no reason why it cannot consider and digest wisely and promptly whatever may be referred to it and make report. I did not intend to say one word about this, and do not intend to rise again in regard to it. I beg now to say, however, that I hope the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] will not withdraw his motion to refer this whole subject to the JtCom on Reconstruction; on the contrary, I trust the majority of this House will promptly refer all these bills with all cognate propositions to that committee, and give them at least one opportunity at this session to show whether they can produce something for action or some reason for not acting.
Mr. ASLILEY, of Ohio. I have as much confidence in the JtCom on Reconstruction as any gentleman on this floor; but the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CoNK jwill remember that the propositions which they brought forward near the close of the last session, simultaneously in both branches, were propositions which demanded a 2/3rds vote of each branch of Congress, and did not require the signature of the Executive. Had they required the signature of the Executive, and been returned by him without his signature, as any reconstruction bill undoubtedly will be, the time to which Congress had limited its session would have expired before we could have reconsidered and passed them over his veto. Upon this subject of reconstruction the great body of this House have given much thought, and I believe we can arrive quite as speedily and quite assurely at a result here in the House, under the 5 minute rule of amendment and debate, as we can by referring this subject to any committee.
Mr. STEVENS. I will reply, in answer to what my colleague upon the JtCom on Reconstruction [Mr. CoNKLING) has said, that he seems not to be aware that we are now considering a report from that very committee. That committee made a report, and I have offered a substitute for the bill which they reported. If the gentleman thinks the report of that committee is best, then let him vote against my substitute. But why send this subject back again to the committee? The gentleman knows as well as I do how many different opinions there are in that committee; some of us believe in one thing and some of us in another; some of us are very critical and some of us are not. The idea that we can consider anything in that committee, constituted as it is, in less than a fortnight, it seems to me is wholly out of the question; and as we have only about some 20 working days in which to mature this bill in both branches of Congress, if we send this subject to that committee and let it take its time to consider it, and then have it reported here and considered again, I certainly need not say to gentlemen that that would be an end of the matter, at least for this session. I do not believe the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CoNKLING] desires to accomplish that result; though I believe some gentlemen do. I believe that will be its fate as inevitably as it goes there.
Mr. CONKLING. The Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. AsHLEY, JI trust, will allow me a remark in reply.
Mr. CONKLING. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEveNs] inquires why this report, emanating originally from the ComReconstruction, should now be sent back. Let me answer: the Gentfrom Pennsylvania concurred in that report; he had his full share in it and making it precisely what it was. He supported it then now he offers a substitute for it. Why? Because the time which has elapsed since then and the events which have transpired have modified, he thinks, the exigencies of the case. Is not that as applicable to the judgment of the committee as to his own? And if it be necessary for him now to offer, as he has offered, a different series of provisions in order to exPress his views, matured as they are by the interme diate experience, is it not necessary, or if not necessary is it not proper, that it should have the opportunity of acting for once in the light of all the facts and circumstances as they are today? By as much as those circumstances involve the necessity of the substitute emanating from the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, by so much in my judgment they invoke the renewed action of this committee.
Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman is aware, I suppose, that 2 or perhaps 3 bills on this subject have been referred during this session to that committee. Why has not the committee acted on them?
Mr. CONKLING. Mr. Speaker, if I were the chairman of the committee on the part of this House I should be able to answer that question, because then I could tell why I had not called the committee together. But as I am only a subordinate member of the committee, whose business it is to come when I am called and never to call others, I am entirely unable to give the information for which the gentleman inquires.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if I could have any assurance that this committee would be able to report promptly a bill upon which this House could probably agree, I would not hesitate a single moment to vote for the reference of this measure to that committee, including the several bills before my own com. mittee, because, as I said in the outset, I have entire confidence in the gentlemen who constitute that committee. But, believing that they will be unable to agree, I shall vote against a recommitment. One word more with regard to this matter. This House has on 2 different occasions by resolutions instructed the committee of which I am chairman the ComTerritor to report to the House bills on this subject. Some half dozen bills have been prepared and sent to that committee. And when the committee is called, unless the House shall already have acted on some proposition looking to the reorganization of loyal governments in the late rebel States, we intend to report a bill and to insist upon a vote. So far as I am concerned I do not intend that the 39th Congress shall adjourn without some effort to provide governments which shall secure justice and equality to all loyal men in the southern States.
Mr. BLAIN E. With the gentleman's permission I desire to ask him, in regard to those bills now before his committee, whether, when they were introduced here for reference, the point of order was made upon them that they had no business before that committee, but belonged, under the rules of the House, to the Reconstruction Committee.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. No, sir; one of those resolutions was introduced before this House galvanized into life again the Reconstruction Committee for the remainder of the Session.
Mr. BLAINE. And all the bills that have been referred to the gentleman's committee since then were referred in direct violation of a rule of this House; and if the point of order had been made upon them they would not have been referred to that committee. I do not think that the gentleman's committee ought to take advantage of the neglect of members to make the point of order.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If this House has by unanimous consent, since the adoption of the resolution reviving the Reconstruction Committee, sent bills to the ComTerri tories, it is no fault of the latter committee.
Mr. BLAINE. Unanimous consent, in 9 cases out of ten, is only another name for neg ligence on the part of the House. It was gross negligence in this case.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Very well, sir, that may be the opinion of the gentleman; but so far as the House is concerned its action, before the Reconstruction Committee was re constituted for this session, authorized the committee of which I am chairman to report a bill, and we intend to do it. Now, sir, I wish to examine briefly one or 2 of the provisions of the amendment which I have offered to the bill of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. Substantially this bill will be reported by the ComTerritor if no bill is previously acted on by the House.
Mr. FINCK. I desire to ask my colleague whether he can tell the House and the country what the plan of congressional reconstruction i?s
Mr. ASHLEY., of Ohio. I hope to be able to do so before I take my seat.
Mr. FINCK. We shall be very glad, indeed, to learn it.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. At any rate, I shall show that a majority of the Republical Union party by their votes in the 37th and 38 h Congresses are committed to the plan of reconstruction now proposed. Mr. Speaker, the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMoND.) in his speech on the day before yesterday, made an objection to the amendment which I have offered because it abolishes unqualifiedly the defacto State governments established by the acting President in the late rebel States, and claimed that in the interim between the organization of the provisionaf committees provided for in the bill and the passage of the act abolishing these governments anarchy would reign supreme in those States, and he claimed that any government is better than no government. Now, sir, the Gentfrom NewYork was mistaken. It is true that there would be no local civil government left in those States if the bill should pass abolishing the Present governments; but there is a provision directing the POTUS to see that the laws of the U.S. are executed in those States and the lives and property of our citizens protected.
Mr. BINC HAM. What laws of the U.S. to protect life and property?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. No law of the U.S. now on the statute books; but the President is required by the provisions of my bill to use the entire military and naval force of the nation to protect the lives and property of the citizens in those States during the interim. So far as that subject is concerned the lives and property of the people will be just as safe as they were during the interim between the surrender of Lee andj and the organization of the Present governments. With the whole force of the U.S. at the President's disposal, he can if he will protect the lives and property of the people quite as well as he did after the surrender and until the establishment of the governments now existing there.
Mr. BINGHAM. What provision is there in this act for the protection of life and property?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. The bill provides that the force of the U.S shall be at the disposal of our military commanders in those States just as it was at the supPression of the rebellion.
Mr. BINGHAM. What provision is there to punish any acts of petit larceny?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. There is none. If any act of petit larceny is committed in those States during the short interim contemplated it will not materially damage the loyal men who have been exiled or despoiled of all they possess. If such acts are committed upon Union men under the Present governments there is no chance for redress under these defacto rebel governments. So far as I am concerned, if I were a southern loyalist, I would rather have no government at all than the in fernal despotism which today crushes the loyal men of the South.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the gentleman tell me what laws of the U.S. he considers applicable to this country? o: ASHLEY, of Ohio. in this bill for that.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I understand the gentlemen to say he expected the people of these Territories to be protected by and under the laws of the U.S., enforced by the President. Will the gentleman tell me what laws he purposes shall be enforced?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. My colleague has just propounded the same question, and I have just answered it.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I was not able to hear what occurred between the gentlemen and his colleague.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. The whole machinery of the bill is to compel the President I have provided the U.S., with the Army and Navy and the whole force at his disposal, to see to it that this act and all acts of the provisional iv.ernments organized under it shall be en in those States. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAY Mosd] made the objection that there would be an interval of time when there would be no government in these States. I reply again that the interim would be no longer than that which occurred after the supPression of the rebellion and the setting up the provisional governments now existing there, and the time would not ordinarily be longer than 60 days, As I intend to withdraw this bill, as requested by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, I will not take up the time of the House in discussing its provisionS.
Mr.BINGHAM. Can that be done while my motion is pending to refer?
Mr. A???. of Ohio. Yes, sir, it can; but I yield to the gentleman to make his point of order if he desires.
Mr. BINGHAM. But the gentleman has not withdrawn it.
Mr. LeBLOND. Will my colleague yield for a question? I understand him to say that from the outbreak of the difficulties to the Present time this Congress entertained the views he has just advanced. If that be so, I would like to know how it came that the Congress passed in 1862 the Crittenden resolution, which is in direct conflict with the theory the gentlemanhas announced. I believe my colleague totedfor that resolution.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. The Crittenden resolutionwas passed at the extra session of Congress in July, 1861, immediately after the wattle of Bull Run. I voted for the 1st proposition in the resolution, which declared that this war had been inaugurated by the southern people who were then in arms around the national capital. I did not vote for the 2nd proposition; I declined to do so although the great body of the party to which I belonged did vote for it..
Mr. ELDRIDGE. You did not vote against it.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I did not vote at all. There were only 2 votes in the negative on our side, if I remember rightly, my then colleague, Mr. Riddle, of Ohio, and Mr. Pot ter, of Wisconsin.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. And 2 on the other side. But that resolution did not commit this House nor the Republican party to any settled policy in regard to the state of things now existing. If i. the rebellion had been sup at once, if the people in rebellion had aid down their arms, then every gentleman here and all who served with me in the 37th Congress knows very well that they would have been welcomed back to their former position at once. But the rebellion having been continued during the entire 4 years, the local governments in those States having been destroyed or their constitutional relations with the national Government suspended, when the people residing in the States which maintained constitutional State governments, and who during these 4 years constituted the Government of the U.S and represented its sovereignty, crushed the rebellion, they had a right under every law, human and divine, to Prescribe terms of restoration to the States lately in rebellion; and I tell gentlemen on the other side that the men who crushed the rebellion intend to Prescribe terms of restoration to those States. I know gentlemen of the Opposition insist with great pertinacity on the abstract proposition that there is no power in the people of a State to sever their constitutional relations with this Government; but, sir, there stands the fact against this theory. I admit, and every gentleman on this side of the House admits, that the people in a State have no constitutional power to destroy their State governments or dissolve their constitutional relations with the national Government; but that they have nevertheless done so the history of the country for the past 4 years is the best evidence.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him this question? If what the rebels did previous to the passage of the Crit tenden resolution did not break their relations with the U.S., how could they have done it afterward 2
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the gentleman knows anything of the history of the country he Joã, very well that a majority o the people in the North, even as late as. 1861, were unwilling to believe that such a formidable insurrection and rebellion was before them, and that we were to have a bloody war of 4 years after the disaster at Bull IRun.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Then will the gentleman allow me to ask whether the U.S. have any power or authority by which they can allow a State to break its relationship with the Union?
Mr. FINCK. Will my colleague yield to me for a moment?
Mr. FINCK. This is the very place for my question. What are the terms you propose? That is the congressional plan for restoration?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. The gentleman will find an answer if he will read those bills; he will have his answer when this House has agreed upon some practical measure of restoration, which I days trust we shall do within ten M. FINCR. I ask the gentleman which of these bills Presents a fair congressional plan of restoration?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman will learn that fact when the majority of this House comes to vote upon these measures next Monday.
Mr. FINCK. One more question, and I am done. I want to know of my colleague, whom I recognize as the leader on that side of the House on this question, whether he admits that his party have not yet come to an agreement upon their plan of restoration?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. So far as I know they have not. The Union party practically committed themselves to a policy of restoration, and they went so far as to admit the State of Tennessee upon the proposed terms of that restoration policy. I voted for the admission of Tennessee, and do not regret having voted for the admission of that truly loyal State. If any other State recently in rebellion had come to this House under the same conditions in which Tennessee came, ratifying the amendment to the Constitution and having adopted a State constitution securing the control of the government of the State oi. men, I should, although it might not have come up to all my And he cannot o requirements, have voted for the admission of its members; so arxious was I then and so anxious am I now to see the States recently in rebellion restored to their former position in the Union. But the great body of the men recently in rebellion, under the lead of the Executive, have rejected these mild terms, and it now rests with Congress to say upon what terms they shall be admitted.
Mr. HISE. I desire to ask the gentleman one question, inasmuch as he asked me some questions while I was speaking the other day.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I believe I did not ask the Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. His E] any question at all. I merely declared in m seat in a word or 2 that I dissented from his views.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Very well; I will allow the gentleman to ask me a question.
Mr. HISE. The gentleman has said that there has not been a definite plan of restoration adopted by the majority of this House. I wish to ask the gentleman if he will go so far as to state that the majority of this House concur with him in refusing admission into the Congress of the U.S. of rePresentatives from these ten States now unless they agree to the condition of branding all who have held either civil or military office under the confederacy as traitors, and as such are to be excluded from the right to hold office under the U.S., and regarding the whole body of the people of those States who sympathized with or cooperated with those who endeavored to establish the confederacy as disloyal, and that none are to be regarded as loyal except the negroes and interlopers there?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. In all of the meas. ures proposed by this Congress the great body of the men who were in the confederate army and supported the rebellion have been granted entire forgiveness. In the propositions which were submitted by Congress to the people only certain parties were excluded from holding office. Now, I would like to ask the gentleman [Mr. His E] whether he is willing that men, who while members of this House and of the Senate and of the Government of the U.S and of the several States, plotted treason against this Government and went into a war and maintained it for 4 years to destroy this Government should now be received here without conditions with his vote?
Mr. HISE. I will answer that question. I am of the opinion that all of the distinguished men, both civilians and those who held commissions and authority in either army, in the suppression of the rebellion, in putting down this secession, or opposition to the Government, were citizens of States in the Union. I deny the authority of the Government to demand as a condition precedent to admission to representation upon this floor a right to inquire into the conduct of, to convict, and to condemn these men so as to denationalize them or to deprive them of the right to hold office either under the national Government or under a State government. I should oppose that as a usurpation of power.
Mr. CHANI.ER. I want to ask the gentleman one question.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Very well; I will hear it.
Mr. CHANLER. It is this: if the loyal population of any State should be found to consist of negroes alone, does the gentleman mean to say that he would recognize that as a State, its organization being based upon negro population alone, excluding the white race?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. The gentleman has so me a question which he knows very Well
Mr. CHANLER. You cannot answer it. [Laughter.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It has no practical application so far as it relates to any of the States recently in rebellion.
Mr. CHANLER. You dare not answer it. Answer “yes” or “no, ” and do not falter about it.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. When the gentleman talks about my faltering and not daring to answer he assumes what he has no right to assurne.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the gentleman will take his seat and remain quiet for a moment I will give him an answer. If there were a single State in the American Union in which there was not a single white man and all were black men, I would clothe its population with the right of the franchise, and with every other right of an American citizen under this government. [Applause in the galleries] Does the gentleman regard this as an answer 7 Now, Mr. Speaker, the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Ross] and those who sustain him have asked the question repeatedly with an air of assumed innocence why we do not admit loyal RePresentatives from the recent rebel States upon this floor and upon the floor of the Senate. Why, sir, I would not vote today to admit Horace Greeley as a RePresentative in this House from SCarolina, nor would I vote to admit any other man, however loyal, as a RePresentative from that community. Why? The gentlemen on the other side comprehend this matter quite as well as I do. They know that no political community under our form of government has the right to rePresentation on this floor or in the Senate of the U.S., unless it has a constitutional State government organized and recognized by Congress as in practical relation with the Government of the U.S. The admission of Representatives and Senators in Congress is a prac tical recognition of the State government from which they come..
Mr. HISE. With the permission of the Gentfrom Ohio, I will say that I do not think he has met the interrogation submitted by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. CHAN LER] The Gentfrom Ohio has said that if the population of a State were composed entirely of black men, no white men residing in the State, he would recognize those black men as entitled to the right of suffrage and every other right. But the question of the Gentfrom NewYork, as I understood it, was, whether the Gentfrom Ohio would recognize as entitled to rePresentation a State where suffrage was confined to the negroes, the white population being excluded from the exercise of that right.
Mr. HILL. I desire to ask my friendfrom Ohio whether his last exPression is to be taken as indicating his conversion to the doctrine of “universal amnesty and universal suffrage?”
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. No, sir; I do not know that I have ever been in favor of that doctrine. As a practical man, however, I want to see the Union restored; and if the members of the Opposition would come to this question with the earnestness of the men of NewEng land and the men of the West, the work of restoration would have been accomplished before now. Why, sir, the assumption, the brazen faced assumption, of men who during the entire war were in open or secret alliance with the rebels coming here now and joining hands with the apostate at the other end of the have nue, who is the leader, the recognized leader, of a counter revolution a negative rebellion, as I said awhile ago passes comprehension. Why, sir, suppose that in 1860John C. Breck inridge had been elected POTUS; suppose the antislavery men of the country had rebelled against his election, and their cause for rebellion would have been far greater than the cause which impelled the southern men into their rebellion; and suppose that after 4 years of bloody war this antislavery rebellion had been crushed and Mr. Breckinridge had been again elected President and in an hour of weakness you had taken an apostate abolitionist from the North for VEEP, to show your love of the North you had conquered, to show them that you had no feeling of hatred toward them, and that in one short month after the inauguration, by a conspiracy of antislavery men in the North, Mr. Breckinridge had been assassinated as Mr. Lincoln was assassinated, and the apos Stateabolitionist had come into the Presidency as
Mr. WINFIELD. The Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. JULIAN] will permit me, before he commences his address, to call the attention of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY] to an exPression in the remarks he has just made. I understood the gentleman to use this language, and I desire to ask him whether I quote correctly or not: “Why, sir, the assumption, the brazen facedas sumption of menhere, who during the entire war were in and secret alliance with the rebels, coming here now hands with the apostate at of the avenue, who the other end is the leader, the recognized leader of a counter revolution a negative rebellion as I said awhile ago passes comprehension.” I desire to ask the gentleman to whom he refers?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Well, sir, I in tended to refer to the great body of men in the Opposition, to every man who was opposed to the war and opposed to the draft; who discouraged enlistments, who harbored deserters; who went into secret societies in order to organize conspiracies in the North, whether they were in this House or in any other place.
Mr. WINFIELD. The gentleman used the exPression “men here.” I desire to know whether he intends to charge that there are men here who were in secret alliance with the enemy during the rebellion.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Well, sir, I am unable to say from any personal knowledge whether any such men are here. But, sir, from general rePresentation and from the votes of gentlemen in opposition to the war “not another man, not another dollar” from speeches made by gentlemen on the other side of the House, I have no doubt some of them are here and have been here during the war.
Mr. WINFIELD. I do not propose to be fried on general reputation. I desire to say for myself, and so far as I know from my asso ciates on this floor of my own school of pol itics, that the insinuation that we are or ever have been in alliance with the rebels is utterly untrue, and, if intended to apply to us, is a base and unfounded slander.
Mr. HUNTER. I say that, so far as I am concerned, it is a base lie.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewYork is out of order.
Mr. HILL. I ask that the words of the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HUNTER] be taken down.
The SPEAKER. The words will be taken down and the Chair will rule upon them.
The Clerk read the words taken down, as follows: “Mr. HUNTER. I say that, so far as I cerned, am conit is a baselie.”
The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that they are out of order.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. They are nevertheless true.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] is not in order in interposing that remark, because the Chair rules on a parliamentary question.
Mr. KELLEY. ask that the additional words of the Gentfrom NewYork be taken down.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman allude to what I said?
Mr. KELLEY. I speak of the Gentfrom NewYork, and I ask that the additional word that he spoke “Nevertheless they are true” be taken down.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I made that remark, and if the gentleman wants to hear it again I will repeat it.
Mr. HILL: Mr. Speaker, I move a vote of censure, and I will prepare a resolution for that purpose.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I demand that the connection of the remarks excepted to be also taken down.
The Clerk read the words of Mr. RANDALL as taken down, as follows: “Mr. RANDALL. They are neverthelesstrue.”
The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that is also out of order. The Clerk will report Bule 61, to be found on page 76 of the Digest.
The Clerk read the rule, as follows: “If any member, in speaking or otherwise, transgressesthe rules of any the House, the Speaker shall, or member may, call to order; in which case the member socalled to order shall immediatelysitdown unlesspermitted to explain; and the House shall, folio to, decide on the case, but without debate. If there be no appeal the decision of the Chair shall besubmittedto. "If the decision be in favor of the membercalled to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed; if otherwise he shall not be permitted to proCeed in caseany memberobject, without leave of House; and the if the case require it to censure.” he shall be liable
Mr. HILL. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in the hurry of the scenes now transpiring it is impossiblefor me to Present in writing a resolution of censure; and I understand that only a writ ten resolution can be Presented for action.
The SPEAKER. And it must be Presented at this time if at all.
Mr. HILL. I suppose time will be allowed me to prepare a resolution.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can move a vote of censure; then if any member demands that it shall be reduced to writing the gentle owill have reasonable time allowed him to O SO.
Mr. HILL. Wery well; I move a vote of censure upon the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HUNTER]
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. I ask that the motion be reduced to writing. After some pause, Mr. HILL said: Mr. Speaker, I offer the following resolution, upon which I call the previous question: Resolved, That the Gentfrom NewYork, Hon.
Mr. HUNTER, in stating, during debate in the House, that, the assertion of Ohio, Hon.
Mr. Aso, the Gentfrom is gressed “a base"lie, ” has trams: the rules of this body, and that he becensured for thesameby the Speaker.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HoNTER] qualified the remark by saying, “if applied to himself.”
Mr. HILL. will incorporate the exact language in the resolution.
The SPEAKER. The modification should be incorporated in writing in the resolution.
Mr. JOHNSON. I desire to make a single suggestion. I desire to call the attention of the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] and of gentlemen around me here to the fact that the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. WINFIELD] 1st stated that if the remarks of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AsHLEY] were intended to apply to him during the time he had been a member of Congress, then they were untrue. Then the other Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HUNTER) jthat if they were intended to apply to him they were a base lie. Now, I submit that the remarks of the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. WINFIELD] should be taken in connection with the remarks of his colleague,; HUNTER]
Mr. HILL. I cannot yield for that. If the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. JOHNson] i. to censure his associate [Mr. WIN FIELD] I have no objection to his bringing in a resolution for that purpose.
Mr. JOHNSON. If the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] desires to censure anybody upon an unfair statement he is welcome to take the responsibility of it.
Mr. HILL. I am willing to assume the responsibility of the motion I have made. If the gentleman desires to except, to it. I have no objection to his expending his vials of wrath I want his words taken upon me.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have stated the fact, which the gentleman cannot dispute.
Mr. WINFIELD. Will the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] indulge me with a single remark?
Mr. WINFIELD. I desire simply to state that the remarks I made were simply upon the hypothesis that the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AshLEY intended to impute this treason to me, and I certainly think the remarks of my colleague [Mr. HUNTER) were made upon the same hypothesis. I had no intention of ar raigning the assertion of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. AsHLEY] as a falsehood if it did not apply to me; and that I understand to have been the intention of my colleague, [Mr. Ho!
Mr. HILL. I have yielded to the gentleman who gave occasion for the remark to which I took exception. It was such a remark as if made between gentleman and gentleman would be regarded as in the highest degree offensive. I know of no reason why its use upon this floor should not be regarded as equally offensive and as a violation of the rules of this House. It was for that reason that I have offered the resolution now awaiting the action of this House. That resolution I have modified so as to embrace the exact words of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HUNTER] The resolution reads as follows: Resolved. That the Gentfrom NewYork, on.
Mr. Honor, in deci?ring, during the do in the House, in reference to gentleman the assertion of the from Ohio, Hon.
Mr. AshLEY, “I say that so far as I am concerned it is a base lie, ” has transgressed the rules of this body, and that he be censured for the same by the Speaker.
Mr. LeBLOND, Will the Gentfrom Indiana E. HILL] yield to me for a moment?
Mr. HILL. I cannot yield further. I think the matter is sufficiently understood; and 1 now insist uppn the previous question. The question was upon 2nding the call for the previous question.
Skip Skip Mr. ANCONA. I move to lay the resolution upon the table..
The question was taken upon the motion to lay the resolution upon the table; and upon a division there were ayes 32, noes 64. Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. ANCONA called for the yeas&nays upon laying the resolution upon the table. The yeas&nays were ordered..
Mr. KASSON. I rise for the purpose of obtaining information which may be necessary to enable us to vote intelligently on this sub; ject: I as well as many gentlemen around me have failed to understand the alleged prov ocation, for the words which it is proposed to make the subject of censure.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] insists on the demand for the previous question, and debate is not in order., Mr. FINCK. I ask that the language of my colleague [Mr. AsHLEY] as brought to the attention of the House by the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. WINFIELD] be read.
The SPEAKER. It can only be done by unanimous consent.
Skip Skip The question being taken on the motion of Mr. ANconA that the resolution be laid on the table, it was decided in the negative yeas 32, nays 75, not voting 84; So the House refused to lay the resolution on the table. The question recurred on 2nding the demand for the previous question. On the qosion there were ayes 57, noes 32. Mr. ANCONA. I call for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. ANconA and ORTH were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 66, noes 33. So the previous question was 2nded.
Mr. HILL. A number of gentlemen who did not hear the words of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. AshLEY] as brought to the attention of the House by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. WINFIELD, desire that they may be again reported. I therefore ask that, by unamimous consent, the language may be reported.
Skip Skip The SPEAKER. Objection being made, it can only be done by reconsidering the vote by which The previous question was 2nded. Mr. ELDRIDG E. I move to reconsider that vote. The mtR agreed to.
Mr. HILL. I now ask that the Clerk read the language of the Gentfrom Ohio as read to the House by the Gentfrom NewYork.
A MEMBER. Let it be read as taken down by the reporters.
Mr. HILL. I will state what occurred. At the close of the speech of the Gentfrom Qhio the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. WINFIELD) rose with a paper in his hand and asked the Gentfrom . whether a part of his language, as it had been taken down, was correct; and he proceeded to read the language, which I Presume had been taken from the reporters' notes, although the Gentfrom NewYork did not so state. The Gentfrom Ohio then proceeded to make an explanation. Now, what I desire to have read is the remarks of the Gentfrom Ohio, as 1st read by the Gentfrom NewYork, and the explanation of the Gentfrom Ohio with reference to that language. This explanation was followed by some remarks of the Gentfrom NewYork, and afterward came the remarks of the other Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. HUNTERJ to which I have taken exception. This is what I desire to have read.
Mr. HALE. Let me make the suggestion that there be read the debate from the time when my colleague from the Orange district took the floor down to the Present time.
The SPEAKER. The stenographers inform the Chair that the debate has not yet been written out.
Mr. HILL. I suggest that the reporters read it from their own notes.
The SPEAKER. Reporters, by the rules, are not allowed to speak in the House.
Mr. HILL. Let the Clerk read again the remark of the Gentfrom Ohio.
The Clerk read as follows: “Why, sir, the assumption, the brazen faced as sumption of men here who during the entire war were in secretalliance with the rebels, coming here now andjoining handswith the apostateat the other end of the avenue, who is the leader, the recognized leader of a counter revolution arebellion as I said a while ago passescomprehension.”
Mr. LeBLOND. As the Clerks are not able to report at Present the other portion of the debate, the Gentfrom Indiana yields to me for a few moments, and I avail myself of the opportunity to offer a few remarks on the pending proposition. Mr. Speaker, I want it distinctly understood I do not approve of the use of language in this Hall which is in the least indecorous or out of character and in conflict with the rules of the House. There has been too much of it already. It was but a short time ago when the distinguished member from Pennsylvania og STE vexs] and my colleague from Ohio [Mr. SPALDing indulged in remarks from this Hall which would injure almost any community to to them. listen Mr. STEVENS. I call the gentleman to order. [Laughter] He is not speaking to the question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the of order. The gentleman must confine imself to the question.
Mr. LeBLOND. Ham confining myself to the question.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman's remarks are out of order."
Mr. LeBLOND. Then I will go no more in that direction. When you come down to the debate today in which my colleague participated, using the language which has been just read from the Speaker's desk, I ask gentlemen what more offensive language could be used to any man who was an American citizen and willing to abide by the laws and the Constitution of his Government. Applause in the galleries] TheSPEAKER. The Chair has repeatedly stated these manifestations of applause or disapprobation cannot be i. of in the galle rles.
Mr. NIBLACK. Good; the applause is on our side now.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has always made the same statement no matter what debate was going on, and the gentleman who made the remark which the Chair only partially caught has done the Chair injustice. If there be any repetition of the offense in the galleries the Chair will order the door keepers to clear them entirely.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I think it is due to those in the galleries to say that it did not all come from the gentlemen's galleries. I do not charge it on. for there are gentlemen in the other galleries.
Mr. NIBLACK. I suppose the Chair heard an undertoned remark made by myself. What I meant was that the applause was on our side.
The SPEAKER. o gentleman will bear testimony that the Chair has always on all occasions.these manifestations of applause or disapprobation.
Mr. NIBLACK. I willingly bear testimon to the invariable impartiality of the Chair on occasions coming within my knowledge.
Mr. LeBLOND. I was alluding to the offensive language used by my colleague from Ohio. Now, sir, we did not rise in our places to call the gentleman to order, for that kind of language has become so common on that side we have got used to it, and we listen with patience. We knew there was no use to take exception, for on that side, whatever may occur, they stand up in vindication of themselves, be the matter ri or wrong.
Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman allow me a single question? I have endeavored to comprehend the reason why the remarks were made by the gentleman on the other side. I voted to rescind the order for the previous question to get that information. I now ask what was the language of the Gentfrom Ohio which justified the member from NewYork, or any other one, applying the offensive language to himself?
Mr. WINFIELD. Let me answer the question.
Mr. HILL. I shall be compelled to resume the floor to prevent an apparently indefinite and interminable controversy between gentlemen on both sides of the House; and therefore, with one or 2 remarks, and after what has been desired to be read shall have been read, I will again call the previous question. What I desire to say is, that happening to be passing in the immediate vicinity of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HUNTER] I eard distinctly the language which he used. I recollected the similar occurrence which happened only the day before yesterday, which was yesterday brought to the attention of House, the and which it was then ruled was improperly brought before the House for the purpose of censure, because the words had not been taken down and excepted to at the time. That occurrence was not regarded, I think, by any gentleman of this House as reputable, as comporting with the dignity of this body, or the proprieties of debate; and, hence, when I heard distinctly the language of the Gentfrom NewYork, I deemed it important that Foof this sort should be stopped. thought they had gone far enough; that when we had reached such a point that every day or epithets “lie 2 we must hear the “ and “liar” bandied in this house it was time some one should interpose.
Mr. NIBLACK. If my colleague will allow me. I desire to ask him how much worse it is to impute falsehood to a man than to impute treason to him?
The Clerk read as follows: “Mr. As HLEY, of Ohio. Well, sir, I intended to refer to the great body of men in the Opposition to everyman who was opposed to the war and opposed to the draft: who discouragedenlistments; who har ared deserters; who went into secret societies in order to organize conspiracies in the North, whether thovere in this House or in any other place. "
Mr. WiNFielp. The gentlemanused the exPression, ' men here.' I desire to know whether he in tends to charge that thereare men here who were in "secretalliance' with the enemyduring the rebellion. “Mr. As HLEY., of Ohio. Well, sir, I am unable to say from any personal knowledgewhether any such men are here. But, sir, from generalreputation and from the votesof gentlemen in opposition to – the war not another man, not another dollar' speeches from House, madebygentlemenon theother side of the I have no doubt someof them are hereand have been hereduring the war. “Mr. WINFIELD. I do not propose to be tried on foreputation. I desire to sayfor myselfand so ar as I know for my associateson this floor of my own schoolof politics, that the insinuation that we are or ever have been in alliance with rebels is utterly untrue, and if intended to apply to us is a baseand unfoundedslander..'.
Mr. HUNTER. I saythat so far as I am concerned it is a baselie.”
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered on agreeing to the resotlon. Mr. FINCK and Mr. ELDRIDGE demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be excused from voting on this resolution, and I request permission in one minute to give my reasons for it. Mr. Speaker. No debate is now in order except by unanimous consent. No objection was made.
Mr. HALE. I cannot vote against this resotion without seeming to imply that under any circumstances or considerations would a member on this floor be justified in giving the lie to another, a thing which I can never vote to sustain. I cannot vote for it with no word of explanation without perhaps seeming to imply that I justified the language of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. AshLEY, which I certainly do not. The question being taken on excusing
Mr. HALE.from voting, it was not agreed to.
Mr. FINCK. I ask to be permitted to give my reasons for go; against the resolution.
Skip Skip The question was taken on agreeing to the resolution; and it was decided in tive–yeas the affirma 77, nays 33, not voting 8;1. So the resolution was adopted. Mr. HILL mtRtv the JtResolution was adopted; upon the table. agreed to.
Mr. HILL. I now move that the Speaker proceed to execute the order of the House.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. I wish to inquire whether it would be in order for my colleague to address a few remarks to the Chair?
The SPEAKER. By unanimous consent he inck, may do so, Mr. HILL. I trust there will be no objection.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. I desire to say in explanation of my suggestion that I asked the question of Wies, my colleague [Mr. HUNTERI he would like to make a few remarks on the subject before the Chair administered the rebuke, and I understood him to say he would. Hence it was I made the suggestion.
Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman misunder stood me.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewYork will Present himself before the Chair and the order of the House will be executed.
Mr. HUNTER accordingly came forward before the Speaker's desk.
Mr. HUNTER, no delib erative body can Preserve its seifrospect or command the respect of its constituents which tolerates the use of offensive language, condemned by gentlemen everywhere, as well as by parliamentary law. For having transgressed its rules, this House has resolved that you shall be censured by the Speaker. The Chair having thus declared the censure of the House, you will resume your seat.
Mr. HUNTER. May I be allowed to make a single remark? "
The SPEAKER. Certainly, if there be objection. no objection was made.
Mr. HUNTER. Allow me to say that in using the language which I did, in a moment of irritation at what I considered a false charge, I meant no disrespect to this House.
Mr. HILL. In consideration of the statement just made by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HUNTER,) if there be no objection, I will move that no entry be made upon the Journal of this House of these proceedings of censure. Several MEMBERs objected.
Mr. HILL. As objection is made I will not make the motion.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I ask permission of the House to make a statement. No objection was made.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in the heat of debate men often utter words without weighing them well. I have been a member of this House for 8 years, during which time I never uttered a word for which I was called to order, or which was regarded as improper until today. I have intended to apply unparliamentary or offensive language to no gentleman. I intended to have my remarks of today apply generally to all persons, whether here or elsewhere, belonging to the Opposition, who during the war or since were either in open or secret alliance with those engaged in rebellion, who voteed against a man or a dollar to prosecute the war, who discouraged enlistments and encouraged desertions, and who were members of secret or open societies to organize conspiracies for the '.of overthrowing the Government of the U.S. I apply those remarks to no other persons, and intended to apply them to no other persons.
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 a JtResolution and bill of this House, of the following titles, namely: Joint ofition (H.R.No. 244) to amend existing laws relating to internalrevenue, without amendment; and An act (H.R.No. 388) to authorize the extension, construction, and use of a lateral branch of the Baltimore and Potomac railroad into and within the DistCol, with amendments; in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. It further announced that the Senate had indefinitely postponed a bill of the House of the following title, namely: An act (H.R.No. 522) for the relief of Nathan Noyes.
Mr. JULIAN obtained the floor, but gave way to Mr. MYERS, who moved that the House adjourn. The motion was agreed to; ando (at 4 o’clock and 40 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. Monday, January 28, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. WADE, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of Satur day was dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT protempore. no rule directing the printing. Mr. HOWE. They can be printed upon motion I think?
The PRESIDENT protempore. A motion to print would go to the ComPrintg under the rule.
Mr. HOWE. Well, I will move that these resolutions be printed and referred to the ComReconstruction.
Mr. POLAND, from the ComPubBldg and Grounds, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 820) for the relief of Henry S. Davis, reported it without amend Inent.
Mr. WILSON, from the ComMilAffrs , to whom was referred the bill (S.No.543) to abolish and forever prohibit the system of peonage in NewMexico and other parts of o the U.S., it with an amendment.
Mr. RAMSEY, from the ComPostOfficesand Post Roads, to whom was referred the petition of Jacob Shave r and Albert C. Corse, asking compensation for past use and purchase of an invention for post marking and tancellation of postage stamps on letters, made by and !to Marcus P. Norton, of Troy, NewYork, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComFinance; which was to. CopyRIGHT BOOKS FOR THE LIBRARY.
Mr. CRESWELL. I am instructed by the JtcomLibrary, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.491) amendatory of the several acts respecting copyrights, to report it back with an amendment, and to ask for its immediate consideration. There being no objection, the Senate, as in ComWhole, proceeded to consider the bill. It provides that every proprietor of a book, pamphlet, map, chart, musical composition, print, engraving, or photograph, for which a copyright shall have been secured, who shall fail to deliver to the Library of Congress at Washington a printed copy of every such book, pamphlet, map, chart, musical composition, print, engraving, or photograph, within one month after publication shall, for every such default, be subject to a penalty of 25 dollars, to be collected at the suit of the Librarian of Congress as other penalties of like amount are now collected by law. Every such proprietor may transmit any book, pamphlet, map, chart, musical composition, print, engraving, or photograph, for which he may have secured a copyright, to the Librarian of Congress by mail free of postage, provided the words “copyright matter” be plainly written or printed on the outside of the package; and it is to be the duty of the several deputy postmasters when such package shall be delivered to them, to see that it is safely forwarded to its destination by mail without cost or charge to the proprietor. The amendment reported by the ComLibrary was in lines 11 and 15 of the 1st section, to strike out the words: At the suit of the Librarian of Congress as penalties other of like amount are now collected by law. And to insert in lieu thereof: “By the Librarian of Congress, in the nameof the U.S., in any district or circuit court of the U.S. within the jurisdiction of delinquent Inay reside which the or be found.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate, as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, was read the 3rd time, and passed. BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr. POLAND asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.548) to amend section 41 of an act to provide a national currency, &c., passed June 30, 1864; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance.
Mr. BIROWN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.549) for the establishment and maintenance of a public park in the DistCol; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPubBldg and Grounds, and ordered to be printed. RAILROADS IN CALIFORNIA. On motion of Mr. CONNESS, the bill (S.No.461) to aid in the construction of the SanFrancisco Central Pacific railroad was recommitted to the ComPubLands. TERRITORIAL OFFICERS.
Mr. WADE. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its Present consideration: Resolved, That the President be requested at his earliest convenienceto inform the Senatehow often the PresentGovernor and superintendent of Indian affairs of Colorado Territory has been absentfrom his post of duty in the Territory since his appoint ment, what part of his time since the date of his commissionhas beenspent in Territory, such absencefrom the whether his absencefrom the Territory has beenpreviously authorizedby leave granted in each instance, what was the public necessityfor such absence in each case, and for his Presenceat the national capital at this time, and also whether any part, and if so how much and what part of the ex[. ". of his several trips from the Territory have been charged to the Government. No objection being offered, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution.
Mr. WADE. I was under the apprehension that such a bill had been passed.
Mr. WADE. I know the committee of which I am a member has recommended the passage of such a bill, and I was under the imPression that the bill had been passed. If not, I am as much in favor of it as the honorable Senfrom California can be. I certainly gave my assent to it in committee, and I supposed it had passed, but it seems I was under a misapprehension. I am in favor of that bill, but ”. not think that interferes with this resolution at all. I think it ought to be passed, and I am for the bill also. I hope the resolution will pass.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I introduced at the last session the bill to which the Senfrom California has referred. It was reported back by the ComTerritor. I called it up at the last session, and endeavored to procure its passage; but objections were made by sev: eral members and amendments proposed, and I found at that time that there were obstacles in the way of its passage. I supposed that at this session the same objections would be made, although I have made no determination as to what I would do in reference to the bill. I supposed that the usual course was, where a bill was referred to the ComTerritor and reported back by the committee, the chair man of the committee would rather have charge of it. I am not particularly advised as to the practice in that respect. I am desirous that the bill should be passed. I think it will correct a very great and growing evil in this coun: try, and it was with that view that I introduced it at the last session; and if an opportunity affords, and nobody else calls up the bill, I will take occasion to bring it before the Senate at an early day.
Mr. WADE. I do not know what the practice of the Senate has been or if there is any settled practice about the point suggested by the Senfrom Oregon; but when a gentleman sends a bill to our committee and we report it back favorably I suppose he is to see that it is called up,". not acted myself on that supposition always. It may be in this way it has slipped my mind. I thought that bill had passed.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope between the 2 Senators the bill will be called up at an early day for action. WADE. Very well.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It seems to me that it would be rather a small business to make in guiry about some particular man when we all know that this is an abuse from all the Territories; it is not confined to anyone. It is a crying abuse, and I think this resolution ought to be amended so as to include all the territorial officers. I am not willing to vote to inquire into the conduct of anyone particular officer when we all know that he is as little to blame as others. I move to strike out the name of the particular officer there and insert “Governors, secretaries, and judges of Territories.” Then we shall havethesomseeveirnal formation that will be useful.
Mr. WADE. I have no objection to the amendment, only I want to specify the delin quencies of each.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It will have that effect.
Mr. WADE. I have no objection to make it general.
“The Clerk read” The amendment was agreed to; and the resolution, as amended, was adopted, as follows: Resolved, That the President be requested, at his earliest convenience, to inform the Senatehow often the Governors, secretaries, and judges of Territories have beenabsentfrom their pothsetsseveral of duty in the Territories, since their appointments; what art of their timesincethe date of their commissions has been spent in such absencefrom the Territories; bwyhethertheir absence hasbeenprevioushyauthorized leave granted in public necessity each instance; what was the for such absence in eachcaseand for their E. at the national capital, if any of have been there them or are thereat this time; and also whether anypart, and if so how much and what part, of the expensesof their several trips to the seat of Government have beencharged to the Government. PRESIDENTIAL TERM OF office.
Mr. POLAND. On Saturday the chairman of the ComJudiciary reported a JtResolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. restricting the Presidential office to a single term. I." at that time to give notice that when the resolution is brought up for consideration I shall move to amend it by extending the term from 4 to 6 years. A majority of the committee did not deem it advisable to make that amendment to the resolution; but I feel authorized to say that that change will proba bly be satisfactory to a majority, perhaps to every member of the committee. I am in favor of the principle of the resolution, but in favor of extending the term from 4 to 6 years. WILLIAM D. NELSON.
Mr. LANE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House JtResolution No. 160. It is a resolution which passed the House at the last session, and will not take a moment to pass it. The motion was agreed to; and the JtResolution (H.R.No. 160) for the relief of William D. Nelson was considered as in ComWhole. It provides for the payment to William D. Nelson of $1,000 for his services in recruiting for the Union Army in; Tennessee during the years 1861 and 62.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Is there a report in that case?
Mr. LANE. I will explain in a moment the circumstances of the case. The JtResolution is accompanied by a long report from the Military Committee of the of representatives; but the facts may be briefly stated.
Mr. Nelson was a citizen of East Tennessee at the beginning of the rebellion; and without having any commission he recruited 1000men, made 16 trips over the mount ains of East Tennessee to Kentucky, and put his men into the Army at the expense of his property and the hazard of his life. He never received a commission in the Army. These recruits were all forwarded to the Army without any expense of transportation to the government, he bearing the whole responsibility. Our committee thought that for 1000men $1,000 was the least possible compensation he ought to have. The proof was positive as to all the facts.
Mr. GRIMES. It seems to me that we may possibly establish a very bad precedent in this case. If every person who was instrumental in securing the recruitment of individuals during the war is to be paid a dollar a head we may deplete the Treasury to a greater extent than is apparent on the face of the resolution or than anybody may suppose who is in favor of its passage. I think it is a new principle. We have never done such a thing before, and it would be well for us to ponder on the subject a little before we agree to do it. I apprehend that there are 1000s and tens of 1000s of cases that stand precisely on the same principle; and unless d is something very extraordinary in this case which has not been detailed to us by the Senfrom Indiana, and which we do not know as yet, it seems to me we ought not to pass the resolution.
Mr. LANE. I know of no other single case having been Presented to any committee embracing any of the facts substantially that are embraced in this case. This is the case of a Union man doing all he could to sustain the Union cause, driven out from home, carrying refugees from the mountains of East Tennessee to Kentucky, making 16 trips as is shown by the papers, and only asking $1,000 for it. I do not think it is possible that very many similar cases will be Presented, but just as often as a similar case is Presented I shall be in favor of allowing compensation.
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President, the proof shows, in addition to what has been stated by my friendfrom Indiana, that after he had carried upward of 1000troops to the Union Army, Mr. Nelson himself, being 55 years of age, entered the service with 4 of his sons, 2 of whom were killed in battle, and the father and the 2 surviving sons served 3 years and were honorably discharged. I think the compensation protoo is very inadequate for i. services of Mr. Nelson; but I had nothing to do with get ting up the bill. if I had introduced it I should have asked for a greater sum. The JtResolution was reported to the senate, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. CATHERINE WELSH. On motion of Mr. WILSON, the bill (H.R.No. 486) for the relief of Catherine Welsh was considered as in ComWhole. It provides that Catherine Welsh, widow of private John Welsh, late of company E, 26th regiment of Illinois volunteer infantry, shall be authorized to receive the bounty, back pay, and allowances due to John Welsh, without being required to make other or further proof of his death than that already furnished. The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and 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 following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: A bill (H.R.No. 1058) for the relief of the mine r children of Solomon Long; A bill (H.R.No. 1059) for the relief of Sylvanus Sawyer and William E. Ward; and A bill, (H.R.No. 1079) to provide for examinations of the Treasury Dept and other Executive Depts. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled JtResolution (H.R.No. 244) to amend existing laws relating to internalrevenue; and it was thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate. HABEASCORPUS.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I now move to proceed to the consideration of House bill 'N. 605, which we had up in the morning hour a few days ago, and which was laid over at the request of the Senfrom Indiana. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 605) to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the U.S., approved September 24, 1789.
Mr. TRUMBULL. When this bill was up the other day the Senfrom Maryland suggested that under it a judge of a U.S. court in one part of the Union would be authorized to issue a writ of habeascorpus to bring before him a person confined in another and a remote part of the Union. I do not think the bill is susceptible of that construction. I think the judges and courts would under the bill be confined to their respective jurisdictions; but if the language is so broad that the Senfrom Maryland thinks it may be susceptible of that construction, I shall have no objection to amending it by inserting after the word “courts” in the 4th E.the 1st section the words “within their respective jurisdictions;” so that it would then read, “that the several courts of the U.S and the several justices and judges of such courts, within their respective jurisdictions, ” &c. If that will meet the views of the Senfrom Maryland, I will move that amendment, or if he prefers, he can move an amendment in such form satisfactory to him as will accomplish the same object.
Mr. JOHNSON. The amendment proposed by the honorable chairman is entirely satisfactory to me. I suggested the necessity of an amendment the other day because I know that the late Chief Justice of the U.S. decided that under the laws as they stand process issued by a judge of the Supreme Court in cases where those judges have a right to issue process extends all over the Union. That I am satisfied might lead to a practical evil. The amendment proposed by the honorable chairman is entirely satisfactory to me and removes that difficulty. The amendment to. amendment was agreed to. The amendment was orderengross and the bill read the 3rd time. The bill was read the 3rd time, and passed. countERFEITING, Etc., PUBLIC SECURITIES.
Mr. HENDRICKS subsequently said: I desire to make a motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of House bill No. 719. It is a bill that was reported at the last session by the ComJudiciary. I am of the impression, and I think the chairman is also of that imPression, that the penalties are left higher.the committee intended. I wish to interpose the motion to reconsider now to avoid the engrossment of the bill, and we can examine it and see if that be the case.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion to reconsider will be entered. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The following bills from the HoRep were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below: A bill (H.R.No. 1058) for the relief of the mine r children of Solomon Long to the ComPensions. A bill (H.R.No. 1059) for the relief of Sylvanus Sawyer and William E. Ward to the ComPatents and the Patent Office. A bill (H.R.No. 1079) to provide for examinations of the Treasury Dept and other Executive Depts to the ComFinance.
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. 486) for the relief of Catherine Welsh; and the enrolled JtResolution (H.R.No. 160) for the relief of Wil. liam D. Nelson; and they were thereupon . by the President protempore of the Senate. ABSENCE OF TERRITORIAL OFFICERS. On motion of
Mr. WADE, the Senate, as in ComWhole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.32) to prevent the absence of territorial officers from their official duties.
Mr. GRIMES. I would suggest that some of the words in the 1st line of the 1st section be transposed so as to read “no person now in office in any Territory, ” instead of “no person in any Territory now in office.”
Mr. WILLIAMS. The phraseology used in the bill is intended to include persons who are now in the Territory in office, and the subsequent portion of the section is intended to embrace persons who may hereafter be apo pointed to office by the President. If the phraseology be changed as proposed, it will not apply to persons now in office.
Mr. GRIMES. I inquire, whether, if the bill stands as reported, it will include persons who hold a commission for an office who are now outside of the Territory?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think there is some force in this phraseology. Suppose a man is in the city of Washington now who has been appointed to office in a Territory. He holds the office in the Territory, but he is not in the Territory, and if he is not there within 30 days then he is to be, by the terms of this bill, removed from office. The bill, as it was origin ally prepared was intended to apply to persons now in the Territory holding office, and to provide that any such persons who should absent themselves from the Territory for 30 days should be removed; and this provision is made for persons who may be hereafter appointed to office. The object is to o allow who are now appointed to office, but have not yet assumed the performance of the duties, time to go there and enter upon the discharge of their duties.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I call for the order of the day, the unfinished business of Saturday.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. During the consideration of the tariff bill, the following message was received from the POTUS, by Mr. W. G. MooRE. his Secretary: Mr. PresIDENT: I am directed by the President to return to the Senate, in which House it originated, the bill (S.No.462) to admit the State of Colorado into the Union, with his objections thereto in writing. BILLS BECOME LAWS. The message further announced that the President had approved and signed on the 22d in stant the bills and JtResolution: A bill (S.No.177) to incorporate the National Safe Deposit Company of Washington, in the DistCol; A bill (S.No.311) for the relief of James Pool; A bill (S.No.383) for the relief of Lewis Dyer, late surgeon of the 8 1st regiment Illinois volunteers; and A JtResolution (S.R.No. 151) appropri ating money to.expenses of the joint select ComRetrenchment. TARIFF, BILL.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of Saturday, which is the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes. This bill has been reported to the Senate from the ComWhole, and the question is in concurring in the amendment made as in ComWhole.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Before that question is put, I should like to have certain amendmonts that were made in committee rejected. I cannot enumerate them all; they are simply as to sums or rates, and I should like to have the corrections made now.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will suggest that there is but one amendment which was made in ComWhole. It is true that amendment was amended in divers particulars, but the question is simply upon concurring in the amendment made as in ComWhole; and if the amendment be concurred in it will not then be in order without a violation of the rules to amend it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. But there are several amendments made at the suggestion of the ComFinance which we do not wish the Senate to concur in, because they were moved under a mistake. I cannot enumerate them all now, but they are very slight generally. If there is no objection I should like to dispose of them before the general question of concurrence is put. The PièESIDENT protempore. The Chair meant to suggest that the mode which the rules Prescribe is that the amendment must be corrected before it is concurred in, because after the amendment shall have been concurred in it will not be in order to alter or modify it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then I wish to make my corrections now. I call attention 1st to page 47, line 156 of section nine. The ComFinance moved to strike out “ 40 ” and insert “ 7 5;” so as to read “on bromine, 75 cents per pound.” We do not wish thatamendment concurred in.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Maine moves that in the line referred to by him “ 75 ” be stricken out and “ 40 ” inserted.
Mr. FESSENDEN. My motion is that that amendment be not concurred in. I wish to except it from the general amendments. In ComWhole we struck out “ 40 ” and inserted “ 75.” Now I wish to restore “ 40, “ and I suppose that can be. done by simply not concurring in that amendment made in committee.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The object can only be attained by amending the amendment made as in ComWhole. The Senfrom Maine moves to amend that annendment by striking out “ 75 “ in the line referred to and inserting “ 40;” so as to read: On bromine, 40 cents per pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well; I do not care how it is put so that the original amount is restored. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In the next line, 157, “ 65 cents” was stricken out and “one dollar” inserted; so as to read: On bromide of potassium, of sodium, and of monium, one dollar per pound. am I move now to strike out “one dollar” and insert “ 65 cents.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 572 of the same section, on page 64, I move to amend the amendment by striking out “ 40 ” and inserting “33, ” so as to restore the item to what it was originally: On quinia, quinidia, and all their salts, 33 Centsper ounce. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 652 of the same section, on page 67, I move to strike out “and 25 cents;” so as to read: On strychnia and salts of strychnia, or strychnine, one dollar per ounce. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In line 717 of that section, on page 70, the word “chemicals” was struck out. I wish it to be restored, and I therefore move to insert it now. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a very considerable number of amendments that the committee wish to make to the text by way of correcting, phraseology, &c. I. suppose that can be done after the general question is disposed of.
The PRESIDENT protempore. In strictness, if the Senate concur in the amendment made as in ComWhole, they will be understood as concurring in it as it stands.
Mr. FESSENDEN. o it not then be open to amendment?
The PRESIDENT protempore. Only by way of addition. The amendment will then have become the text of the bill, and no corrections or alterations can be made in it, inas much as the Senate will have concurred in it as it stands.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand that so far as the Senate have gone they have made amendments to an amendment. Now, if we concur in the amendments made to the amendment that amendment will still be open to correction and amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair thinks not. The whole proposition is but one amendment. The ComWhole amended that amendment or substitute in various forms, but it is still all one amendment; and if the Senate concur in it they concur in it as one amendment, and it then stands as the text of the bill, not subject by the rules to alteration, having been concurred in in a certain form.
Mr. SHERMAN. The difficulty can all be avoided by simply postponing the question of concurrence until the last stage. The amendment made as in ComWhole is still open to amendment, and the question of concurring in it can be postponed until all the amendments to be moved to it are offered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose of course the amendment is open to amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is now. Any amendment to the amendment is proper now, and then the question will be taken on the amendment as amended.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand we can go on and make amendments now to the orig inal amendment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Allow me to inquire whether it would not be in order to concur in the amendments to the amendment in the Senate, and then leave the amendment open to be amended hereafter.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That is not the question. The question now is, whether the Senate will concur in the amendment made as in ComWhole, and that amendment is a substitute for the whole bill. If the Senate concur in the amendment made as ComWhole it will not then be susceptible of amendment, being an amendment already agreed to and concurred in.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not wish to take anybody by surprise, and it would not be right to do so upon any bill, and more especiall upon a bill of this character. When I move on Saturday evening to take the bill out of committee I had reference simply to taking the amendment out of committee, considering that in fact as the original bill. I do not want anybody to lose any rights he may have had pre: vious to that time to offer amendments. If the amendment is still open to any amendments to be proposed in the Senate it is all right. I understand the Chair to rule that it is still open to amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well, I have amendments to offer.
Mr. SUMNER. Before the Senator proceeds I should like to have an understanding with regard to the amendments to the amendment which have already been acted upon. There are some of those, certainly one, on which many of us would like a separate vote. I think the suggestion of the Senfrom Ohio was to the point that we should proceed to complete the amended bill on the motion of the Senfrom Maine, go as far as we can in that, reserving the amendments which have already been acted upon for consideration at the end.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose any amendment to the amendment that was adopted in committee may be reserved from the general vote on all the amendments.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Any alteration of the Present amendment is perfectly in order being moved as an amendment to the amendment. Anything may be stricken out, anything may be inserted, as an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then we can move to o tempore. Certainly. Then I will propose It is, cer strike out amendments adopted in the ComWhole, or can offer any amendment now.
Mr. WADE. I think we had better reconsider the vote taking the bill out of committee.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh, no, because it is all open to amendment yet.
Mr. WADE. Then it does not vary it at all, and I do not see that we gain anything by considering the bill in the Senate instead of in committee. But if there is no embarrassment attending the bill in its Present stage I shall not Press my suggestion; otherwise I think we had better put the bill back in committee.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The President rules that any amendment may be proposed to the amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is perfectly in order for any Senator to move any amendment to the amendment made as in ComWhole. Any motion to strike out or alter any part of it, or to add to it, is perfectly in order.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 4, section one, line 69, the word “cacao” where it occurs should be “cocoa.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. That correction will be made, it being a clerical mistake.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On the same page, line 69, I move to insert the words “of all kinds” after the word “bitters, ” and to strike out the words “of all kinds” where they occur after “spirits;” so that it will read: On cordials, liqueurs, and bitters oftaining spirits, all kinds conand on arrack, &c. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 102, section 18, line 90, I move to strike out the letter “t” in the word “litchens.”
The PRESIDENT protempore. That cor recion will be made.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 4, section one, line 83, after the words “bay water, ” I move to insert “containing 50% or less of alcohol;” so that the clause will read: On bay rum or bay water containing 50% or lessof alcohol, $1 50 per proof gallon. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 17, section 4, line 27, after the words “Ital ian cloths” I move to strike out the words “and lastings.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 32, section7, line 172, I move to strike out the words “one and” before “three 4th s, ” and after 3/4ths to insert “of one;” so that it will read: On cast iron, steam, gas, or water pipe, 3/4ths of onecent per pound. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 56, section 9, I move to strike out lines 376 and lines 377, in these words: On, all extracts of litmus, extracts of archil, orchil or or other lichens, 20 per cont. adrem. They are already provided for in another part of the bill. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 65, section 9, line 591, I move to insert the word “crystalized” after “salts;” so that it will read: On Glauber salts, crystalized, 1/2 cent per pound. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 101, section 18, line 68, after the word “long” I move to insert the word “drawn;” so as to read: 1. IlHga, &irco. f the horse, long drawn, and usedfor weav.
Mr. SPRAGUE. Does that change the du ties?
Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir; it is merely a more accurate definition. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 102, section 18, line 92, after the word “lich ens” I move to insert “prepared or;” so as to read: Litmus and lichens, prepared or not prepared. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 12, section 3, line7, after the word “goat” I move to insert the word “camel;” so as to read: All wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, camel, and other like animals, &c. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 20, section 4, lines 111, 117, and 1nineteen, I move the same amendment, to insert “camel” after “goat.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 49, section 9, line 2six, I move to strike out the word “or” after “word, ” and to insert “and.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 49, section 9, line 421, after the words “salad oil” I move to insert “or table oil.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 75, section ten, line 126, I move to strike out the word “exclusively” at the end of the line. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 84, section 12, lines 37 and 39, I move after the word “of” to insert “goat or, ” so as to read, “on mats of goat or sheep skins, ” &c. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 88, section 14, line 37, after the word “pack” I move to insert “ of not more than 52 cards.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 89, section 15, line 24, I move to strike out the word “or” before the word “oats, ” and after the word “oats” to insert “ or other grain not herein otherwise provided for;” so that the elause will read: wOhenaftl.oryuer, aonadts, moreaolt, hmeridgdraliinngns, otahnedreminillotfheeerdwiosfe providedfor, 15%, advalorem. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 106, section 19, line 17, after “fire crack ers.” I move to insert “double headers, rock ets, and fire works.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 80, section 11, I move to strike out the proviso in lines 22, 23, and 20 4, in these words: Protided. That the true allowance for boxes or optehrecerpnat.cokfatgheescgoronstasiwneinigghtth. e same shall be 20 The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 17, section 4, line 42, after “wool” I move to insert “ or worsted;” so as to read, “on hosiery, composed wholly or in part of wool or worsted, comprising shirts, ” &c. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WADE. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the duty imposed by this bill on various kinds of saws. I do not profess myself to be very much acquainted the subject, but I was requested by a gentleman who is extensively engaged in manufacture of these saws to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the duties as fixed in the bill will destroy the business in this country entirely. The gentleman was a Mr. Hoe, celebrated, I believe, for his invention of a printing Press, who is now extensively in this business, and he has furnished me with some tables on the subject. It seems to me, if his estimates are right, that the duty is altogether too low, and I call the attention of the Senate to it, and will state what he thought it ought to be.
Mr. WILLIAMS. In what part of the bill is it?
Mr. MORGAN. Owing to the increase of the duty on steel some amendment I think is necessary in relation to the duty on saws. The duty is considerably less on the saws than it ought to be. It ranges from 27 to 30%. in the bill as reported by the committee. I have an amendment which has been considered by the committee, and I will offer, it as an amendment of the committee, which increases the duty to a certain extent.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I understood the Senfrom Ohio to offer an amendment.
Mr. WADE. I have only called the attention of the Senate to the subject. I do not offer any amendment.
Mr. MORGAN. I offer the following as an amendment of the committee: on. 34 section7, strike out lines 224, 225 226, and 227, and insert in lieu thereof the following: mQilln, cprito, ss cut, saws 15cents per lineal foot; on and drag saws, not over 9 inches wide, 20 cents per fincai foot; over 9 inches wide, 35 cents per lineal foot. And as a part of the same amendment I move to strike out lines 233, 234, 235, 236, and 237, and in lieu thereof to insert: On, all, back saws not exceeding ten inches in length $1.25per dozen, and, in addition thereto, 30%. advalorem, over teninches in length. 2 dollars perdozen, and, in addition thereto, 30%. advalorem. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WADE. I move to amend the bill on page 85, section 13, by striking out lines 36 and 37: Ongrindstones, unfinished, tenpercent.ad palorem On grindstones, finished, 5 dollars per ton. And inserting in lieu thereof: stoOnneg, grrianndisttoo, nes, and on soapstone, freestone, sand and all building or monumentalstone, foot Inarble, 5 dollars per ton of 13 cubic ect. And then to strike out on page 86, lines 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61, as follows: On paving stones, slabs, and flags, not dressed, and on Nova Scotia stone, Caen stone, and all building stones, cut or dressed, 20%. advaloren, On building, paving, or monumentalstones, of description, ever cut or dressed, 2 dollars per ton o 13 cubic feet.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to hear some reasons from the Senator, if he has any to offer, why that should be done.
Mr. WADE. I am informed, and I have some letters here showing, that these stones are brought in from Nova Scotia and from Canada in competition with our own quarries to an extent that renders, the business very unproductive here. The duty on the article of grind stones, dressed, as it stands in the bill does not amount to anything hardly. The stones in the quarry where o lie in a foreign country are not worth scarcely anything. obody wants to use them about there. Almost all their value consists in the labor that is bestowed upon them to get them out and bring them to market. So the contest is about the labor; whether it shall be done by our own people, or whether it shall be done abroad. I am informed that undressed grindstones are really almost finished when they come in here in competition with our own. They are brought in in such a shape that the word “finished” in the law is a very uncertain term. They can bring in the stones almost finished sometimes, I am told, all perhaps but drilling a hole for a crank, or something of the kind and thus entirely defeat the law so far as that provision is concerned. I should be willing to agree to strike out the word “finished” and say “on all grindstones, 5 dollars per ton.” I would have no objection to that; but as it now stands it is evaded entirely by the fact that they bring them in and call them unfinished stones when the work on them has been almost entirely completed. That I am told is the way in which this duty is evaded, and they thus come in competition with our own stone. I do not suppose that the consumers of these stones would be affected at all by the "N that. I propose upon them. The work is aM done in Canada and Nova Scotia where they get them, and where I am told labor can be procured for about 75 cents per day; in this country it would cost 3 times that, probably.
Mr. WADE. Well, say a dollar, if that suits any better; but that is different from what I am told. Labor is undoubt dly a great deal cheaper there than it is here. But when they bring these stones here in competition with our own they do not graduate their price by what they can afford to sell at, but by what we can afford to sell our article at with our enhanced labor; so that the consumer of the stones really does not get them any cheaper. It will yield a great deal of revenue if we impose this duty, while the stones will not come any dearer than they do now, as they gauge their price, not by what they can afford to sell them at, but what they can force us to pay. I think there ought to be this protection upon these kinds of stone. I have coupled them together because I know that in Connecticut, and in various other parts of the country, these free sotones are an article of very extensive use, and have competition from the same source, as I understand; but I leave that part of the proposition to be stated by those gentlemen who are more particularly concerned in it. I hope, sir, that this alteration will be made.
Mr. HENDERSON. It makes the article pay more into the Federal Treasury 2
Mr. HENDERSON. The increase of duty does not affect the Cleveland quarry or the manufacture there. They could not transport grindstones from there to the East. It only makes you pay more revenue to the Government.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It only makes us pay more revenue, unless that addition is sufficient to cover the transportation from Cleveland i. make it cheaper for us to get them from there.
Mr. GRIMES. It gives the Cleveland people an excuse for charging us more for our grindstones in the West.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Of course if you raise the price on the Atlantic border you will raise the price in the West, so that every man who uses a grindstone will pay an additional duty. Now, sir, it struck the committee that an increased duty on such a coarse, rough article as i.this, which must have this effect upon all who use it and impose such a heavy urden on manufacturers, who are already paying so large a sum to the Government for internalrevenue tax and otherwise, would be a little severe for the mere purpose of enabling this quarry in Cleveland to raise its own prices for grindstones, either under the pretense or under the fact that the duty was so much enhanced on the Atlantic i.
Mr. WADE. They could not change their rices. p
Mr. WADE. I find that in making out this tariff it depends very much on whose ox it is that is to be gored.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is a new discovery that you have made.
Mr. HENDERSON. If it be true that labor is so very cheap where this stone is quarried, I should like to ask the Senator, it being adjoining the State of Maine, why those laborers do not come into our country, with institutions certainly as good as they have in the Canadian Government, and obtain the higher wages here? I should like to ask the Senator further why it is that operatives from Europe have come here with a view of engaging in business in our manufactories and have returned to Europe, refusing to take the high wages we are paying here, because they say they can make more money at the low wages of Europe than they can here, paying the cost of living. It is a fact that American labor to day has not advanced in proportion to the commodities which the laborer must have, and the laborer today is worse off than he was under lower prices, because labor has not advanced in the same ratio that the commodities which enter into the cost of living have advanced.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator, in the 1st place, put it upon the ground of revenue?ion. He did not inform is in the quarry he was looking after was up in his own neigh borhood, nearby, close to Cleveland.
Mr. WATE." if it had been in Mineit would have been your ox.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well; he did not allude to that. I told the whole story so that it might be perfectly understood. Now, having found the revenue “dodge” did not work, he comes down to the doctrine of protection again, and the Senator talks about protection and goes into a discussion which we have heard from every gentleman who wanted to put on a heavier duty, a general discussion upon the subject of protecting American labor. Now, how are you going to protect it?. Suppose any protection was needed up there in Cleveland, which the Senator does not really pretend, for he will not read the letters even, and he does not profess to know anything about it himself
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not want to read them certainly if you do not. Now, whom do you protect? You protect the workmen employed in Cleveland, and who have the whole western country for their area to sell their grindstones, without any possibility of the slightest competition from any quarter, to every farmer and every man who uses a grind stone. Are there no laborers except those laborers there? Have we not laborers in our factories who use o and laborers, too, who are dependent for their employment upon the success of the manufacture? Have we not farmers? Have we not all sorts of mechanics everywhere scattered through the country? Are they not laborers?
Mr. FESSENDEN. how have we protected them? If the gentleman can tell how we protect the laborers let him do it; I do not know. He may say we protect some of the manufacturers. How have we protected the farmers?
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then you want to tax their grindstones for the benefit of the laborers in Cleveland. How are you to protect the common mechanics, every blacksmith shop, and every other shop where they want to grind a tool? How do you protect them? Are they not laborers? Do not they labor? Protect American labor, and not for the benefit of a very few at most who may be employed in the grindstone factory near Cleveland. Impose a tax upon every man who uses a grindstone all through the W and an additional tax upon every man who uses a grindstone all through the East. It does depend, not upon whose ox is gored, but whose ox wants to grow fat.
Mr. FESSENE) EN. That is the fact. The Senator admits it. Now, sir, I think it is a little unreasonable. I can say very confidentl that we have had an eye to protection all through this bill. I think nobody will dispute that. But when I say that I have an eye to protection in carrying the principle of the bill out, it is perfect nonsense to talk about making a dead level for everything, and to declare that because you impose a certain duty in one particular where it is needed you are therefore to impose the same duty in another particular where it is not needed. That is not the doctrine of this bill. The doctrine of the bill is discrimination in these things, and we should stultify ourselves both in committee and as a Senate unless we did discriminate according to the article and the necessity of the article itself, and the uses to be made of the article; and we do not abandon the doctrine of the in in any particular. Why not impose a heavy duty on all the articles in the free list?. Have we abandoned the idea of protection by per: mitting a long list of articles to be admitted free? Why, sir, they are put there for the benefit of American labor, and for the purpose of protecting it, and increasing it. he senator must carry his doctrines out, and say that upon everything there shall be put an indis. criminate duty. That will not do. I think the ComFinance would have placed themselves in a very ridiculous position if they had reported a bill founded upon any sueh idea as that. Certainly I never could have consented to it. Now, sir, this matter is before the Senate. I do not use a grindstone because I have no occasion to use it; but a great many other people do.
Mr. CHANDLER. I think the honorable chairman of the ComFinance takes rather a narrow view of this subject. He does not seem to see beyond the State of Maine. Now, sir, we have grindstone quarries in Michigan, and there are quarries of precisely the same kind across the river in Canada. In Michigan we pay our common laborers 2 dollars a day and our skilled workmen in getting out grind stone 4 dollars a day. In Canada, directly across the river, not more than a mile apart, they pay 75 cents a day for common labor and 2 dollars a day for their skilled labor. Now, sir, do you propose to abandon the entire traffic to the Canadians? As it now is they are coming across in 1000s because we are paying higher wages than they are on the other side. We have had an immense immigration from Canada during the last 5 years of work men. Do you propose to send those men back to Canada by odown our grindstone interest so that they cannot be paid here? Do you propose to abandon the laborer in the State of Michigan? I think the Senator takes a nar row view of it. This country is not confined to the State of Maine; it covers an immense surface. Michigan has an interest as well as Ohio in this question of protection to labor. I am not going into an argument upon the abstract idea of protection at this time; as the Senator says, it has been sufficiently argued already; but I Present this as a plain practical question. I hope the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio will prevail. I hope that our laborers in Michigan will have a little protection against the competition directly across the river in the same article. It is but justice that we should have it.
Mr. WILSON. Will you tell what is a raw material?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I can easier tell what is not. This freestone is used for veneering houses; it is so valuable and it costs so much to work it that it is used merely to veneer a house perhaps with stone 4 or 6 inches thick. That you cannot call a raw material. It is as expensive as the marble almost.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is not the raw material, you speak of it after it is wrought.
Mr. No. That is the way it is brought. It is not sold in the rough condition as it is taken out of the quarries.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is mistaken. It is sold in that way by those who work it. Some may carry on both branches of business; but as the stone comes out of the quarry it is a rough block; it, then goes to the worker in stone and he puts it into the shape he wants it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But the rough block the Senator speaks of has a great deal of labor upon it; and it is that rough block which is put in the market at an except of $1 35 per cubic foot. We can see that the stoneasit is in the quar of $135 a cubic foot. t thatgivesit that value. inthat.ble by the tariffon marble by the Present bill, ey although the amendment of J. . . Vermontwas not adopted, is vast greater thanthatwhich we ask upon the rej There the tariff is 50 cents a cubic for cific, and 13 cents act alorem, making 63 cents. The marble is invoiced. 65 cents a cubic foot, so that the Present tariffuponmarble is almost 100%, if you take the invoice price as the ri. terion. This stone sells in the market at about 16dollars a ton, and we ask 4 dollars a ton or 25%. on its value in market. I trustthat the Senate will have regard to this freestoneand not destroy these quarries, for it is perfectly clear that with the price of labor in this country and with the fact that this stonehas to be transported by rail
Mr. FRELINGHUSEN. From the quarry to market, however far it may be. The free stonecan be carried at much less expense directly from the quarries in Nova Scotia by water to NewYork and Philadelphia, which are the principal markets.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The quarries in Ohio have water transportation, too.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But they must carry the stone 6 miles to the shore.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is hauled there, not transported by rail.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In view of the difference in the price of labor and the cost of transportation we certainly ought to protect our own quarries. I am assured by the gentlemen who are engaged in this business in this country that even with this duty the Nova Scotia stone will command the market and can undersell them.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not want to take up time by arguing the principles of this tariff. We want to protect A. labor, and we want to get revenue. We do both by this arrangement. We get revenue and we prevent American capital going to Nova Sco tia and being there invested in these quarries, and so taking the business from the American uarries.
Mr. WADE. It is thought that I have placed the rate of duty too high in my amendment. I fixed that rate because it was what was put in the House bill after full investigation by the HoRep; but as gentlemen think it is too high I will modify it by saying “4 dollars” instead of “five.”
Mr. WADE. fo not announce that I was in favor of the bill itself; I said nothing about it.
Mr. GRIMES. I am delighted to hear that the Senfrom Ohio is open to correction yet upon the merits of this bill.
Mr. WADE. I said nothing about the bill.
Mr. GRIMES. I thought from what the Senator said before it was a foregone conclusion that his vote would be in favor of the bill. But I say, in addition to the burdens on the farmer of which I have spoken, it is proposed now to increase the cost and expense of the products of the American farmer by an additional imposition upon the grindstones with which he sharpens his tools.
Mr. GRIMES. I beg the Senator to believe that I did not charge him with such a thing.
Mr. WADE. Oh, no; I do not say so. I speak in reference to what was said by the Senfrom Maine, who charged that these interests I speak about are in my own vicinity or in my own State. That is true; and that is a reason why I advocate them here more earn estly, perhaps, than I would if they were in the State of another Senator, who was quite as able to set forth and protect the interests of his constituents as I could be. This interest is no more local than every other one that comes under the supervision of this bill. It affects all the inhabitants of the country, because betweenthe States of the Union we levy no cus toms. These States are one great community for certain purposes, and it does not make any difference where the thing to be taxed happens to lie; it affects everybody that has occasion to use the article. Because this quarry hap pens to lie in Ohio I am not aware that I am contending for a mere local interest any more than I should be if it was located anywhere else. It seems to me to be perfectly germane to include all the freestone interests in this amendment. The same principle applies, to them all. When you come to consider whether they shall be taxed in this bill or not, grind stones stand on precisely the same principle as freestones, and therefore I have grouped them all together, not believing there was any difference in principle.
Mr. WADE. Because I think that would be extravagant.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought you said it was all the same.
Mr. WADE. No; I say the same principle of protection applies. I am for applying that principle to this article, and the Senator cannot deny that the same principle for which I am contending pervades his whole bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is a question of amount.
Mr. WADE. Yes; and I ask for a smaller amount than is given to many other interests by this bill. I hardly understand how the Senator argues this bill. Sometimes when it is convenient for his purpose he tells us that the duty is for revenue; and then on other occasions, when he has some other purpose to serve, he says the duty is for protection. Now, I am for both, whether the interest to be protected is located in Portland or in Cleveland. Its locality makes no difference to me. In this case I am in for the protection of grindstone and freestone against foreign competition in the same way that I am for protecting our own labor against foreign competition in any other articles of production.
Mr. GRIMES. Does not the Senator see that under the operation of our Present internal tax law, just so far as his proposition is protective just so far it diminishes the revenue.
Mr. GRIMES. Then where is the profit to the Government.
Mr. WADE. You say it is a very profitable business, which I do not understand that it is, and I am assured by those interested in it (whose arguments I do not lug in) that the business is not a profitable one. If it is, I trust the ComFinance will have shrewdness enough to hunt it up and tax it. If it is a profitable business and these men make money out of it, you ought to derive a revenue from them as well as from others; and if the assertion be true that this is a money making business impose your taxation on it; there is no reason why it should not be done. Indeed, I had supposed it was taxed like other business of a similar kind; but I never looked to see whether the internalrevenue law applied to them or not. I am wil;ing that they should be placed on the same principle as others.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask if the vote can be put 1st on the motion to strike out and insert, and next on the motion to strike out on the next page, or whether it is all one vote?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The proposed amendment, in the opinion of the Chair, is subject to a division.
The PRESIDENT protempore. A division of the amendment being asked for, the 1st question is on striking out lines 36 and 37 of section 12, on page 85, in these words: On grindstones, unfinished, ten%. advalo rein. On grindstones, finished, 5 dollars per ton. And in lieu thereof inserting: On grindstones, and on soapstone, freestone, sand stone, granite, and all building or monumentalstone foot marble, 4 dollars per ton of 13 cubic ee
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Does the amendment now include grindstones?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair so understands it.
Mr. GRIMES. Is it not possible to amend the amendment so as to get a separate vote on the different articles enumerated in it?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair thinks not. A motion to strike out and insert is one motion, and is not divisible.
Mr. GRIMES. Cannot the question be divided in any way? The potprotempore. The Chair thinks not.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I would inquire whether the question cannot be divided so that we may take the vote on grindstones to begin with, and have a distinct vote on each separate branch or article proposed to be included.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair thinks there can be no division of this motion. It is a motion to strike out and insert, and that under the rules is one motion and cannot be divided.
Mr. GRIMES. Then the only course left to those who are against one of the propositions and in favor of the other is to vote against the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio and then offer a subsequent amendment in a different form.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That is of course in the power of any Senator.
Mr. SPRAGUE. Before the yeas&nays are taken I desire to state that my colleague [Mr. ANTHoNY] is confined today by indisposition, and he will, I know, receive the .". of the Senate when I state that on riday he was seriously imperiled by an accident which might have cost him his life. As he was crossing a street a sleigh approached him, and guarding himself he seized the pole and was carried some distance, after which he lost his hold and the horse and sleigh passed over him, as he thought on Saturday without injury, but today he feels that he was some what injured by the circumstance. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 19, nays 23; So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SHERMAN. I wish to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There is still a branch of the amendment offered by the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. WADE] undisposed of.
Mr. SHERMAN. I supposed that fell, of course with the rejection of the other.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question must be taken on it unless it is withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The pending amendment will be read.
Mr. WADE. I withdraw it. I supposed it fell with the other, of course.
Mr. SHERMAN. That being withdrawn, I move to amend section 4 on page 17, by striking out the word “ 20 ” in line 24 and inserting “ 50;” and by striking out the words “square yard” and inserting “pound;” so as to read “on bunting 50 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 30%. advalorem;” so as to conform to the duties in the previous part of the section.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thought the Senfrom Ohio was renewing the motion of his colleague as applicable to freestone.
Mr. SHERMAN. No; but you can renew it afterward.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But for that understanding I should have objected to the withdrawal of that amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask the Senfrom Ohio if his amendment proposes to increase the duty on bunting or not.
Mr. SHERMAN. I am informed by experts that the duty on bunting, as fixed by the bill as it stands, is 135%.; and by some means perhaps it is not an error, though I was about to call it so in stead of levying the duty per pound, as is done in all other woolen or worsted manufactures, it is levied per square yard. The Senate will see that the preceding parts of the section levy the duties on blankets and woolen and worsted yarns, &c., composed of the same materials that are made into bunting, at from 20 to 50 cents per pound. Assuming that bunting is the highest priced product, which, by the way, it is not, I propose to put the duty at 50 cents a pound, which is precisely the duty on the corresponding articles of woolen and worsted goods.
Mr. HOWE. How will that leave the bill in this respect as compared with the Present duty under the existing law?
Mr. SHERMAN. The Present duty is 50%. advalorem, and from the information get my amendment will make it about 70%. advalorem.
Mr. SHERMAN. No; this bill makes it 135%., and I reduce that. By an amendment incorporated into some law on motion of my friendfrom RhdIsland, [Mr.oall bunting used by the Government of the U.S. must be of American manufacture, so that all the flags used by the Government must be of American manufacture. One or 2 establishments have a monopoly of the busimess, and to give them in addition to that a protection of 135%. seems to me rather too much.
Mr. HOWE. It seems that we import a vast amount of bunting. We imported last year, I see by the returns, over 13 million dollars in value of this very article.
Mr. SHERMAN. I have no doubt bunting is used by every citizen of the U.S. more or less. It goes into the little flags that are used on the 4th of July. Every citizen ohas his flag, and a great deal of it is used. '
Mr. HOWE. The Secretary's report the importation puts at the figures I have stated.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think that is an exag geration.
Mr. SPRAGUE. This article of bunting is different from the articles referred to by the Senfrom Ohio. He refers to blankets, broadcloths, and such like articles that weigh 2 or 3 yards to a pound; but this is a light article that weighs something like ten yards to a pound. Hence there should be a difference.
Mr. CONNESS. You changed the classification of wools?
Mr. FESSENDEN. No; the classification is the same precisely. What we did was to rejectthe reduction proposed by the commissioner and take the fixed by the House; so that instead of paying nothing, as was the case when this manufacture was established, the wool out of which bunting is made is to pay a duty of ten cents a pound and ten%. adralorem by this bill. That being established by the House and adopted by the Sen. ate, we took the House provision with reference to bunting, supposing that it was framed in accordance with the increased duties, to. the same protection that the manufacturer adbefore. That is all I know about it; and if the Senfrom Ohio has any other information he will communicate it to the Senate. It is not mere matter of opinion and guesswork, but is good on the increase of the duties on wool.
Mr. WILSON. In section two, line o 6, on page 11, after the word ‘: hand” I move to insert “ or Marseilles bed quilts or bed spreads; ” so as to read: On all cotton hosiery, comprisingshirts, drawers, stockings, socks, gloves, and all other goodsknitted obredm qaudieltson frames or by hand, and on Marseilles or bed spreads, ten cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 40%.ad valoren. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I move now, after the word “ties, ” in line 142 of section ten, on page 76, to insert “six cents per dozen and;” so as to read: On umbrella and parasol elastic ties, 6 cents per dozen, and 50%.ad valorem. I will simply say that as the bill now stands there is a marked discrimination against
Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe there is no objection to the amendment on the part of the ComFinance.
Mr. WILSON. Very well, then, I shall say nothing. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. In line 3five of section7, on page 37, I move to strike out “ 40 ” and insert “ 50;” so as to make the clause read: On machinecards, on card clothing, for use in cov ering carding engines, or parts of thesame, composed of leather and wire, or cloth and wire, whether the cloth be composedwholly of wool, flax, or cotton, or of the same materials mixed with India rubber, or combined with each other and India rubber in any way, 50%. dd valorem.
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the Present duty under the existing law?
Mr. WILSON. 35%. The persons engaged in this business are very anx ious to have 20 cents per pound specific duty in addition to the 40%. adva lorem provided by the bill; but it has been thought best not to propose that, but simply to move ten%. additional; and I will sa that I think this is a very reasonable proposf.tion. The article is one of great importance, and it ought to be protected.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask the honorable senator if an additional tax on these articles will not impose additional burdens on the manufacturers of the country.
Mr. WILSON. The persons engaged in the manufacture of these articles that are used in the mills employ a great number of skilled mechanics; and I think if there is one class of men in the country whose interests we ought to look after it is the skilled laborers of the country. This proposed change is very far short of what the men engaged in this business think they ought to have. They say that the provision as it stands will be very hard indeed upon their labor. They want a much larger than the amendment I propose. Theywant 20 cents a pound in addition to the 40%., but I have thought it best simply to propose that the 40%. be made 50. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILSON. On page 71, in line 20 8 of section ten, I move to increase the duty on corks, from 40 to 50%. advalorem. I wish to say that this is but 1/2 of what has been asked for by the parties engaged in this business, and I have seen the figures made out, by which it appears that the duty as it stands is a marked discrimination against the manufacturer in this country. Even the change that I propose will hardly make anything in their avor and will just put them about even. I hope it will be adopted. As the clause now stands it is a decided discrimination against the manufacturer of the article in this country. It can be imported and pay the duties cheaper than it can be made here. I hope the amendment will be adopted. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILSON. I wish to offer one more amendment: it is on page 48, in line 176 of section 9, to strike out “35 “ and insert “ 45; ” so as to make the duty “on carmine in all forms, and carmine lake, dry or liquid, ” 45%. advalorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have some reason given for that. The article from which this is made is on the free list, and 35%. on the manufacture would seem to be enough.
Mr. WILSON. The Senator may think it enough, and probably the Senate will; but the proposition was placed in my hands with fig ures showing the large amount of taxation placed upon the product, from which it appeared that this do would be a very small protection. I have no particular interest in it other than. have the matter properly adjusted; but if the figures put in my hands in regard to it are correct I must say that as the clause stands at Present it is not right and the duty ought to be increased. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHANDLER. On page 25, in line7, of section7, I move to strike out “three” and insert “eight.” It now reads “on old metal scrap iron, 3 dollars per ton.” I wish to make it 8 dollars.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask if that is in order. That line has already been amended, and the amendment agreed to in the Senate.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to in committee, and the question is, Will the Senate concur in the amendment made in committee? But that amendment is subject to amendment now before it is concurred in by the Senate. The motion of the Senfrom Michigan is in order.
Mr. CHANDLER. Let the Clerk read the line as it now stands amended. I was guided by the printed bill before me. The SECRETARY. Lines7, 8, 9, ten, and 11 of section 7 were stricken out in ComWhole, and the following words were inserted in lieu thereof: On old iron, cast or Provided, wrought, 3 dollars per ton: except That nothing shall be deemed old iron waste or refuse material, or iron that has been in actual useand is fit only to be by melting manufactured or reheating and rolling or welding.
Mr. CHANDLER. The explanation of the Senfrom Maine substantiates every statement I made. He says there was an assem blage of iron men here. There was, and they rePresented the rolling mill interest.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The President of the association was from the city where the Senator lives.
Mr. CHANDLER. Certainly; I know it; and he has the largest rolling mill in the U.S. He rolls more iron than any other man in the U.S. I am not working for Captain Ward. I propose to make laws that be advantageous, not to Captain Ward, but to the State of Michigan and the U.S.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask the Senator if he ever knew a pound of scrap iron to be imported into Detroit of any kind.
Mr. CHANDLER. I cannot answer that question.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Never; it cannot pay the freight.
Mr. CHANDLER. I know perfectly well that railroads are compelled to reroll their iron once in ten years on an average; consequently the effect of the provision reported by the committee will be to admit all the rails in the world into the U.S. at a duty of 3 dollars per ton.. We shall become the grand recipients of all the scrap iron in the world. The rollers of scrap iron in the rolling mills of course desire to get this iron at the lowest possible price; but the effect will be to put out every blast furnace in the U.S., to sto the mining in every mountain in the U.S. You simply furnish your rolling mills with foreign stock without any protection to our furnaces, for this is substantially none. The expense of rerolling bars is only about 30 dollars per ton. They will bring this in at a nominal price and pay a duty of 3 dollars per ton. The result will be to utterly destroy all the revenue you now derive from iron; you will import nothing but at the duty of 3 dollars per ton. As I said before, this wrought scrap iron is worth 2 or 3 times as much as pig metal. Pig metal has to be puddled once. It costs today 28 dollars per ton to put pi metal into scrap; and yet you put a duty o 9 dollars a ton upon pig metal and a mere nominal one of 3 dollars upon scrap iron. If the Senate propose to abandon the whole iron interests of the U.S. except the rolling mills this section accomplishes it, and of course they will stand by it; but if they propose to continue the mining of ore, if they propose to continue the blast furnaces in operation, this section must be rejected, for it is total ruin to it is absolutely abandoning the whole iron interest of the U.S., save and except the rolling mills.
Mr. SHERMAN. This is a far more important question than some Senators are aware, and it is well enough to give it a little consideration. The amount of the old scrap iron introduced into our country in the year 1865 was something like 14,000 tons, being about half as much as the pig metal introduced into the country. At that time the duty was 8 dollars per ton, as it is now. The amount imported last year, according to the best statement I can find we have no official statements, and must take those given by the iron men was about 32,000 tons. The duty on that yielded us a revenue of about a quarter of a million dollars. The HoRep in their bill proposed to reduce the duty on this iron to 5 dollars a ton, which is a step in the opposite direction, a sacrifice of revenue to the amount of about 100,000 dollars; not quite as much as my friendfrom Michigan stated, but still a considerable sum. The proposition is made by the ComFinance to reduce this duty still more, to 3 dollars a ton, on the ound that the gathering of this scrap iron om all parts of the world would give employment to our commerce and enable our vessels to carry on a profitable trade with certain countries; that it is really waste material, thrown away in a great measure, in South America, which can be brought here simply for the freight, and would add very much to the aggregate wealth of the country. It was admittedon all hands that the cast scrap iron wasabout equivalent in value to pig.
Mr. CHANDLER. Pardon me; it can come in immense quantities into Cleveland and Detroit. All the railroads ifi Canada would send their old rails under this duty across the river to Cleveland and Detroit at a duty of 3 dollars a ton, and it would all come in as scrap, so that really it would affect the West as well as the East.
Mr. SHERMAN. When you reflect that this wrought iron in whatever form it may come in may be at once melted and by one single process put into the form of bar iron or railroad iron, it is apparent that it is valuable than far more pig iron, which must go through 2 or 3 processes before it can be made into bar or rolled iron. The reshlt is that if you admit it at 3 dollars a ton, which is only 1/3rd of the duty on pig iron, it will be to their interest to convert all kinds of iron possible into the form of scrap iron by cutting it to pieces, by putting it under some machine and cutting it into nuggets or pieces, and bringing it in in that form, mixed with all kinds of iron, calling it scrap iron, and after it comes in it can be easily jected. The testimony before us was, that the rudest laborer could select the 2 kinds of any iron and separate them without material cost. being the case we may surrender a very large amount of revenue; instead of 32,000 tons, an enormous quantity, we may have 100,000 tons. If they can evade the enormous duties we levy now upon wrought iron and upon the various kinds of iron by bringing it in as scrap iron, it will certainly under this duty be brought in competition with our iron from the western States as well as along the Atlantic coast. I do not think that is right. I hope the Senfrom Michigan will modify his proposition so as to make the duty 3 dollars a ton upon the castscrap and 8 dollars aton on the wrought scrap, with the proviso now inserted in the amendment of the committee. I am perfectl willing to vote for it in that shape, but I thin 8 dollars and 12 dollars are rather too high.
Mr. CHANDLER. I think 3 dollars is too low on the cost of scrap.
Mr. FESSENDEN. A agreed that it was enough.
Mr. CHANDLER. I am informed that pig scrap is of precisely the same value as what is called pig metal, and the duty on it should be the same as on pig metal. I propose to make it one dollar less than the duty on pig metal. Still I am not strenuous about the amount. It is against the enormous importations of rails in the form of old scrap that I am trying to guard.
Mr. SHERMAN. If you put 8 dollars on the old scrap wrought iron it will guard against that.
Mr. CHANDLER. Well, I will put that at 8 dollars, and I will say 5 dollars on the cast Scrap.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Why make it 5 dollars when everybody interested said that 3 dollars was enough?
Mr. CHANDLER. I will make the rates 3 dollars and 8 dollars respectively.
Mr. WADE. A gentleman whom I know very well, and who passes for one of our best men, who is extensively engaged in. pig iron, told me that this provision as it stoo would be destructive of their interests. I know, therefore, that that interest is not unanimous in it. I should not undertake to say whether he was right or wrong.
Mr. SHERMAN. No rePresentative of the pig iron interest came before us. The representations we heard were from those engaged in the making of bar iron out of pig iron. The pig iron interest was not disturbed, because the interest on pig iron is the same under this bill as under the old law, and therefore they did not come before us.
Mr. WADE. But this scrap will come in in lieu of pig. It was supposed it would be made over in that shape and come in here under this diminished duty, and they thought that would be destructive to them. I do not those interested know whether the gentleman who spoke to me about it was right or not, but that was the view he took of it, and he is extensively engaged in the business, and is a man of veracity and a very good business man.
Mr. CHANDLER. I will put my amendment in this form: make the do read: On old cast iron, 3 dollars per ton. On old wrought scrapiron, 8 dollars per ton. And then will leave the proviso to stand as the committee have arranged it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have received a memorandum from a gentleman in whom I place confidence, in which he says that the scrap iron imported last year was 13,000 tons. That does not look like as if there was an excessive importation.
Mr. HOWARD. Does that include both kinds?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The scrap iron of kinds imported last year was 13,000 tons.
Mr. CHANDLER. It would be 130,000 tons with a duty of 3 dollars.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am speaking of the quantity imported. This gentleman says the railroads on the sea board are able to get 50 dollars per ton for old rails and are selling them at that and importing new rails at 90 dollars. There were 64,000 tons of new rails last year, and this year there will be 100,000 tons imported. The railroad men get no increased protection, and the bar and plate iron get $750 per ton increased duty. That is his statement. The railroad men came before us and desired an increase of duty on railroad iron. We did not see fit to grant it. It had not been changed in the House and we left it as the House did. The manufacturers of railroad iron thought they would be at a great disadvantage by a heavy duty on wrought scrap iron, because the argument is that the cheaper railroad iron can be manufactured abroad the more difficulties our manufacturers have to contend with. They stated that a heavy duty on wrought scrap iron would send the wrought scrap all abroad, and the consequence of . would be to increase the expense of manufacturing railroad iron in this country and to place our manufacturers at a greater disadvantage. I believe there is something due to their statements. We were not disposed, however, to change our original report until we got the resolution of the Iron and Steel Association of which I have spoken, which I am informed was discussed there all day, and at last passed by a very large majority, there being only 4 or 5 against it after consideration of the whole subject. I am not inclined to enter into any discussion on the subject now, but if the Senate think it wiser to put the duty up, so be it.
Mr. CHANDLER. In this convention to which the Senfrom Maine alludes, the rolling interest was predominant. There were but very few rePresentatives of other manufactures of iron, and the few dissenting voices were those who were interested in the mining and forging of smelting of Mr. FESSENDEN. Theorem. anufacturers of pig iron were very largely rePresented. Some of the largest manufacturers of pig iron in the country were in that meeting, Mr. Scran ton, of Pennsylvania, among others.
Mr. CHANDLER. I have it from one of the rolling men that the rolling interest was redominant, and that the manufacturers of pig iron protested that it would be the ruin of their business. The Senator says that last year there were but 13,000 tons of scrap iron imported under a duty of 8 dollars a ton. This difference of 5 dollars a ton would bring the entire scrap iron of the world to your doors. As I said before, all railroad iron has to be renewed once in ten years. It all becomes scrap., Reduce the duty to 3 dollars and you will import scrap iron from Russia, Germany, Italy, and all parts of the world, and you will not receive a dollar from railroad bars on which you now levy a duty of 14 dollars a ton. It would all come in the shape of old scrap. This would be ruine us to the Treasury; it would be ruine us to the blast furnaces; it would be ruine us to the whole interest, ais said before, except simpl those concerned in rolling. I hope the A.ment will be adopted.
Mr. GRIMES. I do not desire to interfere with the progress of this bill and have no motion to make; but there seems to be some doubt as to what are the views of this Iron and Steel Makers' Association; and as it is important that we should know what their opinions are before we come to a final vote on this question, I suggest the propriety of postponing the consideration of this bill until there can be an extra session of that association to let us know how we ought to vote.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Is there any internalrevenue on this?
Mr. CRESWELL. They pay a large% age on the amount produced.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Do they really pay anything on the amount produced? Does the internalrevenue law apply to it at all?
Mr. FESSENDEN. My imPression is that it does not.
Mr. CRESWELL. At any rate it is all portant that the manufacture should be preserved here, and to do that, having some knowledge of the article myself, I believe that 5 cents per pound is actually necessary.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will ask the Senator for what purpose this article is chiefly used. I do not know; I am not informed upon the subject.
Mr. CRESWELL. It is used as a mordant for dyes, and largely in the manufacture of paints of various kinds.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Maryland.
Mr. CRESWELL. I ask for a vote by yeas&nays upon it. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will state that there is no internalrevenue tax at all on this production: so that that part of the Senator's argument as to what they had to pay to the Government amounts to nothing.
Mr. CRESWELL. I accept the gentleman's correction. I may be in error in regard to that, but this increase is certainly necessary to Preserve the manufacture in this country. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 16, nays 19; 17. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I propose to amend the bill on page 28, section7, lines 20 8 o 29. The clause now reads: On sheet or plate iron, thinner than No. 22 and not thinner than No. 24 wire gauge, twoand a per pound. half cents I move to strike out “two and a half” and to insert “three.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the senator whether it would not be as well to omit attempting to amend the bill along there for the Present, and let it come up tomorrow. The matter will be before the ComFinance in the morning, and some alterations maybe made in those rates. I suppose there will be several of them changed.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I am glad the Senator has suggested that.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senator withdraw his motion to amend?
Mr. HARRIS. On page 39, section 8, in line 38, I move to strike out the “and one half;” so that the clause will read: Onlead in pigs or bars, 2 cents per pound. The effect of this amendment, as I propose it, if adopted, will be to leave the duty on pig lead the same as it is now; and I am in. formed from a credible source that 2 cents a pound on that article is as much as the article will bear. The increased duty is not needed for protection. The western mines do not produce enough lead for the consumption of the western trade. The current of trade has been reversed; and instead of bringing lead from the West to the eastern coast, lead is now imported and carried West. The western mines. the last 2 years have not produced enough for the supply of the western country; so that this additional duty is not needed for protection. 2 cents a pound in gold for this article is enough, Iso am assured; as much as the article will bear; and at 2 cents a pound it will bring to the Government more revenue than to increase it. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be adopted.
Mr. HOWE. I hope this amendment will not be adopted. If the Senator had proposed to add a half cent to this duty, instead of subtracting a half cent, I would have voted with him with pleasure; and if I do him any injus tice by opposing this motion, I will try to offset it by a motion to add a half cent when this fails, as I hope it will. Now, Mr. President, I have a table before me which will give you a little idea of the experiences of the lead trade. In 1844 the duties on lead were 3 cents a pound, and the West sent to NewYork oover 44 million pounds of lead, and none was imported. 2 years later this duty of 3 cents per pound was changed to 20%., and the receipts of lead from the West at NewYork began to fall off. In 1849 there was only 35 millions and a half or a little more received at NewYork from the West, whereas 23 millions were imported. The receipts of western lead fell off steadily down to 1865, when they received only 1,856,540 pounds, and imported 30,479,680 pounds. Now it is proposed to put the duty at 2 and a half cents; that is, within half a cent of what it was in 1844. If our friends in the East were making money out of this state of things there would be some reason for their contending for it; but when they bought the whole of their lead from the West, in 1844, the price was $395 per 100. That was what it was worth in NewYork. The next year it went up to $4 03, and it has steadily increased in price until in 1865 it was $10 95 per hun Under such an exhibition of the state of the e, inasmuch as lead costs the consumer about 3 times as much under the Present duty as it did under the higher duty, th. duty of 3 cents a pound, and inasmuch as the Government gets now considerable of a revenue, and would if it put the duty up to 3 cents per pound get a much larger revenue when it got nothing before, I think we had better, instead of reducing this duty, add to it; certainly not reduce it.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the senate do now adjourn.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On that motion I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 16, nays 20; 16. So the Senate refused to adjourn.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the to: proposed by the Senfrom NewYork [Mr. HARRIs] to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CATTELL. I move to amend the bill on page 66, section 9, line 624, by striking out the words “a half, ” and inserting “three 4ths of a;” so that the clause will read: On sal soda, sodacrystals, and all crudecarbonates of soda not otherwise herein provided for, 3/4ths of a cent per pound. This is an amendment which was agreed to by the committee. Soda ash is the base upon which sal soda is made, and the tariff upon it is half a cent per pound. This is a higher manufacture, and the tariff was left at half a cent a pound upon it also. I propose now to change it to 3/4ths of a cent.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I believe there is no objection to that.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I should like to ask the Senfrom NewJersey what is the value of that article?
Mr. CATTELL. The value of the article I think is about 2 pence half penny sterling, Fo 3 pence seven cents as near as can remember.
Mr. SPRAGUE. It used to be before the war about 2 and a half.
Mr. HOWE. On this question I have been asked to move to raise that duty to one cent, and I am told that is essential.
Mr. CATTELL. I will only say in answer to the gentleman that I was authorized by the committee, on the 1st examination of this subject, to change it to a cent, but further examination satisfied me that the manufacturers can live at 3/4ths of a cent; that it is a fair protection which they ought to have; and I. they will be content with it.
Mr. HOWE. There is quite a quantity of it still imported.
Mr. CATTELL. So there is; but I think with half a cent duty these manufactories have been stopped, and with 3/4ths of a cent they will be able to go on. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I had an interview last evening with the gentleman who is engaged in the manufacture of nickel, and I got from him a great deal of light on the subject, and was exceedingly gratified with the interview, from his intelligence and apparent, and I have no doubt real, fairness. There is some allowance, however, I think to be made for the feeling of every man with regard to this matter of protection; and after quite an extended interview with him, which was a very interesting one from the specimens he showed me, I came to the conclusion that it was not so necessary for him to put up this duty on the finished arti ticle from 30 to 40 cents a pound; but I also came to the conclusion that the duty on page 40, lines 54 and 55, on nickel matte, speiss, or oxide, of ten%. advalorem is not enough, and should be raised to the same rate as is imposed on the finished article, nickel, for the reason that it comes so near it that undoubtedly everything would be in ported in the shape of oxide, and he would really derive no benefit from the duty of 30 cents a pound on the finished article. Since my interview with him I look with great favor upon his undertaking, and if I had come, on reflection, to the conclusion that my friendfrom NewJersey has, I would make no objection to this proposition; but I feel bound also to say that I was not convinced that the duty of 30 cents on the finished article, nickel, was not enough, and therefore I cannot vote for the amendment. That is all I feel disposed to say. If my friendfrom NewJer sey would propose to raise the duty on nickel matte, speiss, or oxide, on the next Fo to the sanie rate, 30 cents a pound, I would vote for that, because I think that change ought to be made.
Mr. FOSTER, [Mr. EDMUNDs in the chair] When this bill came from the HoRep it proposed a duty of 15%. advalorem on nickel, and the amendment reported by the ComFinance to the Senate was at that rate.
Mr. CATTELL. I beg to correct the gentleman. The rate fixed by us was 40 cents per pound.
Mr. CATTELL. And 40 cents was the rate which the special commissioner, after a thorough examination, himself allowed, and it was altered by the ComFinance.
Mr. FOSTER. I am mistaken. I was speaking of the report as it came from the ComFinance. When the ComFinance reported their amendment to, the House bill they reported it will be found on the 5 1st line of page 89 "On nickel 15%, advalorem;”, and that, I believe, is the rate now imposed by law upon this com; modity. The chairman of the committee moved to add 30 cents per pound; so that as it now stands in the amendment “On nickel 15%. advalorem, and 30 cents per pound egi duty.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. No; the 15%. advalorem was stricken out, and 30 cents per pound substituted.
Mr. HENDERSON. But they have since amended the clause so as to make it one and 1/2 cent.
Skip Skip The question being put on a division; there were ayes 12, noes 10; no quorum voting. Mr. FESSENDEN. I call for the yeas&nays. o Mr. SUMNER. I move that the Senate adjourn. Mr. FESSENDEN. Does that take precedence of my call for the yeas&nays? The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr.ed MUxDs in the chair.) The Chair thinks it does.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator with draw his motion for a moment that I may make a statement?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to state, because I do not want any misapprehension, that I do not expect to finish the o tonight. There is one question connected with it to come up tomorrow before the committee. If the Senate wishes to adjourn now, I give notice that I shall ask the Senate to continue in session tomorrow until we finish the bill.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish to say one word on the proposed adjournment. We are sitting here at the most inconvenient hours possible for the whole Senate, as it seems to me. Why we should sit here at the very dinner hour of all of us and then adjourn day after day, is to me very remarkable. It seems to me it is punishing ourselves. Why not take a recess at half. past 4 and come i. at 7 and finish the bill? Why continue in session here day after day until about this hour, which I am sure incommodes every member of the Senate, and we accomplish nothing by it? It seems to me we had better have an understanding and take a recess at the usual dinner hour and not sit here over that hour and then adjourn. I am willing to stay any reasonable time; but from 5 to 6 o'clock is to me the most inconven ient hour possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senfrom Massachusetts renew his motion to adjourn?
Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish to say but one Word.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to understand the question.
Mr. SUMNER. I think I had better not withdraw it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish only to say a word. I merely wish to make one observation, and that is this: that I do not think the dinner, perhaps, any more important than my friendfrom Maine; but I see no reason for punishing ourselves unnecessarily.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Does my friend consider that doing the public business is a punishment?
Mr. TRUMBULL. I consider that when we incommode ourselves unnecessarily the public gains nothing by it and it is a punishment to ourselves. That is all there is to it. I think we can do just as much business and have our hourS.R.FESSENDEN. Why did not the senator consider that when he had his own bills up, instead of insisting on everybody staying, then?
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think I did. We do not see ourselves as others see us, but I never meant to be unreasonable when i had charge of any bill. I certainly think this is a very bad hour. I give way to a motion to adjourn.
Mr. SUMNER. I now move that the senate adjourn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the amendment proposed by the Senfrom NewJersey the Senfrom Maine asks for the yeas&nays.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No; I will withdraw the call if Senators want to adjourn. I do not want to be unreasonable.
Mr. HENDRICKS. On the general question of staying here without dinner, this side of the House will stand I have no doubt by the Senfrom Maine; but ontomorrow evening I must say to him we cannot exactly agree to stay with him, and hope he will arrange his programme so as not to require that tomor row evening.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senate will decide all that question. I shall make the motion, and then if they do not see fit to do it, of course they will not.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am willing to stay here now and go ahead with the bill.
Mr. SAULSBURY. It is hopeless for me in a minority to contend against the passage of this bill. I see no reason why we should sit here and oppose the passage of a bill which I Presume by the prevailing sentiment of the Senate is to pass. I simply wish to say that I shall vote against this bill upon the principle that it is founded upon that declaration which may be found in some poet by gentlemen who will take the trouble to look into it: “The goodold rule, the simple plan, That he shall take who has the power, And he shall keep who can.” I therefore think that this fight is fruitless, and I see no reason why the business of the Senate should be interrupted by dilatory motions. I shall vote for a direct vote on the question, intending to vote against the bill. Sir, I think it is a bill designed to promote the interests of one section to the disadvan tage of other sections of the country. But I will not discuss it. I think the philosophy of the bill is found in the quotation which I have I ask for the yeas and made. I hope there will be a vote on the bill tonight.
Mr. LANE. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, January 28, 1867. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BoxNTON. The Journal of Saturday last was read and approved.
The SPEAKER. The 1st businessin order is the call of States and Territories for bills and JtResolutions on leave to be referred to their appropriate committees, and not to be brought back by motions to reconsider the references. LAND WARRANT NO. 46, 318.
Mr. BRANDEGEE introduced a bill to authorize the issue of a patent on land warrant No. 46, 318; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. PORT OF CAMDEN, NEWJERSEY.
Mr. STARR introduced a bill relative to the port of Camden, NewJersey; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCommerce.' CONSUL AT HAMIBURG.
Mr. ANCONA introduced a bill to regulate and fix the salary of the consul at Hamburg; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComForAffrs. POST ROADS IN PlexNSYLVANIA.
Mr. ANCONA also introduced a bill to establish certain post roads in Pennsylvania; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the comPostOffice. ELIZABEThi CASSADY.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, introduced a bill granting a pension to Elizabeth Cassady, widow of the late Michael Cassady, 1st lieutenant oB, 6 9th regiment Pennsylvania volunteers; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. Reven UE STAMps.
Mr. MILLER introduced a bill explanatory of the act relating to revenue stamps upon writs of process in courts of record; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the Committee." and Means. MRS. GLORW.INA FORT.
Mr. MYERS introduced a bill appropriating to Mrs. Glorvina Fort, of.all amount awarded by the U.S. court on June 26, 1793, to her father for loss of cargo of the brig Catharine, captured by the French frigate L'Ambuscade; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComAppropriat. CRIMINAL CODE FOR THE DISTRICT.
Mr. WELKER introduced a bill to provide a criminal code for the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComDistCol, and ordered to be printed. MARY A. CROSS.
Mr. BUCKLAND introduced a bill for the relief of Mary A. Cross; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. MARINIDA STAGE.
Mr. BUCKLAND also introduced a bill for the relief of Marinda Stage; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComMilAffrs. TAx ON COTTON AND SUGAR.
Mr. TRIMBLE introduced a bill to repeal the tax on cotton and sugar; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComWays&Means, and ordered to be printed. AMENDMENT TO The CONSTITUTION.
Mr. KELSO introduced a JtResolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A.; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed. SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. NOELL introduced a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to regulate the elective franchise in the DistCol, “ passed January 8, 1867; which was read a 1st and 2nd time.
Skip Skip Mr. NOELL. I move the reference of this bill to a select committee of 5, and on that motion I demand the previous question. The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered.
Mr. KASSON. I would like to hear the bill read. The bill, which was read, provides that the act of January 8, 1867, be amended so as to abolish all disqualification from voting on account of sex.
Mr. SCOFIELD. I move the reference of the bill to the ComDistCol.
The SPEAKER. The House is acting under the operation of the previous question on the moMtiro.nRtoOrLeLfeIrNtSh.e bIill to a select committee. move that the bill be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. That motion cannot be entertained in the morning hour during this call. Under this call bills must be referred to the appropriate committees. On the motion of Mr. NOELL, to refer the bill to a select committee, there were ayes 31, noes 50; no quorum voting.
Mr. NOELL. I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative yeas 49, nays 74, not voting 08; So the House refused to refer the bill to a select committee.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move that the bill be referred to the ComDistCol. The motion was agreed to. PROCEEDINGS OF FEDERAL COURTS.
Mr. FARQUHAR introduced a bill directing all writs and processes issued from U.S. courts to be in the name of the people, and requiring the forms of writs, pleadings, practice, and procedure in the several States to be adopted in the courts of the U.S. held within the said States respectively; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. SOUTh ALABAMA ORPHAN ASYLUM.
Mr. JULIAN introduced a bill to aid the South Alabama Orphan Asylum; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands. RETIREMENT OF TREASURY NOTES.
Mr. ROSS. I introduce a JtResolution providing that so much of the act of the last session of Congress as authorizes the SecyTreasury to retire $4,000,000 of the legal tender Treasury notes per month from circulation be and the same is hereby repealed; and ask that it be passed.
The SPEAKER. That cannot be done during the morning hour.
Mr. ROSS. I suppose then that the ComReconstruction is as good a committee to whom it may be referred as any other. [Laughter]
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that is not an appropriate committee.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComWays&Means. Mr. WENTWORTH. mtRtv the JtResolution was referred; on the table. The SPEAKER. That motion is not now in order. The JtResolution, however, cannot be brought back by a motion to reconsider; the rule forbids it. SURROGATE OF DISTCOL.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE introduced a bill to create the office of surrogate of the DistCol and to provide for the appointment of surrogate and define his powers and duties; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referr to the ComJudiciary, and ordered to be printed. GUARDIANS OF Mine RS IN The District.
Mr. WOOD BRIDGE also introduced a bill in relation to guardians of mine rs in the DistCol, their appointments, powers and duties; which was read a 1st and secontime, and referred to the ComJudiciary. MARSiiAi, OF the DistCol.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE also introduced a bill to provide for the appointment of a marshal for the DistCol, and to change the mode of appointing that officer; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. CLAIMS.
Mr. BLAINE introduced a bill to amend section 2 of chapter 120 9 of the public acts of 1849; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComClaims. U.S. NOTEs.
Mr. BUNDY introduced a JtResolution providing that so much of an act entitled “An act to amend an act to provide Ways&Means to support the Government, ” approved April 12, 1866, as authorizes the SecyTreasury to retire U.S. notes be suspended; and hereafter it shall be unlawful for the SecyTreasury to retire or with draw any part of the said U.S. notes from general circulation as money; provided all mutilated notes may be withdrawn from circulation and destroyed by the SecyTreasury as may now be provided by law; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, an referred to the ComWays&Means. IMPeachment. The SPEAKER stated the next business in order to be the consideration of the following resolutions lying over from last Monday: Resolved, That for the purpose 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 itnhge twhiell loafte the election lebays majorities sed nautmthbeerpine gllsindtuher aggregate more than 400,000 votes, it is the imperative duty of the 39th Congress to take, without delay, such action as will accomplish the following objects: 1. The impeachmentof the officer now exercising tohfethfueng U.S.A. ceaonfdthheis President from office, upon his conviction in due form of the crimesand high misdemeanorsof which he is manifestly and notoriously oand 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 Prescribedby law.
Mr. LOAN. I move that the resolutions be referred to a select committee of7, with power to send for persons and papers, and leave to report at any time.
The SPEAKER. It cannot have leave to report at any time without unanimous consent.
Mr. LOAN. I withdraw that part of the motion. Mr. Speaker; the object I have in making the motion is this: it is well known that the appropriate committees of this House are so crowded with business, and some of them having been called and not being liable to be called again this session, that to refer this matter to any of them would virtually be to declare on the part of this House it does not desire to Press this investigation any further. In my judgment the best interests of the Government and all parties concerned require imme diate investigation and the result published in an official form; and in my judgment the only means to accomplish that purpose is the reference of the investigation to a select committee, with power to send for persons and papers.
Mr. JENCKES. I move it be referred to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. CONKLING. I wish to inquire of the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. LoAN] whether e makes his motion remembering that this same matter has been already committed to the ComJudiciary, and whether he would deem it wise for this House to institute a 2nd investigation of the same sort, having 2 committees pari passu acting together on the subject.
Mr. LOAN. I am fully cognizant of all these facts, and I am further cognizant of this additional fact, that by a reference to the ComJudiciary under the Present Press of business in this House and the probable course it will take, it will be utterly impossible to further hear from that committee during the Present Congress. That committee has just been called, and a reference of this resolution to it will be equivalent to killing it.
Mr. CONKLING. I wish to make this suggestion: the gentleman seems to forget that this is a question of privilege, and therefore in order at any time when the committee is ready to report.
Mr. LOAN. I have forgotten that, sir. seeM,
Mr. CONKLING. That, the gentleman will makes all the difference in the world.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that he entertained the motion of the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. LoAN] as a question of privilege, and being a question of privilege the committee have a right to report at any time when the House is not engaged in the transaction of other business.
Mr. LOAN. I then suggest that after the statement made by members of that committee that it has more business before it than it can well attend to it should not be referred to committee. that
Mr. CONKLING. Then I would like to make the suggestion that that would be a very reason E.for rescinding the action eretofore taken, and referring the whole subject to another committee; but surely it is no reason for allowing the ComJudiciary to proceed and at the same time duplicate the proceedings by creating another committee to 9 the same thing. I hope the Gentfrom Missouri will allow the motion made by the Gentfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. JENckEs, I that this resolution be referred to the ComJudiciary, to prevail.
Mr. NIBLACK. I desire to make an inquir of the Gentfrom Missouri, [Mr.]In his resolution he speaks about securing the fruits of the victory which has been obtained by the Federal Army; I wish to know whether he has reference in that to the Federal offices as being a part of the fruits of the victory? [Laughter]
Mr. LOAN. No sir, I have not. I now yield to GHiswoltdh.e] Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr.
Mr.?.?'. u. wished to in unre wo er it would be i oon the table. in order to lay the
The SPEAKER. It will be after the Gentfrom Missouri surrenders the floor.
Mr. LeBLOND. Will the Gentfrom Missouri yield a moment?
Mr. LeBLOND. If I understand the o."that is now pending I certainly am avor of the motion made by the Gentfrom Missouri, to refer this whole subject to a select committee that will give it immediate and prompt attention. From what has been said by members of the ComJudiciary they have already upon their hands an amount of business greater than they are able to dispose of during this session. I am in favor of a select committee for several reasons; one is the fact that certain members have been charging, both here and elsewhere, that the Executive of the U.S. has been guilty of usurpation of power. Some have even gone so far as to say at all events one of my colleagues said during the late election campaign that he would neither give sleep to his eyes nor slumber to his eyelids until articles of impeachment were preferred against the POTUS Now, sir, we have heard enough of this.
Mr. BINGHAM. I would like to know to whom the gentleman refers?
Mr. LeBLOND. Why, sir, from the public Press I understand the gentleman himself so said.
Mr. BINGHAM. I am glad to have an opportunity in this place to correct what the pubic Press has done. The gentleman might with equal propriety say that the public Press had announced that I was engaged in drawing up an article of impeachment charging the President with complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, than which nothing was ever published in the public Press of America further from the truth. Now, sir, in regard to the other statement, I beg leave to say that the public Press played off the same trick upon me that a certain man did once in Scotland upon a man who had gone before him, by stealing his thunder and usin it for his own benefit. There was no part. the speech attributed to me as recited by the gentleman which was in fact made by me? except the words which are familiar to us all. If the people shall vote down the President and condemn him in the coming elections “I will give neither sleep to my eyes nor slumber to my eyelids until F.the impeachment of the President if he officially declare what he has unofficially proclaimed, that the 39th Congress is an illegal body, assuming to be the Congress hanging on the verge of the Government.” These words were uttered in view of the published and unofficial language of the President, that “the body of men who legislate in the Congress of the U.S. since the opening of the 39th Congress was not the Congress of the U.S., but was an assumed Congress hangin upon the verge of the Government.” I say then, and I repeat now, that if the POTUS should officially and in any formal manner utter what he said unofficially, as reported in the Press, of an illegal Congress, &c., such official utterance would be an impeachable offense, and that I would make a motion to impeach him; and I added then that there was no rePresentative of the people would vote against such impeachment after the people's public and swift condemnation of the President's gross betrayal of their interests.
Mr. LeBLOND. My colleague insists upon taking up my time. I referred to this matter not only from what appeared in the public Press, but I have here, and will have read at the Clerk's desk, a statement of men who were Present and heard the gentleman's speech. If the Clerk will read it I will then make a few additional remarks.
The Clerk read as follows: StClAIRsville, Ohio, December 1, 1866. This is to certify that Hon. John A. BINGHAM, in a speech made in the courthouse in StClairs ville,0hio, in the month of September, 1866, in speaking of the pOTUS, said: “He (the President)was engaged in a conspiracy for the overthrow of weresupporting himtwheerGeoevnegrangmeednwt, itahntdrathitoosrestahnadt had struck hands with treason; and if I by amindorsed a reelection, so help me God, I will neither give sleep to my eyes nor slumber to my eyelids until I haye filed articles of impeachment against Andy Johnson.” And he alsodenounced the president as Andy “Drunken speech Johnson.” We were Present and heard this GEORGE H. UMSTEAD, ALEXANDER PATTONS. I recollect the above substantially as stated, which was uttered by the speaker without qualification, and heartily applauded by mao of his auditors. E. CHAMBERS, R. S. CLARK, O. J. SWANEY, R. M. CLARK.
Mr. LeBLOND. Mr. Speaker, the men who signed that paper are the officers of that county, and men of the strictest integrity. But after the explanation that my colleague has given here I i.nothing further to add in ref. erence to this matter. I Presume my colleague remembers the manner in which he made this remark, and I shall not gainsay his statement.
Mr. BINGHAM. I beg leave to say now, and I am glad to have this opportunity of making this statement, that according to my recol lection these gentlemen have greatly enlarged the accusation charged against me by the gentleman in his opening remarks. I beg leave to make the further statement that as soon as the report of what I said appeared in the StClairs ville Gazette, which is published in the adjoining county to mine, I took occasion then, as I do now, to denounceitsgarbled and unfair report of my remarks, so that my contradiction might go throughout the district, and as evidence of that I call as a witness the statement of one of their own organs, published in my own town the Cadiz Sentinel which substantially admitted that in my speech made in that place before the election I had corrected and qualified the statement touching impeachment. I have nothing to do with the character of the gentlemen who signed the paper just read. I am not going to cast reproach upon them; but it is very easy for the House and for the country to understand that these gentlemen who have sent their mea ger report of my speech have reported me in a partisan spirit, and have, as is natural to us all under like circumstances, manifested a memory of facts so very imperfect that it will better subserve mere party ends than the interests of truth or justice.
Mr. JOHNson than could have been said of any other President who has preceded him. He has removed men who did not agree with him in politics, and has undertaken to put in their places others who will assist in carrying out his policy. For this and this alone is this terrible raid made upon him; that is the reason why these gentlemen are so bitter in their denunciations of the Executive of the U.S. For the good of the whole country I hope that the motion of the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. Fo will prevail. I shall go for the raising of a select committee, believing, as I do, that the threats of impeachment are made and the investigation and report delayed that they may intimidate the Executive. It is held as a threat over his head to retain office and to drive him to the approval of their revolutionary measures. The sooner the issue is made the better, so cease your threatening and bravado, but on to the work.
Mr. LOAN. I now yield to the gentfrom Iowa.
Mr. Wilson of Iowa. I do not know that any member of the ComJudiciary has made any statement in the House or out of the House which justifies the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. Loax] or the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. LeBLONDJ in saying that the committee are so Pressed with business that they cannot give their attention to this subject. I beg leave to say to the gentlemen who have made this statement that the only remark made in the House upon the subject of the business of that committee was made by myself upon a motion made by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] some time ago to refer some matter to the committee. I then stated that the committee was Pressed with business, and did not desire a reference of the subject then before the House to it. Now, a part of the business in the hands of the committee at that time was the identical subject which the Gentfrom Missouri [Mr. LoAN] now proposes to send to a select committee. Since that time the committee have been called probably for the last time during the session for general reports. That of itself has relieved the committee to a very considerable extent in connection with much of the business which has been sent to it.
Mr. LeBLOND. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a single question?
Mr. LeBLOND. Will the getleman have the kindness to state what progress the committee is making in this investigation?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I wish to state to the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. LeBLOND] that no persons except the members of the ComJudiciary know anything about the matter; nor do weintend to give any information until the committee shall be prepared to report " E that subject.
Mr. LeBLOND. I would ask the gentle. iman if he expects or believes the committee will be able to report upon the subject during this session of Congress?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I will at the proper time answer for the committee in relation to the subject, but not now.
Mr. LeBLOND. The country wants the information now.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I decline to be cat echized upon this subject. I only wish to state that all of the statements which have been made in relation to the conduct of the ComJudiciary, what it has done or what it has not done in connection with the subject of i.mpeachment, are wholly without authority; so far as they have been brought to my attention they are without any foundation. whatever. Sir, the ComJudiciary does not intend that this subject while in its hands shall be made use of by gold gamblers, as the Gentfrom Ohio says, or anybody else for the purpose of speculation; and all the information that is sent over the telegraphic wires and to the newspapers of the country are but the creations of those who send and publish them. Now, sir, the ComJudiciary have not been disposed to shrink from the performance of any duty imposed upon them by this House, nor will they shrink from the performance of any duty so imposed. They will do their duty, and at the proper time will make their report; and until that time we have nothing upon this subject to submit to this House or to the public.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to a question of order. I desire to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the House is full of lobby men individuals who have obtained admission to the floor I do not know how. I desire to have the rule enforced.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not know the reason of their admission. Gentlemen not entitled to remain on the floor of the House by the rules of the House will retire. The Door keeper must clear the lobby when the point is made that persons not entitled to admission are Present upon the floor.. RANDALL, of Pennsylqania. I ask the too from Missouri ".] to yield me for a few minutes.
Mr. WENTWORTH. With the permission of the Gentfrom Missouri I desire to say a word on this subject. I certainly have been under the imPression that the ComJudiciary is so overburdened with business that it cannot give proper attention to this impo subject. for one propose to persevere. I am opposed to taking up any subject that we do not go through with. Having commenced it we must either go on with it or back right straight out of it in the most ample manner. When I have my vote the other day I gave it in. earnest. the people of this country to understand there was one man at least who was not afraid to try AndrewJohnson, and who has the magnanimity to acknowledge him to be inno cent if he proves to be so. Mr. Speaker, if the ComJudiciary is not able to go on with this subject, I for one am in favor of a select committee. This eter nal noise we hear about ruining the country, affecting the price of stocks, &c., is familiar to the people of the country. We heard it every day during the administration of General Jackson, and we shall hear it just so long as we are influenced by it, whether AndrewJohnson lives or dies, whether he is impeached or is not impeached
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and the resolutions go over till next Monday. ENROLLEDJtResolution.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled House JtResolution No. 244, to amend existing laws relating to internalrevenue, when the Speaker signed the same. TREASURY DEPT INVESTIGATION.
Mr. MORRILL. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComWays&Means be and are herebyauthorized and instructed to examine into the condition of the Treasury of the U.S., and particularly to any obligations inquire whether of the U.S. have been illegally or fraudulently made or issued, and whether the public interests have been and are sufficientl protected in said Dept: with power to senE.nesses, persons and papers, summon and, examine with report and administer oaths; and with authority to thereon at any time. There was no objection.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. so. I want to make the inquiry whether this resolution rests upon the report made of some errors in the issuance of bonds of the U.S.?
Mr. KASSON. Then I wish in 2 or 3 minutes to make a brief statement. After having heard of this report, I desired for the satisfaction of myself and with reference to some action in this House to obtain some authentic information relating to the unauthoritative and very wild reports which had been abroad; and I deem it to be my duty to state to the House such authentic information as I have obtained this morning.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I learn that a tymmittee designated by the SecyTreasury is now engaged in the examination of a certain Dept connected with the printing and issuing of bonds of the U.S.; that they have been diligently at work for sometime with a view to discover supposed or alleged errors, as the case may be; that they are still in that investigation and nearly through; that as far as they have gone they havediscovered but 2 sheets, what are called “wetted down, ” in excess of the proper number, and so far as that branch of the business is concerned that may be corrected by a deficiency in another Dept, the count not yetbeing completed. They are not printed, and therefore. no value as yet. It is only a question of error in counting the sheets. rther than that, I learn they have not ascertained in a single case a bond with a duplicate number has gone out of the Dept in any mode. They have ascertained in a very limited number of cases an erroneous number has fallen upon a good bond. The machine that imPresses the numbers upon the coupons is worked by a man who manages it, the number on the coupon being the same as that upon the bond; and a little disarrange: finent of the spring has in a few cases caused the printing of the succeeding number on some one of the coupons. This, however, does not inure to the injury of the Treasury of the U.S., but only lone duplicate conpons of the same number. So far as the investigation has gone these are the only errors, and I deem it my duty to make this statement, although the investigation is not yet completed. have this from an authentic source, and make the statement because the reports which have been made were calculated to alarm the country and depreciate the value of our bonds.
Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, the action asked for this morning was not intended as the exPression of any opinion as to the truth or falsity of the rumors now in circulation as to the printing bureau of the Treasury Dept. I am very glad to be informed by the Gentfrom Iowa that it is probable the rumors are greatly exaggerated or perhaps wholly unfounded. But it is thought that it would be more satisfactory to the House and to the country to have an examination made by a committee of the House, and that that committee should report whether there is any need o further legislation on the subject, and if so at.
Mr. KASSON. I have no objection to the adoption of the motion.
The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the motion as agreed to, as this debate has beeno;unanimous consent. NewOrleans RIOT.
Skip Skip MiESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. HAMLIN, one of its Clerks, informed the House that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the o: to bills of the Senate of the following titles: An 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 Try; 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. The message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill entitled an act (S.No.491) amendatory of the several acts respecting copyrights, in which the concurrence of the n. was requested. The message also announced that the Senate had passed a bill and a JtResolution of the House of the following titles, without amendment: An act (H.R.No. 486) for the relief of Catharine Welsh; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 160) for the relief of William D. Nelson. The message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill entitled an act (H.R.No. 605) to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the U.S., approved September 29, 1789, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. ExAMINATIONS OF TREASURY DEPT.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to allowing the gentleman to report the bill at the Present time?
Mr. ROSS. I will not object if I can ask the gentleman a question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair asks if there is objection.
The SPEAKER. Then the bill is before the House.
Mr. ROSS. I wish to ask the gentleman, from Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] if he is willing to incorporate in the bill a provision to remove Mr. Clarke from the Bureau of Printing for the Treasury.
Mr. MORRILL. This is the same bill which was introduced by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD, and I believe it is universally admitted that it is an extremely proper measure; I therefore demand the previous question on the bill.
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, and passed. Mr. GARFIELD mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. RETURN OF FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE.
Mr. SHELLABARGER, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That the ComJudiciary be directed to inquire whether the act of February 12, ii. 3, regulating the arrest and return of fugitives from justice, requires any amendment so as to prevent opPressive use of such act against, persons wrongfully accused of crime, and to report by bill or otherwise. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS.
Mr. KASSON. I move to suspend the rules, so as to enable me to introduce a bill to enforce a provision of the 8th amendment of the Constitution, and I ask that the bill be read. The bill was read, and is as follows: Whereas it is declared by the 8th amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted within its parts and whereas it appearsthat in certain attempt otfing the U.S. inferior tribunals are punishing to establish the barbarous, practice of scourge, apopffleiendses against the law with the whip and to the bodiesof free citizens of the U.S. contrary to said provision of the Constitution and against the principles of civilization and the practiceof all free Governments, and tending troepduebglircaadnectithiezen rsihviilpeg Tehsearnefd or personal liberty and.be it enacted, doc., That any judge, justice, or other cdiivred ctotfhfiactear nwyhpoesrshoanll, bheeinregaaft citizen of the U.S and brought before him for trial or judgment, or in any way subject to his jurisdiction touchingany offenseallegedto have been committed by him, shall be punishedby lashesor blows, or by any other mode of physical torture; and any executiveofficer, or other person, who shall execute or attempt to execute any such judgment, order, or direction, shall be held to be guilty be offoarehaignhy cmoiusrdteomf ecaonmopr, aentednotjnurciosndvicitcitoionn, smhoarlel bthea punished by a fine of not lessthan $500 nor or by imprisonment for a term of not less than 6 months nor more than 6 years, or by bothsuch fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the gentleman will allow this bill to be printed, and made the special order for some early day.
Mr. KASSON. I will leave it open for the consideration of gentlemen who desire to dis. cuss it as soon as it is introduced.
Mr. BINGHAM. I hope it will not be allowed to interfere with the regular order of business. The motion was agreed to. A RECUSANT WITNESS.
Mr. HALE. I rise to a question of privilege. I am instructed by the JtCom on Retrenchment, in whose behalf I moved for process of contempt against J. F. Tracy, to state that Mr. Tracy has appeared before the committee and has been examined, and has satisfied them that he intended no contempt of the House. I therefore move that further process against Mr. Tracy be dispensed with on his paying the usual fees to the Sergeant at Arms. The motion was agreed to. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS –AGAIN. The question recurred on Mr. KAsson's motion to suspend the rules.
Mr. TRIMBLE. I desire to ask the Gentfrom Iowa a question.
Mr. KASSON. I have given notice that if the bill is allowed to be introduced I shall then make a subsequent motion that it be made the special order for some future day.
Mr. BALDWIN. Is the motion to suspend the rules in order, that the bill may be put upon its passage?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Iowa has intimated that if the bill be introduced he will ask that it be made the special order for some day in the future.
Mr. BALDWIN. I will vote to suspend the rules for the introduction of the bill, but I cannot vote for its introduction if it is to be put upon its passage today.
The SPEAKER. It is not proposed to put the bill upon its passage today.
Mr. KASSON. I shall not ask that, as some gentlemen here desire that we shall go on with another bill today; but I shall ask that it be made the special order for some future day.
Mr. MORRILL. I give notice that I shall object, from this time forward, to any more special orders being made.
Skip Skip The question being upon Mr. KAssox's motion to suspend the rules, it was put; and there were ayes 46, noes 40; no quorum voting. Mr. KASSON demanded the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were yeas 104, nays 38, not voting 49;. So (2/3rds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the bill was introduced and read the 1st and 2nd time. CHANGE OF REFERENCE.
Mr. GARFIELD. I ask the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] to yield me the floor for a moment.
Mr. KASSON. On motion of Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, the ComWays&Means was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Alfred B. Wins low and Ebon M. Tibbatts, and the same was referred to the ComClaims. PUBLICATION OF LAWS.
Mr. WILSON of Iowa. I ask my colleague to yield to me for a monent.
Mr. KASSON. I will do so. On motion of Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, by unanimous consent, the ComJudiciary was discharged from the further consideration of the bill of the House No. 1911, providing for the publication of the laws and other judicial notices in the States recently in rebellion; and the same was referred to the ComPrintg. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. KASSON. I will now yield for a moment to BIDwell.the Gentfrom California, [Mr.
Mr. BIDWELL. I desire merely to enter a mtRtv the bill of the House No. 1057, to establish a Dept of Agriculture, was recommitted to the ComAg. The motion was entered.
Mr. SPALDING. I object to this way of doing business; and insist upon the regular order of business. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS.–AGAIN.
The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the consideration of the bill introduced, under a suspension of the rules, by the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN] The question is upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time.
Mr. KASSON, I have exPressed my will.to fix a day when this could be considered as a special order. I ask if there be objection to that course.
Mr. MORRILL. I feel compelled from a sense of duty to say that I shall from this time forth object to any special orders.
Mr. SPALDING. I desire to ask my friendfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssoN] one question, the answer to which may influence my vote upon this occasion. I desire to know whether the gentleman thinks Congress has the right to prevent the State of Iowa or any other State so legislating as to inflict corporal punishment for crime, for petty larceny, or anything of that sort. And I ask him also if when the Constitution was framed 3/4ths of the States did not authorize the infliction of corporal punishment?
Mr. KASSON. If the gentleman will recol lect, I took the ground in the debate the other day, in which ground I was supported, I believe, by the House, that the Constitution of the U.S. in all its clauses was to be interpreted by the condition of the country and of the citizens to whom those clauses applied. I hold that whenever the infliction of corporal punishment has become unusual and is admitted to be cruel then this clause of the Constitution applied irrespective of the practice of a former century. Otherwise there could be no progress in civilization or any protection of the rights that result from progressive civilization.
Mr. SPALDING. I think in my own State at this time we send men to the chain gang. I ask the gentleman if that punishment is
Mr. cruel? SSON. Of course criminals are confined; of course they are sometimes put in chains for their complete restraint. This bill does not touch the usual modes of punishment; it touches only those modes of punishment that consist in the infliction of personal torture, by judgment of the court, directly upon the body of the individual. This is the intent of the constitutional amendment; otherwise any State in this Union might introduce the practices of the Spanish Inquisition; and any man who acted under that introduction by the law of the State would be protected by the State. Now, I hold that this Congress, applying the Constitution, has the right to declare what is cruel and unusual punishment; and if the declaration is true to. courts must administer the law we pass and prohibit the infliction of such punishments.
Mr. SPALDING. Then, if I understand my friendfrom Iowa, the Constitution would mean one thing this year, did mean another thing 5 years ago, and might mean another thing 5 years from now.
Mr. KASSON. In its application it might have meant one thing in 14th cen tury, if it had existed then, and it may mean another thing in the 20th century, if it shall then be in existence.
Mr. KASSON. In other words, if slavery exists in this nation today a certain clause applies to it; if slavery ceases to exist to daythat clause will not apply to it.
Mr. SPALDING. That is very true so far as it regulates slavery. He is right there, but this is a different subject. It is the assumption of power on the part of Congress over State Governments without reference to the disloyal States at all.
Mr. KASSON. On the contrary, it is using the power conferred by the Constitution to protect personal rights in this country. I do not think there can be any reasonable doubt of the power of Congress to protect personal rights guarantied by the Constitution. The Constitution says that the citizens of one State shall have all the privileges and im munities of citizens in any other State, and I think Congress has the right to protect our citizens in the enjoyment of these rights. If there be doubt about that construction I hope it will not come from that portion of this House who believe in the dignity of man hood and the protection of the rights of all our citizens in times like these.
Mr. INGERSOLL. As this bill has not been printed, I desire to know whether it includes the person who inflicts punishment as well as the person who pronounces the sentence.
Mr. KASSON. It does. I follow the precedent of the bill which passed this House 2 weeks ago.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to suggest to the Gentfrom Iowa before the question comes up again the propriety of an inquiry in the meanwhile, whether the amendment which his bill recites does not refer entirely to the administration of justice in the Federal courts and under Federal law. I think it has been generally understood by the profession and the courts, if it has not been so formally adjudicated, that these amendments were in tended only as a limitation of the powers of Congress.
Mr. KASSON. Not in relation to the personal rights guarantied by the Constitution. The Constitution guaranties the right of trial by jury in civil cases described, and that has been held to apply to the practice in the federal courts only. That relates to the form and administration of justice. The clause to which I have referred relates to the rights of persons.
Mr. KASSON. I cannot yield further without leading to remonstrance on the part of gentlemen near me touching the delay of other business. As to the point of the Gentfrom Ohio, that the bill to which I referred did not contain the clause I said it did, I will only say he is in error. The Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. INGERSoll] asked me whether this bill contemplated punishment of the officer who inflicted this cruel and unusual punishment. I said it did, and so it does.
Mr. BINGHAM. I stand corrected; but it does not, as this bill does, provide the person who pronounces judgment shall be indicted and punished.
Mr. KASSON. My imPression is the bill prohibited the making of the order, which covers the same principle to which the gentleman now alludes.
Mr. WARD, of NewYork. Has this measurebeen reported by any committee?
Mr. KASSON. I thought that was under stood.
Mr. ROSS. When I have the opportunity I will move to refer this bill to the ComJudiciary.
Mr. KASSON. Although this bill has not been reported by a committee, yet it has not been introduced without consultation on the part of members. I now yield to the Gentfrom NewYork, o: HALE]
Mr. HALE. I wish to call the attention of the Gentfrom Iowa to the fact that although his bill is based upon the recital of the 8th article of the amendments to the Constitution, those amendments are nowhere made subject to legislation by Congress; and I submit to him whether there is any authority to be derived for his bill any more than there would be for legislation by Congress to carry out any provision of the bill of rights. And I suggest urther, that it has been adjudged by unvarying decisions that these amendments do not confer legislative power upon Congress; that they are mere provisions for the protection of the citizen, to be enforced through the courts. I ask the gentleman, therefore, where he finds in the Constitution or its amendments authority in Congress to legislate on the subjects included in the bill of rights and not specifically given 2
Mr. KASSON. I answer that the Constitution itself, after conferring specific powers upon Congress, contains a clause that Congress may not only pass laws to carry those powers into effect, but all other powers conferred by the Constitution on the General Government or any branch of it. I. now yield to the Gentfrom Missouri.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I desire to ask this ques.tion in connection with this bill. It is very common for the enforcement of discipline and to suppress insubordination in penitentiaries and State prisons to inflict corporal punishment in various ways. Now, I wish to know if this bill does not include the infliction of such punishment for the enforcement of prison discipline?
Mr. KASSON. In answer to that I will say that the very case to which the gentleman refers was in my mind in framing this bill, and is excluded by its provisions. It simply covers the infliction of punishment by order of a court before whom the party charged with the offense is tried. It is confined exclusively to that as being the thing sought to be guarded against by the Constitution itself.
Mr. FINCK. I wish to ask whether the article to which the gentleman refers, and all the articles of amendment made prior to the last 2 or 3 years, are not amendments restricting and limiting the power of legislation?
Mr. KASSON. I answer no; that several of them are exPressly designed for the greater security of the individual rights of the citizen, and I am sure a majority of them are exPressly designed to protect individual rights.
Mr. FINCK. And to restrict the power of Congress.
Mr. KASSON. No, sir; I do not accept the gentleman's amendment; they are designed to protect the individual rights of the citizen. Now, Mr. Speaker, you will perceive the reasons that require this action. I believe it to be the duty of Congress, a duty which it owes to the people, to see that every constitutional right of the citizen shall be protected against outrage and violation. Our powers in that direction are limited exclusively by the prohibitions of the Constitution and not by the positive affirmations of the Constitution. The very object of the Constitution was to secure republican liberty and all the rights that belong to republican citizenship, and the very moment that all the people of all colors in the U.S. were put on the same level in respect to e.rs.onnal rights from that very moment the of Congress must conform to this condition. The thing of which the loyal portion of this country complain today is that while in the insurgent States they pretend to submit to the changed condition of" and accept the determined issues of the contest, they do nevertheless continually thwart and oppose every effort made by the General Government in good faith to carry these issues into practical effect among the people.
Mr. LeBLOND. I wish to make a suggestion to the Gentfrom Iowa. This bill has been reported this morning. It is not printed. Gentlemen are unable to determine to what extent the bill goes. Now, there is quite a difference of opinion here as to the power of Congress on this subject. I find there is a difference even upon the other side of the House as to whether this provision of the Constitution does not confer merely negative powers upon Congress instead of giving it affirmative power. I am not sure, but I think that the SCOTUS has upon more than one occasion determined that this provision of the Constitution is a limitation of power, and that under it the General Government does not acquire any affirmative power. If such is the case we certainly should deliberate upon this and should move slowly in the matter. We should hesitate about going to such an extent as to do violence to the rights of the States. I wish further to add upon this subject that from the reading of the bill at the Clerk's desk I have been unable to catch all its provisions; but it does seem to me that it provides for the punishment of State officers for carry:ing out the exPress provisions of the laws of the States under which laws they are acting. Now, if that be true we ought not certainly to proceed in this hasty manner to legislate upon a question of this kind or to pass a oil bill that place a State officer in this awkward position, that if he complies with the State law he will be punished under the law of Congress, and if he fails to comply with it he will be punished under the law of his State.
Mr. KASSON. The gentleman knows very well that I should be glad to have ample time given for the consideration and discussion of this bill; but he knows also that the business of the House is such that if there be an evil to be corrected it must be done with reason able promptness. Let me say in reference to the civil rights bill, to which the gentleman has referred as imposing certain duties that might conflict with State laws, that Congress has decided that we have a certain right in administering the provisions of the Constitution to supersede State laws. The point I make now is that the provisions of these State laws are in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S., and must be so held by the judges of the State courts.
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to suggest that every State judge, by the terms of our Constitution, is bound by an oath to support that Constitution, and that there is a further provision that that Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof shall be j."the judges in every State, thereby giving him a judgment in deciding whether our laws are in pursuance of the Constitution or not. And yet you say here that if the judge of a State court decides against you he shall be subject to 6 months' imprisonment in the penitentiary and to a fine.
Mr. KASSON. The gentleman suggests an additional reason for Congress taking this power out of the hands of the judges of the State courts, because this clause of the Constitution is binding upon them, and if they do not observe it they ought to be punished.
Mr. BINGHAM. His oath to obey the Constitution is binding upon him to the exclusion of State or congressional enactments.
Mr. KASSON. Exactly; and if he disobey it he ought to be punished.
Mr. BINGHAM. If he disobey the Constitution. But he is entitled to a judgment in regard to our statutes. You impose upon him an oath, and then tell him, “If you do not decide as we wish you to we will send you to the penitentiary.”
Mr. KASSON. On the contrary, we tell him that if he does not decide as the Constitution requires, we will so treat him.
Mr. BINGHAM. No. The gentleman's provision is absolute, that if a State judge pronounces judgment contrary to the provisions of this act he shall be punished.
Mr. KASSON. That brings the question right back as to whether the physical torture of a citizen of the U.S. is within the scope of the Constitution, or is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Now, I ask any gentleman to rise in his place and say whether a member of this House who commits an assault or any other criminal act can be brought up and have the lash and the scourge inflicted upon him without a violation of the Constitution of the U.S.?
Mr. KASSON. I have no objection to that if the order can be made. I will only say, as it is proper I should say in answer to what the gentleman has said, I know of no statute in any State which authorizes the judge of any criminal court to sentence a man, to any particular mode of physical torture. If there be any such I confess my entire ignorance of it.
Mr. LYNCH. I wish to ask the gentleman if executing a person is not inflicting physical torture?
Mr. KASSON. No, sir; as everybody understands, that is not physical torture in the sense employed in this E.
Mr. CONKLING. They do such things so quickly now that there is no physical torture about it.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I wish to call the attention of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAsson] to a remark which he has just made. He says that he knows of no court authorized by law to sentence a man to endure physical torture or suffering by way of punishment. I would like to ask the gentleman what he would regard sentencing a man to solitary confinement upon bread and water? That I believe is done in the States of Wisconsin and Ohio and perhaps in other States. Is not that physical torture?
Mr. KASSON. I have no doubt that not only in the State of Wisconsin but elsewhere that punishment might very well be meted out for some political offenses. The gentleman understands as well as I do that that is not the meaning given by any dictionary or law to the term “physical torture;” nor is it the sense in which it is used in this bill, or in which any court could construe it to have been used in this bill. I wish to add that a man who does not understand the dignity of manhood, the rights of citizenship, cannot understand the objects sought to be accomplished by this bill. I give my friend the credit of understanding it if he chooses to understand it, provided he equld take the terms of this bill out of the considerations which usually attach to the question of slavery. My object here is to protect those fundamental rights of republican manhood in our color as well as any other color against the degradation which every man on this floor feels is connected with personal stripes and placeration of the body. Hence the language of the preamble recites “with whips and scourges;” and I ask any gentleman to point me to any country in the world, governed popularly in its legislative branch, that imposes today physical chastisement, physical torture, as the punishment of crime." There is no answer. No gentleman can point to such a country.
Mr. CONKLING. What is “physical tor. ture?” If the gentleman will tell us that, we may be able to answer.
Mr. KASSON. The bill itself recites “lashes and blows” in one part, and in another part it speaks of Mr. CONKLING. physical torture.”
Mr. KASSON. Well, sir, if the gentleman should ask me whatisthe meaning of a “blow” I might be embarrassed to answer him. If he asks me what “physical torture” means, he certainly understands that it applies to that species of punishment applied , to the body, and not the usual modes of punishment by confinement and restraint of motion, &c., those punishments which are known to all civilized countries.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to ask the gentleman whether in his view to confine a person in prison and starve him to death is not “physical torture?”
Mr. KASSON. Undoubtedly; but no personal restraint to which the law sentences a criminal is so, according to the meaning given to the term by any judicial decision or any his: torical writer or any legislative precedent. I think there is no question about that.
Mr. FINCK. I wish to ask the gentleman whether his bill is comprehensive enough to embrace the whipping of a pupil at school by the teacher?
Mr. KASSON. If my friend had listened to the reading of the bill he would know that it is confined exclusively to the orders of a judge, justice, or . civil officer.
Mr. FINCK. I want to ask my friend one further question: if we have power to pass this bill, have we not the power to prohibit punishment by whipping or scourging in the schools of the States?
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my habit in debate to confine myself to the question before the House. This bill has reference simply to the action of the courts administering criminal justice, which are restrained by the clause of the Constitution itself from inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Mr. FINCK. It involves the same principle.
Mr. KASSON. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House any longer. As I have already said, I will agree to the proposition which has been made, that the bill. referred to the ComJudiciary, with leave to report at any time; and that the bill be printed. The question being taken on the motion that the bill be referred to the ComJudiciary and be printed, it was agreed to.
Skip Skip The question being taken on the motion to suspend the rules to allow the committee to report back the bill at any time, there were ayes 85; noes not counted. So (2/3rds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and leave was granted. TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANIRS.
Mr. ROLLINS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Secretary of hereby the Treasury be instructed to report to this House at as early a day as praeticable the amount of taxes annually go by national banking associations to States; also, the U.S. so far as he may be able to the same, the amount paid ascertain to the several States in which such associationsmay belocated.
Skip Skip There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to. Mr. ROLLINS mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. “Any other mode of
Skip Skip LEAVES OF ABSENCE, Mr. BRANDEGEE asked and obtained leave ofabsencefor himself for one week. Mr. LATHAM asked and obtained leave of absencefor himself for ten days. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examinedand found truly enrolled a bill and a JtResolution of the following titles, when theSpeaker signed the same, namely: An act (H.R.No. 486) for the relief of CatherineWelsh; and aJtResolution (H.R.No. 160) for the reliefof William D. Nelson. MAIL CONTRACTORS IN TENNESSEE.
Mr. STOKES, by unanimous consent, submitted the following preamble and resolution; whichwere read, considered, and agreed to: Whereatshere were a number of Union men who wereemployedas mail contractors in the State of Tennessbeeefore the 8th June, 1861w, hen the ordinanceofseparation from the Federal Government waspretendedto be adopted; and whereassaid con: tractersfulfilledall their engagements and complied withthelaw: to the time of the State pretending toseverherrelations with the Federal Government, andhavenot yet received their just compensation fortheirservices: Therefore, Be it resolved, That the PostMGenl be, andheishereby, directed to report to this House the amount necessary to be appropriated to pay said contracter for said services, with the namesof said contractor asnnexed thereto.
Mr. STOKES mtRtv the preamble and resolution were agreed to; andalso moved that the motion to reconsiderbe laid on the table. The lattermotion was agreed to. OATHs of ATTORNEYs, ETC.
Mr. CONKLING. The other morning when the votewas taken finally on the bill in reference to oaths of attorneys in the Supreme Court, &c., there were a number of gentlemen whodid not record their votes. They may be properly designated as the members who had thenerve to sit here all night, but the misfortune not to be here when the vote was taken. I move that they have leave to record their 70tes.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. How many votes were castagainst the bill?
Mr. ELDRIDGE. It H. been stated in the papers to be 12. he SPEAKER. That is a mistake. There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. The following members then recorded their votes in the affirmative: Messrs. SPALDING, CoNKLING, Mohnis, PLANTs, Eck LEY, and Upson. grip wANCES OF TEXAs.
Mr. BOUTWELL, by unanimous consent, Presented a memorial on behalf of the citizens of westernTexas, setting forth the grievances of the loyal Union men of i. that State; the op by the government established by residentJohnson and by the disloyal majority underhis government, encouragement, and protection; and praying that the loyal Union men of westernTexas may be protected by law, and allowed to erect a State government west of the Brazos river; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComReconstruction. RECox's TRUCTION.. STEVENS. I call for the regular Order.
The SPEAKER. The 1st business in or fler after the expiration of the morning hour is the consideration of House bill No. 543, to restore to the States lately in insurrection their fill political rights, upon which the Gentfrom Indiana. JULIAN] is entitled to the floor. The pending question is upon the motion of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BING Raw,) to refer the bill and pending amendments to the JtCom on Reconstruction.
On concluding hed the residue of his hour to Mr. Scofield.
The SPEAKER. The time allowed to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania has now expired, and his colleague [Mr. STEvKNs] is entitled to the floor, under the understanding of the House, i. one hour, in which to lil. close debate upon the
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to say that I wish to call the previous question before 4 o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. ELIOT. Before that is done I hope I may be allowed an opportunity to offer some slight amendments to the bill.
Mr. CULLOM. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] yield to me for 15 or 20 minutes?
Mr. STEVENS. Very well, I will yield to the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. CULioM]
Mr. STEVENS. Before I call the previous question I desire to make some further modifications of my substitute. I modify section 3 of the substitute as printed by striking out the following: If by any means no election should be held in any of said late States on the day herein fixed, then Mthaeye, lle8c6ti7o, n shall be held on the 3rd Monday of in the mannerherein Prescribed. In section 6 as printed I insert the word “voluntarily” before the words “swore allegiance to said Government.”
Mr. ELIOT. I would suggest to my friendfrom Pennsylvania to modify the 4th section as printed, by striking out the words: And no person shall be deprived of the right to vote, or be otherwisedisfranchised, by reason of conviction and punishment for any crime other than for insurrection or treason or misprision of treason. I do not think we want to admit to vote those who have been disfranchised by reason of crimes heretofore committed, such as mur der, robbery, &c.
Mr. STEVENS. My friendfrom Massachusetts [Mr. ELIoT] doubtless did not hear the explanation I gave on a former 6ccasion for the necessity of the provision to which he refers. Throughout all the South they are whip ping negroes under pretended convictions for crime, so as to render them, under their laws, disqualified from ever voting. It is to meet such cases as those that this provision was inserted.
Mr. ELIOT. I am in favor of the object the gentleman has in view; still I think it liable to the objection I have indicated; still I will not Press the amendment I suggested.
Mr. STEVENS. I also further modify my substitute by striking out the 7th section as printed, as it has been somewhat objected to. That section is as follows:.Sec.7. Abife:, That no constitution shall be Presentedto or actedon by Congress which deniesto any citizen any right, privileges, or iimnmunities which are granted to any other citizen the State. All laws shall be impartial, without rpergoavrisdiotonslanguage, race, or formercondition.If the of this section should ever be altered, repealed, expunged, or in any way abrogated this act shall becomevoid and said State lose its right to be rePresentedin Congress.
Mr. ELIOT. Before the Gentfrom Pensylvania concludes, I would suggest to him to further modify the 3rd section of his substitute as printed, by inserting after the words “The Supreme Court of the DistCol shall appoint a commission for each of said States, to consist of 3 persons” the words “who shall have been at all times during the rebellion loyal to the Government of the U.S. ” And also in the same section, after the words “the officers shall consist of one judge and 2 inspectors of elections, and 2 clerks” to insert the words “all of whom shall have been at all times during the rebellion loyal to the Government of the U.S. ” I
Mr. STEVENS. That is very proper, and modify the substitute accordingly. I now desire to request the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] to withdraw his motion to recommit, until after we have attempted to amend this bill in the House under the 5 minute rule. After that shall have been done, if it shall be found that we cannot perfect it in such a manner as will satisfy the House, then the gentleman can be understood as having the right to renew his motion to recommit, and we can vote upon the question of reference en.
Mr. BINGHAM. I desire the House to decide, and I desire the opportunity to decide for myself, whether we shall recede from the principles of the pending constitutional amendment to the extent to which this bill does as it now stands. I do not, therefore, withdraw my motion to recommit, for the grounds upon which I made it at 1st still stand untoucheed.
Mr. BOUTWELL. The proposition of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] is one which, it seems to me, looks toward the perfecting of this very important measure. If, acting under the 5 minute rule, we amend this bill as well as we may be able, then, unless we succeed better than perhaps may reasonably be expected in advance, it will be wise to submit the bill to a committee for scrutiny, that it may be so perfected in form and phrase as to exPress the judgment of the House as it may be ascertained from the debate and from the amendments that may be adopted. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] appears to suppose that our action on this bill is likely to affect in some way the constitutional amendment proposed by Congress at the last session. P do not anticipate that, whatever may be our disposition of this bill, we shall commit ourselves for or against the constitutional amendment. That amendment has been submitted to the country, and I preSume that those who took part in submitting it are in favor of its ratification. But I, for one, expect to do something more.
Mr. BLAINE. I desire to address an inquiry to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS] We are differing here upon a point in reference to which the country at large cannot understand the ground of our difference. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania is on the part of the House the head of the JtCom on Reconstruction, and he has a very able body of associates, embracing, I may say, the picked men of this Congress. That committee, comprising, if I may be permitted to use a partisan phrase, men ranked and recognized as “radical, ” enjoys, as I understand, the confidence of this House. Now, why it is that members on the radical side of the House should come to loggerheads on a question of the reference of a bill to that committee I want to understand. I am disposed to vote for the reference of this bill to that committee because I have confidence in the committee.
Mr. STEVENS. I will only say I know very well that the reference of the bill to that committee is the death of the measure. The Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE) I suppose does not know it.
Mr. BLAINE. I do not know it, and the country does not know it. That is just what I want to have explained.
Mr. SHELLABARGER. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania yield to me for a moment?
Mr. SHELLABARGEIR. I wish to make a single remark before the vote is taken on the motion to refer. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania is willing to acquiesce in certain amendments which a large proportion of the members on this side of the House desire to incorporate in his bill. He is willing that the House shall be permitted to perfect the bill. There is one very important amendment which I propose to offer, the substance of which I will now state: it is to strike out the 6th section and substitute for it a provision that those persons who have been engaged in the rebellion shall not be permitted to hold office or to vote for certain officers named until they shall have been readmitted to the rights of citizen. sh'ip',which they have forfeited. hope that my colleague [Mr. BING HAM] will yield to the suggestion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania and permit this bill to be perfected so far as possible in the House before he Presses his motion to refer; thus we can fairly dispose of the matter when we have ascertained the shape the bill may take under the action of the House.
Mr. BINGHAM. I would very gladly yield this point for the purpose of accommodating my colleague; but o wish to remind him that if this bill be recommitted any amendment which he may offer to it will, under the rule of the House, go directly to the committee without debate; and I shall be very glad to have the opportunity to consider in the committee an; suggestion which my colleague may make. desire to make one further remark. I do not concur in the declaration of the venerable Gentfrom Pennsylvania, that the recommitment of the bill to the committee is equiv alent to its death.
Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman will recol. lect that I did not ask his concurrence. In all this contest about reconstruction I do not propose either to take his counsel, recognize. authority, or believe a word he says.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania is not in order.
Mr. PIKE. Will the Gentfrom Pennsylvania yield to me for a moment?
Mr. CHANLER. I rise to a point of or der. When the Gentfrom Pennsylvania is called to order by the Chair he should take his seat.
The SPEAKER. Will the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CHANLER) be kind enough to inform the Chair on what rule he bases his point of order?
Mr. CHANLER. The general ruling of the Chair, who has generally called on gentlemen on this side to take their seats when they have been called to order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has not done so when called to order by the Chair for irrele vancy or for personal remarks. The gentleman’s recollection is at fault. The rule states that when a member has been ruled out of order, he shall not be permitted to proceed, in case any member object, without leave of the House.” When objection is made the question is put to the House whether the member shall be permitted to proceed in order. That is the rule.
Mr. CHANLER. I respectfully submit to the Chair that the remarks used by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens] for which he was called to order by the Chair, were not heard on this side of the House. My object is simply to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania had been called to order by the Chair. I expected the words used would be reported for the benefit of the House, so might we know whether he should be allowed to proceed or not. That was my object. I do not propose to correct the Chair.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has repeatedly stated that when he calls a gentleman to order his power is exhausted. It then remains with any member of the House to object to his proceeding. No gentleman has objected, and it is now too late.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman rose to inform the Chair of his duties, in reference to which the Chair differs from the gentleman.
Mr. CHANLER. The Chair is mistaken. I rose to ascertain the language made use of by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, to learn what the disorderly words were. I ask now what the disorderly words were?
Mr. PIKE. If I understand the position of the bill now before the House, it is on the motion to recommit to the Committee of reconstruction.
The SPEAKER. That is the pending motion.
Mr. PIKE. I hope that will not prevail, for if it prevails it will keep off all motions to amend. If it does not prevail, I have an amendment, which is of some consequence to the bill, and I will state what it is. It is to amend the 1st section, instead of applying this to the ten States lately in rebellion, to apply it simply to the State of NCarolina. If that amendment prevails then I shall move to modify the other sections so as to make them consistent. I hope the motion to recommit will not prevail.
Mr. BINGHAM. The committee can report back at any time.
Mr. PIKE. We understand if this is recommitted to the Reconstruction Committee it is I rose as soon as possi dead.
Mr. BINGHAM. I protest against that understanding.
Mr. PIKE. The question is whether any life shall remain in the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. It ought not to have occupied this much time, for I hardly expected the Gentfrom Ohio to agree to my proposition. if I call the previous question will it exhaust itself on that motion?
The SPEAKER. It will not, but will continue in force until the 3rd reading of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. After that vote is taken can I move to reconsider the vote by which The previous question was ordered? The rule states that the previous question cannot be reconsidered when partially executed. There are 2 ways in which the gentleman can reach his object, by taking the vote on the motion to recommit without the previous question, or by moving to suspend the rules so that the previous question shall be confined to that motion to refer.
Mr. CHANLER. I rise to a point of order. On page 180 of Barclay's Digest it stands written: “If any member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any membermay, call to order; in which case the member socalled to down, unless permitted order shall immediately sit to explain; and the House s hall:, if aifppealedto, decideon the case, but without there, be no appeal, the decision of the hair shall be submitted to.”
Mr. BOUTWELL. I call the gentleman to Order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has only read half of the rule, and the Chair will read the other half: “If the decision be in favor of the membercalled to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed;if other woe, he shall not be permitted to proceed, in case any memberobject, without leaveof the House; and oiff the cHaoseurseeq.”uire it he shall be liable to the cens ure The construction of the rule has uniformly been that the member called to order must suspend his remarks, taking his seat until the fois decided. If the decision be adverse e is not allowed to proceed, if objection be made, without consent of the House. But the converse of this is also true, that if no mem. ber objects to his proceeding, he is not required to suspend his remarks.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the previous question shall only apply to the motion to recommit.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the rules for that purpose. The motion was agreed to. The bill and substitute were reported.
Mr. NIBLACK. Has this bill been considered in the ComWhole on the state of the Union?
The SPEAKER. If made in time the objection would be a good one, but it now comes too late.
Mr. HILL. I rise to a point of order, that the amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio Mr. SHELLABARGER) necessarily goes to the JtCom on Reconstruction.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has ruled on that question several times. This bill was reported from the ComReconstruction on the 30th of April last; and having once been before that committee by the order of the House, it does not necessarily require, under the rules, to be referred to that committee again, but it can again be sent to it, with any amendments, by a vote of a majority of the house.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I wish to inquire of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania whether the 2nd section is retained.
Mr. SPALDING. I move that the House adjourn. The motion was disagreed to.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered. Mr. BINGHAM. I demand the yeas and naws. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Several gentlemen suggest that we ought to have the lbi printed; therefore I move that the House adjourn.
Skip Skip The motion to adjourn was disagreed to. The question was taken on referring the bill, as modified, to the JtCom on Reconstruction; and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 88, noes 65, not voting 38;. So the bill was referred to the JtCom on Reconstruction.Mr. BINGHAM mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. CIVIL servICE.
Mr. JENCKES. Mr. Speaker, I am instructed by the JtCom on Retrenchment to ask, leave to make a report. I will state that if the leave is granted I will report a bill and then yield for a motion to adjourn, in order that it may. if in the morning. The bill I desire to report is House bill No. 889.
Mr. JENQKES. I movea suspension of the rules to enable me to report the bill. REPORT ON PUBLIC WORKS. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, in compliance with the act of June 23, 1866, transmitting a report of the Chief Engineer respecting certain public works; which was referred to the ComCommerce, and ordered to be printed. ENRollop bills signed.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had exam ined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles, when the Speaker signed the same, namely: An act (S.No.16) for the relief of Josiah O. Armes; An act (S.No.253) to incorporate the 1st Congregational Society of Washington; An act (S.No.380) to incorporate the Washington County Horse Railroad Company, in the DistCol; An act (S.No.410) for the relief of solomon P. Smith; An act (S.No.446) for the relief of George W. Fish; An act (S.No.454) for the relief of Matilda Harmon, of the county of Greene, and State of Tennessee, widow of Jacob Harmon: An act (S.No.455) for the relief of Barbara Frye, widow of Henry Frye; An act (S.No.476) for the relief of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob W. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased; and An act (S.No.511) for the relief of Mrs. Mary E. Finney, widow of 1st Lieutenant Solon H. Finney, late of the 6th regiment Michigan cavalry.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. TUEsday, January 29, 1867. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unan imous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with. RAILROADS IN CALIFornia.
Mr. STEWART, from the ComPubLands, to whom was recommitted the bill (S.No.461) to aid in the construction of the SanFrancisco Central Pacific railroad, reported it with an amendment.
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 following enrolled bills; which were thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate: A bill (S.No.16) for the relief of Josiah O. Armes; A bill (S.No.253) to incorporate “The 1st Congregational Society of Washington'; A bill (S.R. 380) to incorporate the Washington County Horse Railroad Company in the DistCol; A bill (S.No.410) for the relief of Solomon P. Smith; A bill (S.No.446) for the relief of George W. Fish; A bill (S.No.454) for the relief of Matilda Harmon, of the county of Greene, and State of Tennessee, widow of Jacob Harmon; A bill (S.No.455) for the relief of Barbara Frye, widow of Henry Frye; A bill (S.No.476) for the relief of William A. Hinshaw and Jacob M. Hinshaw, mine r children of Jacob M. Hinshaw, deceased; and A bill (S.No.511) for the relief of Mrs. Mary E. Finney, widow of 1st Lieutenant Solon H. Finney, late of the 6th regiment Michigan cavalry. Executive COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS, communicating, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, a copy of the correspondence between the dept of State and Mr. Motley, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Vienna, relating to his reported resignation; which, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed. ADMISSION OF COLORADO–Veto.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will also lay before. Senate the followin message from the POTUS
The PRESIDENT protempore. Accoman.ying the message are certain documents the Territory of Colorado. What order will the Senate take on the message and accompan odocuments?
Mr. WADE. Let us have a vote on the bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The bill returned by the President is now before the Senate to be reconsidered, and the question is, shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
Mr. JOHNSON. Senators were not advised that a vote was to be taken during the morning hour, I suppose, and a great many are not here. I suggest, therefore, to my friendfrom Ohio whether he had not better postpone action on the bill until one o'clock tomorrow and let us have the message printed. There will be no debate, I suppose. The postprotempore. Is the senate ready for the question?
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is, shall this bill pass, notwithstanding the olo of the POTUS?
Mr. JOHNSON. I move that the subject be postponed until tomorrow morning.
Mr. WADE, I hope that will not be done. I ask for the yeas&nays on the motion.
Mr. JOHNSON. The message has not yet been printed by the Senate.
Mr. DAVIS. There are certainly some new facts and views set forth in this message that deserve the serious consideration of the senate, and that ought to be duly deliberated and passed upon by it. This is certainly a communication of very great importance, not only to the Present, but to the future; and it seems to me that it is due to the occasion and to every aspect of the subject that this veto message should be printed and should be made the special order for tomorrow, so as to admit of a reasonable amount of debate. I suppose there is not a gentleman who would sustain the veto message of the President that desires need lessly, to protract the debate or to postpone vexationsly the decision of the Senate upon the question, finally, whether Colorado.". admitted as a State into the Union. Certainly I have no such purpose, and I believe no gentleman in the Senate has. But, sir, the gravity of the occasion, the importance of the principles involved both in regard to the power of Congress and the right of the people of a Territory to determine the question whether they will have a State government or not, and other matters connected with that general question, in my mind render it peculiarly proper that the motion of the Senfrom Maryland should prevail. I think, therefore, the gentlemen who have this matter in charge should allow it to go over until tomorrow, and to be the special order of the day, and thus that Senators shall have an understanding as to when debate shallter minate and the vote be taken. I would advise, so far as I am concerned, that the question should be taken up tomorrow.
Mr. WADE. I certainly should not attempt in this manner to urge this matter to a vote now if it was a new question; but we have passed this bill through the Senate, I believe, 3 times, and it has been debated for a long Fo Certainly at this session no question as occupied so much of the attention of the Senate as the question of the admission of Nebraska and Colorado. I believe there has been more debate upon the question whether these Territories should be admitted into the Union as States than there ever was before upon such a subject from the foundation of the Government until now. We are told it is an exceedingly grave question, now for the 1st time. After we have been admitting States almost yearly from the foundation of the Government, all at once it becomes an exceedingly grave and difficult question to determine whether a Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a State or not! I shall not argue the question now; I believe every Senator on this floor has made up his mind and is as ready now to give his vote as he ever will b;e and as the session is drawing to a close and the great business which must necessarily be done is hardly commenced, I want, if possible, to get rid of this eternal debate that does not seem to enlighten anybody after a certain period. You may debate the same subject during this session and the next, and gentlemen accustomed to debate will have no difficulty in finding topics to talk about, but we have no time to indulge in that kind of amusement now or from this time to the end of the session. We must cut our debates short somewhat, or else give up legislation altogether. I trust we may get a vote on this matter. I shall not detain the Senate now.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I hope the motion will prevail, and that the question will go over until tomorrow. Sir,".of the U.S. has been attacked in this body in a manner which I think unwarranted in senatorial debate. I was his personal friend when he was a member of this body; my relation with him is that of personal friendship and not of political connection. I wish the subject to go over until tomorrow that I may have an opportunity to reply to the unwarranted attacks made upon the POTUS, and if it goes over until tomorrow I shall take occasion to review some of the charges which have been made against the President of usurpation and of using vulgarity of language, and to bring before the Senate some exhibits of the debates in this body, for I have heard with my own ears vulgarism here under the disguise of the French language. I have heard gentlemen rise upon the floor of this Senate and charge the President with being guilty of vulgarism when they themselves in debate clothed vulgar language in French phrase. I have heard upon the floor of this Senate vul garity in comparison with which the POTUS has never said anything, and I have heard those same men arraign the President as being guilty of vulgarism and in the very charge which they made couching their language in words disgusting to ears polite. I hope the motion to postpone will prevail. While I now disavow the advocacy of the President as a political friend, I avow myself as his personal friend ready at all times to vin dicate him against the vulgar assaults that have been made upon him on this floor.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to ask the Senfrom Ohio, who has this bill in charge, why in the 3rd section there is a difference of .between the Colorado and the Nebraska bills. provides that it shall not take effect except upon the funda mental condition that within the State of Colorado there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or any other rights to any person by reason, of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed, and upon the The 3rd section of this bill further fundamental condition that the Legislature elected under said State constitution by a public solemn to the saidt sfuhnadlladmeeclnatraelcthoendaistisoennt of the said State This is submitted to the Legislature elected under the constitution. Now, in submitting it to the Legislature in Nebraska different lau guage is used. Just what that difference is I am not prepared to state, not having the Nebraska bill before me; but there is a difference. I want to know why the difference is made in the 2 cases, if the Senator can inform the Senate. The fact is communicated to the senate by the veto message that one branch of the Legislature of Colorado has exPressed views which would be hostile to this proceeding. I want to know if the vote upon this question is taken away from that Legislature because it is i. that Legislature is hostile to this ticular measure; and I think the Senator when the subject was up before should have called the attention of the Senate to the difference in the 2 bills. I know that when we voted l supposed the 3rd section of each bill was in precisely the same language. Afterward it was found there was a difference. Now, I ask the Senfrom Ohio, who has the bill in charge, to explain the difference and to give the Senate to understand why there is a difference in the 2 bills in these sections.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the Senate ready for the question on the motion to.". the further consideration of the bill until tomorrow?
Mr. WADE. The yeas&nays are demanded on that question. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. WADE. The Senator has made the same argument that he has now made 5 times to my certain knowledge, and he has also stated, that I went against this bill, and I we t o ld him the reasons as often as he has made it. It was becausethe Governor of the Territory, who now opposes its o admission, was go." Ho faid in sending to us half not the number of inhabitants that were on the census by substituting aj paper in the place of the true and certifie paper. Therefore I went against it, because there did not appear to be inhabitants enough there. When that was corrected by his secretary, and he showed the amount of the population, then I went for it. Now, sir, when you othat, I wish you would state the whole of 1b.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will state the whole of it, and I will state to the Senator that the fact he now speaks of came out long after he became the champion of this bill came out at this session.
Mr. JOHNSON. In making the motion to postpone the bill until tomorrow I i. certainly not the least purpose to delay unnecessarily a vote upon. measure. The importance of the measure no one can question. My sole object was to enable us to understand exactly the facts stated by the POTUS, many of which are new to me, although they may not be new to the Senate. My individual purpose was, therefore, to ascertain for myself what weight, if any, the facts stated by the President should have upon the measure; and my other motive was that the Senate might be full when the question is taken. I am not about to make a speech twice upon the same subject. I have, on a former occasion, stated to the Senate why it was that I was unable to vote for the admission of this State. The grounds for that opinion remain still; but it is possible that there may be facts stated by the President which will operate upon the members of the Senate who i. heretofore differed with me upon that subject. Now, he states what has recently, as I understand, taken place, that the Legislature of the Territory protest against the of the Territory as a State. There may be
Mr. FESSENDEN. I believe I must interrupt the honorable Senator and call for the order of the day.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The morn.ing hour has expired, and it is the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday.
Mr. WADE. If this subject is to go over, I move that the veto message be printed, so that there shall be no argument on that score when it comes up again.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I was about to move.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is moved that the message, Wif. accompanying doc uments, be printed. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HOWARD. With the consent of the Senfrom Maine, I desire to Present a petition.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There being another subject before the Senate it requires unanimous consent. Is there any objection?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think I must object to petitions being Presented this morning. We want all the time we can get on this tariff bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Objection being made, it cannot be received.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. Lloyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of pensions. ADMISSION OF NEBRASRA WETO. During the consideration of the tariff bill a message was received from the POTUS, by his Secretary, Mr. W. G. Moore, owith his objections in writing, the bill (S.No.456) for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union. TARIFF BILL. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (IH.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes, the pending question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. CATTELL to amend the amendment made as in ComWhole, on page 39, section 8, line 51, by striking out “ 30 ” and inserting “ 40;” so as to read: On nickel, 40 centsper pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The yeas,&nays were ordered on that question, I believe.
The PRESIDENT protempore. They have been ordered. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 16, nays 21; 15. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CATTELL. I now move to amend the bill by striking out, in line 54 of section 8, on page 40, the words “ten%. advalorem, ” and inserting “ 30 cents per pound; ” so as to make the clause read: On nickel matte, speiss, or oxide, 30 cents per pound. I believe this amendment, meets the approbation of the chairman of the ComFinance. Its object is to prevent frauds on the revenue, for this is nickel almost in a perfect state, and requires about the same rate of duty as upon the nickel itself.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I think that is right. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. On page 56 I move to strike out line 367 of section 9, in these words: On acetateof lead, or sugar of lead, ten cents per pound. It is provided for in another part of the bill. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move to amend the 18th section, the free list, by adding to line 51, on page 100, “and rough diamonds;” so as to make the line read: Diamond dust or bort, and rough diamonds. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There are 3 or 4 amendments which have been submitted to the commissioner, and I think meet with his approval, which I will suggest. On page 31 line 140 of section7, f move to strike out “two and a half” and insert “three.” This raises the duty “on wrought. iron washers, nuts, bolts, or rivets, wholly or partially finished of all descriptions, punchred or unpunched, ” from 2 and a half to 3 cents per pound, because the material out of which they are made has a duty of 2 and a half cents a pound imposed upon it, as will be seen by looking at page 27, from the 4 1st to the 4 9th E. of the same section. My motion is simply to make the duty on the manufactured article half a cent more than the duty on the material out of which it is manufactured. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On page I34 move to strike out “six, ” in line 217 of section7, and insert “8;" so as to make the clause read: On steel carriage springs, 8 cents perpound. This has also been submitted to the commissioner. It is utterly impossible for the springs to be manufactured here with no greater duty than 6 cents a pound. If there is any objection to the amendment I will give the reasons for it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought the amendment the Senator proposed to offer there was to affect the definition.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not object to making the specification more definite, but I do object to raising the duty. I think 6 cents is high enough.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is found im Fo to manufacture these springs here at less than 20 cents per pound; and they can be manufactured in Canada, where the steel is admitted free of duty, and come in here at 17 and a half cents after paying our duty of 6 cents. The object of this increased duty is to apply principally to the imports from Canada where the steel is im: E. free; and it is necessary, as I am told y many manufacturers of springs, for their protection. There is a class of springs made of poor material which can be made for 17 and a half cents, as cheap as those that are imported from Canada; but good springs, those which are generally used, cannot be manufactured and sold for less than 20 cents a pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the senator that perhaps the HoRep may adhere to its original idea with ref. erence to this item. It was put in the House bill at 8 cents a pound. The ComFinance thought 6 cents enough. perhaps the Senator had better let it stand at that, and if the other House insist upon their orig inal rate the matter will be arranged on some fair basis. such a duty as will afford the protection needed, and the imPression of the committee was that 6 cents a pound was sufficient. I do not feel authorized, therefore, to accede to the amendment. I Presume, if the case is as the Senator states, the HoRep will adI have no objection to putting on here to their original rate probably, as fixed in the bill, and then the difference will have to be arranged.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The insistment of these manufacturers was ten cents a pound. A good deal of investigation was made in the House, and they finally fixed the rate at 8 cents. Nothing has been altered in this bill so as to create any propriety in lessening the amount; and I think the Senate had better fix this rate at what will be considered just, especially as there is no serious opposition to the amendment from the committee.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is not, perhaps, aware that the rates on iron are very considerably decreased from those fixed in the House bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But these springs are manufactured from steel.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a decrease in the duty on steel in this bill from that fixed by the HoRep; and this item was arranged to correspond with that decrease of duty.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But the Senate will also remember that the decrease of gold is very great since the House passed the bill, which more than compensates fo. any decrease in the duty on steel. I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 17, nays 15; So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move now to amend the 7th section, on page 34, by inserting after the word “carriage, ” in line 217, the words “railroad car, locomotive, wagon, and truck; ” and after “springs” the words “wholly or partially fin ished;” so as to make the clause read: On steel carriage, railroad car, locomotive, wagon, and truck springs, wholly or partially finished, 8 cents per pound.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The object of this amendment, allow me to say to the senator, is not to increase in any way the cost of or the duty on springs. It is a mere matter of construction of the report of the committee, the committee having intended that the term “carriage springs” should apply to all kinds of carriages, railroad, truck, and wagon; and when I suggested the amendment I stated that it was meant simply to remove a doubt as to the signification of the term “carriage springs, ” so as not to leave it open to controversy. This amendment is not to raise the duty, but merely to explain and make clear what the committee intended by their report.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I understand that the amendment puts the articles enumerated in it under a tariff of 8 cents per pound, and that certainly is adding a duty to the one that was reported by the committee. I object to this additional duty upon these articles; and I understand that if this amendment be adopted these materials which are used in the construction of railroad cars will pay 8 cents per pound, while under the report of the commit tue they would pay only 6 cents per pound. It is to that increase of duty that I object. I object to it because it is adding greatly and unnecessarily, as it seems to me, to the bur dens of the consumer, and because there is no sufficient evidence to my mind that this additional duty is necessary to enable the men who are engaged in the manufacture of these articles to prosecute their business; but it is simply taking so much money out of the pock ets of the people on the Pacific coast and in the West and putting it into the pockets of the manufacturers of those articles. That is all there is in it, in my opinion. I know that I am not altogether advised as to the condition of these manufacturing establishments; but before we proceed to impose this additional duty I think there should be some other showing than the one that has been made. The tariff upon iron, as proposed by the House bill, was reduced by the report of the committee, and the tariff upon steel as proposed by the House bill was likewise reduced. Iron and steel areingredients from which these articles are made; and yet, notwithstanding the reduction made upon the proposed tariff in regard to the materials, you still propose to put the articles up to the same duty that was fixed in the House bill. I think as this part of the bill was altogether arranged so as to harmonize and systematize all these things the report had better be left in its Present condition.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment now before the Senate, as I understand it, is not to increase the duty on anything; it is to to give construction to the word “carriage springs, ” that term being intended to apply to wagon springs, car springs, and truck springs. Unless the word “carriage springs” does apply to these different kind of springs, there is no duty at all on railroad car and truck springs. My amendment is simply a construction of the language used in the bill, which I understand was accepted by the committee. I ask for the yeas&nays on it. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 12, nays 19; . So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DAVIS. On page 22, in line ten of section 6 I move to strike out “ 25 ” and “ 50, ” so as to read “on Russia, Manila, Italian, and all other hemps, unmanufactured, 50 dollars per ton. In line 12 I move to raise the duty on tow of flax or hemp from 5 dollars to 12 dollars per ton; in line 14, to make the duty on jute, unmanufactured, and Sisal grass 20 dollars instead of 5 dollars a ton; in line 26 to make the duty on cordage and rope ten cents instead of 3 cents per pound; and in line 32 to add to the specific duty on gunny cloth, gunny bags, &c., anad valorem duty of 30%.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senatorwish his proposition to be regarded as oneamendment or as separate propositions?
Mr. DAVIS. Let the question be taken on all the propositions together.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The questionis on the amendment of the Senfrom Kentucky.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the motion of the Senfrom Kentucky to recommit the bill to the ComFinance with the instructions moved by him.
Mr. DAVIS. I ask for the yeas&nays on that motion. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. GRIMES. I call for a division of the proposition.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Iowa asks that the motion be divided. It is susceptible of division, and the 1st question will be taken on the motion to recommit; and the next on the instruction proposed to the committee.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish simply to say that it would be useless to recommit the bill without instructions, because we should proba bly report the bill back as it is; and the effect of recommitting with the instructions proposed would be that we should not be able to report the bill again at this session in time for action.
Mr. GRIMES. When I asked for a division of the question I did not mean or desire that it should be divided as the Presiding Officer has directed that it should be divided. I meant to divide the clauses of the instructions. I should like to see this bill recommitted; or if it cannot be recommitted, I should like to see it post poned until we can have an opportunity of seeing the character of the bill which is said to be under consideration in the other branch of Congress, regulating the internal duties that are to be placed on manufactures and other things. It seems to me that is the place where we should begin; that is the bill which should 1st be taken into consideration; and after we have passed upon that we shall be prepared to vote understandingly on this tariff bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair did not mean to limit the Senfrom Iowa by the decision he made as to the motion to recommit. It is competent for the Senator to move to amend the instructions proposed by striking out any portion of them or adding to them at his pleasure.
Mr. GRIMES. I was going to say that I am in favor of the 1st clause of the instructions F.by the Senfrom Kentucky; but whether it is advisable to instruct the committee to reduce the amount that shall be levièd under the internal and external taxes to the extent of $100,000,000 per annum or not I cannot now say. I would rather have some exPression of opinion from the committee on that subject, without oby any sort of declaration of this kind to bind them to any specific amount. I shall therefore vote for the motion of the Senfrom Kentucky, if we can have a division of the instructions proposed by him.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is competent for the Senfrom Iowa to move to strike out any portion of the proposed instructions by way of amendment.
Mr. GRIMES. Then I move to amend the motion by striking out the latter clause of the instructions so much as relates to the specific amount of the proposed reduction of taxation unless the Senator chooses to withdraw that part of his motion.
Mr. DAVIS. I do not think I have any objection to the proposition of the Senfrom Iowa.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senfrom Kentucky accept the proposed modification of his motion?
Mr. DAVIS. I will make a remark 1st. I think that all the revenue bills ought to be considered together by the ComFinance. I think it would be more convenient, and it would more certainly secure a wise adjustment of our revenue system, internal and external to have all branches of the subject considered together by the ComFinance. I think that if all the laws imposing internalrevenue and all the laws imposing duties upon foreign imports were.together it would be wise. They belong to the same system of revenue. It is true, the features are different; but they are so intimately connected and blended together that it is impossible wisely to adjust one except upon consideration of and in the closest connection with the other. I therefore hope that it will be the sense of the Senate that its ComFinance shall not consider the 2 subjects apart; that the Present bill shall be delayed until the bill regulatin internalrevenue comes from the House, that the Senate will then instruct the ComFinance to consider them together and to report proper bills, and understanding their mutual connection with each other. In the instructions which I moved I did not propose to restrict the committee to a reduction of only $100,000,000: I proposed that the reduction should be at least to that extent. But when the estimates of the Treasury Dept show that only about 328 million dollars will be necessary for the whole service of the year, and also show that under the existing laws the aggregate produce of the revenue will be $540,000,000, it seems to me that there cannot be a reason able doubt that a greater reduction than $100,000,000 could be made in the aggregate taxation. I accept the modification proposed by the Senator oIowa, by striking out of the instructions moved by me the last clause relative to the amount of reduction.
Mr. SHERMAN. Because you made it necessary by the postponement last session.
Mr. GRIMES. I have not made it. The Senate made it. The Senate made it after due consideration. The Senate made it wisely. I think the country has oajudgment upon that subject, and has said that we did act wisely. Now, I only ask that the same precedent shall be followed that has been followed in the past. The Senator says that if this bill is recommitted to him he will not labor upon it. He will not perform his duty to the Senate and to the country and to his own State, because the judgment of the Senate may be that they are not prepared to act upon this bill now, but prefer to act upon some other bill in preference to it. Well, sir, I have no remarks to make upon the Senator's idea as to what his duty to himself or to the country may require. I have only to say that when I have a bill recommit.ted to me as a member of a committee I shall attempt to carry out the views of the Senate that sends it to me as far as I am able.
Mr. SHERMAN. The inconsistency in which the Senator was involved was this: at the last session of Congress a bill in relation to the internalrevenue was sent to us, fully considered, and passed, and immediately upon its heels the tariff bill came to us, was brought up for consideration, and on motion of the Senfrom Iowa was postponed to the Present session. The very course that he now indicates was the course he then prevented. He says the Senate prevented it, but the Senate prevented it upon his motion, and it was by the same course of argument that he now makes. If we had considered this subject at the last session we might have then seen the operation of the 2 laws togetheer, and we might have made the proper changes at the Present session. But he says that Ohio is interested, and that I am mistaken in saying that Ohio has no special interest in this bill. I say Ohio has not. He instanced the item of coal. Why, sir, no Ohio coal ever reaches the Atlantic coast. It is not in the interest of Ohio that the duty on coal is raised. It is in the interest of Maryland and Pennsylvania, if any. It is for the protection of their coal fields. The coal of Ohio is consumed in the West. And so with salt. The salt boiler of Ohio does not ask any protection. All the salt that is produced in ð is along a single valley on the Ohio river, and is consumed in the neighborhood.,
Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senator permit me to inquire in whose interest this duty of 6 cents additional is imposed?
Mr. SHERMAN. "I will state to the senator that Ohio asks no favors of that kind. The salt that is protected by this bill is the salt of NewYork and Michigan. No portion of the Ohio salt ever even reaches the lake shore. The Senator is not aware where the salt valley of Ohio is.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to my friend that if he and other gentlemen will stop talking so much and making so many amendments we will settle one thing very soon.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The remark of the Senator does not apply to me at all. I have offered no amendment to this bill, and this is the 1st time I have occupied the attention of the Senate for 4 minutes upon it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no particular reference to the honorable Senator.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If we get the negro into this bill we are gone.
Mr. POLAND (when his name was called) said: I desire to state that the Senfrom Iowa [Mr. KIRKwood] was obliged to go out for a moment, and I agreed to pair off with him on this question. I should have voted against this motion to recommit, and he would have voted in favor of it. The result was announced yeas 15, nays 25;–12. The motion was not agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question now is on the amendment moved by the Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. DAvis] to the amendment made as in ComWhole. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DIXON. I move to amend the amendment on page 80, section 11, by inserting after line 33 the following: paQirns, leannsde, s for stereoscopes, one dollar per dozen in valorem. addition thereto, 40%. ad
The PRESIDENT protempore put the question on the amendment to the amendment, and declared that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DIXON. I.like to have a division on that question. I desire to say that that amendment is consented to by the chairman of the ComFinance, and I believe by all interests.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not understand oxactly what it was. I do not know but that it is right, but I should like to have a little expla: nation of it. It strikes me to be rather high. I should like to hear it read again.
Mr. DIXON. It is precisely the same protection, indeed much less protection, than is given to lenses for spectacles. On this same page, commencing at the 27th line, there is this provision: On lensesfor spectacles, whether of glass or pebble, 40%. advaloren; and, in addition thereto. for lenses ground and polished on dollars per grosspairs. both sides, 2 This only asks for one dollar, and I will state that there is a large interest engaged in this manufacture which will be entirely destroyed without this protection. We only ask the same protection that is allowed to lenses for spec tacles.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That clause reads: On lensesfor spectacles, whether of glass or peb ble, 40%. advalorem; and, in thereto, addition for lensesground and polishedon both sides. 2 dollars per grosspair. I did not understand how the lenses are described in the amendment. Does that say o or polished on both sides?”
Mr. DIXON. These are ground and poished on both sides. We only ask one what is allowed to lenses for spectacles.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Is it so described in ol half the amendment?
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let the Senator correct description.
Mr. DIXON. I ask the Secretary to read the amendment again.
Mr. DIXON. I understand that these lenses require to be ground on both sides. At any rate, there is a great deal of work upon them.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a difference. It is fixed at 2 dollars per gross pairs on lensesfor spectacles. This amendment should read“gross pairs, ” and the description should be changed. If the Senator will make it read, “on lenses for stereoscopes, 40%. advalorem, and, in addition thereto, for lenses groundand polished on both sides, one dollarger gross pairs, ” I will not object to it.
Mr. DIXON. Very well; I ask the Clerk to make that alteration.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It will be so modified, and the question is on the amendment as modified, which will be read.
The Secretary read as follows: Onlensefsorstereoscopes, onedollar pergrosspairs, and, in addition thereto, 40%. advalorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is not right. It shouldread: On remal, ennds, esfor stereoscopes, 40%. advalo in addition thereto, for lenses for stereo scopegsroundand polished on pergrospsairs. both sides, one dollar the pRESIDENT protempore. It will be so modified. The amendment to the amendment was agreedto.
Mr. GRIMES. I move to amend the bill on ge 93, by inserting at the end of section 15 as a new line the following: Onbarley, 20 cents per bushel.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator will see that barley is already in..
Mr. GRIMES. I am aware of the condition it. o: On page 89 there is a clause which reads: On barley, not including pearl or hulled, 15 centsperbushel. That was the way the committee reported it to the Senate, but if I am not mistaken it has been amended since it came to the Senate by striking down the duty from 15 cents to ten cents. How is that, Mr. Secretary? I wish the Secretary to read lines 13 and 14 of section 15, page 89, as they now stand. The SecEETARY. These lines as they have beenamended read: Onbarley, not including pearl or per hulled, ten cents bushel.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not suppose it makes any difference in point of fact whether this duty be ten cents or 20 cents; the effect on the farmer will be the same; but in order to take the argument out of the mouth of the Senator at home in regard to this bill I will make no objection to this amendment. Let him have it fixed at 20 cents, and I hop!e.we shall hear no more about barley. WILLIAMS. I Presume now that we shall hear no more from the honorable Senfrom Iowa as to the selfishness of certain persons who rePresent particular local interests in trying to incorporate into this bill legislation favorable to their particular interests. I find that the honorable Senator in that respect is very much like other Senators here. When he supposes that any portion of the bill touches the local interests which he rePresents, he, like others, is anxious to have the protection increased. I simply wish to say that hereafter when this objection is made to propositions of a like nature I shall plead estoppel upon the honorable Senator and claim that if this partic. ular interest, in which he says his State is concerned so deeply, is to be so largely protected, other interests must have a corresponding protection. So far as I am concerned I object to the increase of this duty upon barley. I think 15 cents per bushel is as much as can be reasonably demanded. I have heard no complaints that the duty is not sufficiently large; and the article is one that is used extensively in the U.S. in brewing. There is a vast amount of capital invested in the business of brewing, and there is a market at good rices for all the barley that is raised in. the States. So far as I know there is no necessity, to promote the interests of the farmer, that this tax should be added to the price of barley, and it is absolutely necessary that importations of this article should be made in order to carry on the business of brewing in the country. I object to the increase.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator does not seem to understand what the bill is as it now stands. This duty instead of being 15 cents as he seems to suppose is put at ten cents a bushel.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It has been changed without my knowledge or consent.
Mr. GRIMES. The change was made on the motion of the chairman of the ComFinance. I trust the Senfrom Oregon has relieved his mind on the subject of myselfishness. All I have to say is that I propose to make this bill as little incongruous as possible, even if I do not vote for it; and because I propose to raise up the duty on wheat or barley or some other agricultural product that may be stricken down by the bill to something like an equality with, or to the level of, the protection given to the manufacturing interest, f do not know that I am to be charged with any peculiar selfishness. There is not a bushel of barley that will find its way from the State of Iowa to an eastern market, but this will be for the interest of other agricultural portions of the country where it may be raised.
Mr. SHERMAN. I suggest to the Senfrom Iowa that he had better leave this item in the place where it is in the bill, according to its alphabetical order. The committee proposed 15 cents a bushel; if it is now put at ten cents there must be some mistake.
Mr. GRIMES. Very well; I am content to strike out “ten” and insert “ 20 ” at that place.
Mr. SHERMAN. It was put at 15 cents because that is the same rate at of. which other productions are put. Barley is cheaper than wheat.
Mr. GRIMES. I am not content with the rate fixed on wheat. I want to raise that also, and I trust I shall have the cooperation of the Senfrom Ohio.
Mr. SHERMAN. If really the Senfrom Iowa is afraid that the wheat and barley raised in Iowa and Qhio cannot compete with wheat and barley raised in other parts of the world, I am willing to give them the protection he desires.
Mr. GRIMES. I do really think that under this bill, when you give the agriculturist across the line in the British Provinces a drawback upon all that has been expended under the bill for the iron and steel that go into the composition of his agricultural implementts we are not capable of competing with the men who have that advantage over us to the extent that they may raise agricultural products. If the Senate will recur to the 2 1st section of this bill they will see that it provides That, from and after the 1st day of April, 1867, tehxepropertsehda, ll beallowedon the following articles, when a drawback equal to the amount of duty paid on the imported materialsused in themanufac dturarewtbhaecrke, of, less5%. On the amountof such which shall be retained for the use of the U.S., and such drawback shall be ascertained in accordanc ewith regulations to be Prescribed by the SecyTreasury ing machines, reapitnhge machines, pnlaomwes, lyaxeosn, hmatocwh ets, scythes, cotton gins, shovels, spades, hoes, hay manure forks, chisels, augers, and carpenters' OOIS. It includes everything they want the tools with which they erect a house, the tools with which they plow the ground and cultivate their crops. They have that advantage over us, and surely we on this side of the line should have some protection. I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. DIXON. I should like to hear the amendment read as it now stands.
The SECRETARY. It is proposed in line 13 of section 15, page 89, to strike out “ten” and insert “ 20;” so as to read: On barley, not including pearl or hulled, 20 centsper bushel.
Skip Skip The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 23, nays 13; 16. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER. There is one injustice in this bill to which I wish to ask the attention of the Senate; and that I may bring the Senate precisely to the point I shall move on page 85, H. 23 of section 13, to strike out “$1 50” and insert “ 50 cents.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. That whole clause has been stricken out and a new one inserted. All the words from line 17 to line 24 have been stricken out.
Mr. SUMNER. Let The Secretary read the clause that has been inserted.
The SECRETARY. On page 84, lines 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of section 13 were stricken out, and in lieu thereof these words were inserted: On candle or cannel coal, and on all bitumine us coal, $150 per ton of 28 bushels, 80 pounds to the bushel.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish to bring back the provision to where it was before that amendment. I therefore move to insert what in the original bill is lines 21, 22, 23, and 24, as follows: On all bitumine us coal, mined and imported from any place not more than 30 degrees of longitude east of Washington, 50 cents, per ton 20 8 bushels, 80 pounds to the bushef.
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member will permit me to suggest that his object will be accomplished by refusing to concur in that amendment made in committee; if the amendment be not concurred in, the bill will stand as reported in that respect.
Mr. SUMNER. Do I understand that the question is upon concurrence with the amendment made in committee?
Mr. JOHNSON. It has not been concurred in that I know of
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion of the Senfrom Massachusetts, in the opinion of the Chair, is in order: he moves to strike out and insert.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have no doubt of that; I only wanted to save some trouble.
Mr. SUMNER. But there is another way to get at it, according to the suggestion of the Senfrom Maryland, and that would be not to concur in that amendment.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question does not arise on that identical amendment, because it was an amendment to an amendment. The amendment to be concurred in is all one amendment.
Mr. SUMNER. Then, in order to make the proposition perfectly clear, I simply move now to insert lines 21, 22, 23, and 24 of this section as they stand in the printed bill; and if this amendment be adopted, the other clause can be made to conform to it.
The Secretary read the words proposed to be inserted, as follows: anOynpalallcbeitumine us coal, mined and imported from not morethan 30 degreesof longitude east of Washington, 50 cents perton of 28 bushels, 80 pounds to the bushel.
Mr. JOHNSON. The amendment suggested by my friendfrom Massachusetts, if I understand it, is to reinstate in the bill what was stricken out in committee. That is to say, it is to impose a tax upon all coal imported from beyond a certain point of $150, and a tax of only 50 cents on all that shall be imported from this side of that point. I understood the honorable member from Massachusetts to tell us and he will set me right if I am wrong that there are about 500,000 tons of coal imported.
Mr. SUMNER. I moved the amendment as I did when informed, as I was for the 1st time after I rose, that the clause which I moved to insert had been stricken out. I had beentold by a member of the committee that the 2nd clause had been Preserved, and therefore had I simply moved, as I proposed, to substitute “ 50 conts” for “$150" in that clause, I should have accomplished all my purpose. the clause itself was stricken out, I then, in order to bring the question before the Senate, moved to restore the clause; but I think I can bring the question still more closely to the Senate, ini as that amendment is entirely within my own power I shall withdraw it, and move to substitute in the clause which has been adopted by the Senate “ 50 cents” for “$1 50, ” so that the tax on all imported coal shall be 50 cents.
Mr. JOHNSON. That will reduce the revenue a great deal more.
Mr. SUMNER. No, I think very likely it would increase the revenue. I do not go, however, into that calculation. I have not the details. I have not the statistics. By that change in my amendment I meet precisely 3 quarters, of the speech of the Senfrom Maryland; I eliminate all that he has said with regard to coal imported from GreatBritain and the partialities that I am supposed to show for NewEngland in comparison with NewYork. I. make the proposition general: I ask that all imported coal shall come in at 50 cents a ton; in other words, that the proposed tax shall be reduced from $150 to 50 cents.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Allow me to say to the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that I think he will hardly be so likely to accomplish his object by doing that as he would by his 1st proposition.; shall feel bound, as chair man of the committee reporting the bill and reporting the conclusion of the committee, to vote against the motion myself, although I should desire to have a 5cent duty on Nova Scotia coal, and I think it is enough and would not interfere with anybody; but if the Senator makes his amendment general, so as to put me in the situation of voting against the conclusion the committee came to f shall be obliged to separate from him on this question.
Mr. SHERMAN. the hope that the friends of this bill will not give the enemies of it the right to make the allegation that my honorable friendfrom missouri did awhile ago, that when we come to an article that yields us a handsome revenue we throw that away and abandon the idea of protection. There are 4 or 5 articles in the tariff list on, which we propose to throw off revenue, and one of these is the article of coal. We now get a duty of $1 25 perton, and the Senfrom Massachusetts says we im orted 500 thouand tons last year. states it too strongly, I think.
Mr. SUMNER. I am obliged to the Senfrom Ohio for the speech he has interpo lated into the remarks I was making.
Mr. SHERMAN. I thought the Senator was through. o, Mr. SUMNER. I am obliged to the Senator. I always listen to him with pleasure. He knows that. He has certainly shed light on the discussion now. But he will allow me to call him back to the precise point. The senator says we should lose a revenue. Are we not now disposed to reduce the taxation of the country? Is not that an urgent need? Is not that a call that we have from all quarters? You have listened today to a proposition from the Senfrom Kentucky to instruct the committee to reduce the taxation $100,000,000. Now, without following the Senfrom Kentucky in that proposition, I do insist that, where we can, on articles of prime necessity, we should reduce taxation. Therefore when the Senfrom Ohio tells me that if my proposition is adopted we shall lose a certain amount of revenue derived from coal, I have an easy reply. Very well, let us lose that amount of revenue derived from coal; you ought not to obtain it; coal ought not to be one of your taxed articles. So far as possible coal should be. That is the proposition with which I began and ended; and if I do not iothat upon the Senate f certainly fail in what I attempted.
Mr. SUMNER. Because it enters into the necessaries of life, and because it is a motive power that works our manufactories.
Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senfrom massachusetts allow me to inquire how much of this Pictou coal is used for any other purpose than manufacturing purposes and for making gas? Is it ever used at all for fuel?
Mr. CRESWELL. The Senfrom Maine [Mr. FEssexDEN) the other day based his entire argument on the supposition that Cum berland coal could not come in competition with Pictou coal, for the reason that the latter was used exclusively for gas and the other was not fitted for that use. Now, sir, let us have the argument in some shape consistent.
Mr. SUMNER. Very well, I give you the argument in the shape in which I use it. I say that the article is necessary to us in NewEngland. It enters into our daily life; it enters into the economies of every house; it enters into the expenses of every citizen. It enters, therefore, into the welfare of the community, and you cannot tax that coal without making the whole community feel it, whether rich or poor. Every poor man feels it. if I said the rich man felt it, you would reply, “That makes no difference, let him feel it.” I insist that every poor man feels it, and I insist still further that all who are interested in the manufactures, of the country necessarily feek it, not only the producers and the owners of the manufactories but all who use the products of their looms. I say that as a motive power it ought to be made cheap and to be kept cheap. Now the policy seems to be to make it dear and keep it dear. '
Mr. HENDRICKS. I like the Senator's argument just where he is now; but I wish to ask him whether, if by a tariff you raise the price of every yard of cheap woolen goods and cheap cotton goods, it is not a direct tax on the labor of the poor man of the West who has to buy them?
Mr. CRESWELL, [to Mr. SUMNER] That is the application of your argument.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Maryland says that is the application of my argument. Pardon me, not at all; because the tax that is imposed on cotton and on woolen goods, though on that I say nothing I have had very little to do with imposing any such tax is not opPressive on any part of the country, it does not bear hard on the constituents of the senator nor on the constituents of any Senator on this floor, whereas the proposition now under consideration, the increase of the tax on coal, will bear hard upon a whole community and upon all its interests; and that is the precise difference between the 2 cases. The Senfrom Ohio seemed to speak of this with perfeet tranquillity, as if there was nothing in it opPressive or even open to criti cism. He thought we might tax coal as we tax any other article. I differ from him on that proposition. I do not think you should tax coal as you tax other articles, and I further do not think you should impose any tax which bears with special hardship, so as to be something akin to injustice, on any particular part of our country. That is my answer to the arguments that have been put forth by the Senfrom Maryland and to the inquiry of the Senfrom Indiana. And now I come back I should like to Mr. FOWLER. ask the Senfrom Massachusetts if there is any difference in the uses made of the coal which is brought from beyond the 30th degree of longitude and that which is brought from within that degree?
Mr. SUMNER. I am not aware that there is any differenee. I think that the 2 coals are very much alike.
Mr. FOWLER. Do I understand the proposition to be to put all down to 50 cents?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not say any such thing; I beg pardon of my honorable friend. He quoted from the Present chairman of the ComWays&Means of something the House that he had said about the motives which j to the adoption of the reciprocity treaty. I said that I was a member of the Senate at that time, and he was not a member of the House then; and I thought I knew as much of the motives that influenced the adoption of that treaty as he did. I did not say “as much as any member of the Senate.”
Mr. CRESWELL. Then my remark was a little too general; and in order to bring it within the scope of what the gentleman in tended, I will say that he knew as much about it as the chairman of the ComWays&Means of the House.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Of the considerations which led to its adoption.
Mr. WILSON. The Senfrom Maryland said, and I thought he said it in a manner as the gh some of us were concerned in it, that if certain views were to prevail here we had better vote the bill down. I wish simply to say to the Senfrom Maryland that I shall have no regrets if the bill should be voted down. If anybody in Massachusetts believes that this great tax upon coal, upon iron, upon steel, and upon wool is to be cempensated by anything in this bill, he is mistaken. It is not a Massachusetts measure; and in my judgment it is more against her than for her; and if I vote for the bill
Mr. CRESWELL. The general principle of the tariff is usually supposed to be a Massachusetts measure, and if this tariff does not suit Massachusetts it is only because the old tariff suits her better. My argument went to the whole tariff system. If the argument of the Gentfrom Massachusetts and I beg the Senator's pardon for interrupting him prevails, it applies equally and as forcibly against all tariffs as against this tariff.
Mr. CRESWELL. Well, I will maintain it anyhow.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I move that the Senate adjourn. Mr. FESSENDEN. nays on that motion. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 11, nays 10; 22. So the Senate refused to adjourn.
Mr. CRESWELL. As the gentleman speaks of the restricted policy of Maryland, I will avail myself of this opportunity to give him and all other capitalists like him an invitation to come down and invest in our lands and mines of all sorts. We shall give him a most cordial welcome and be delighted to see him.
Mr. SPIRAGUE. But we cannot do it. No capitalists in this country can go into Maryland with the restrictions put upon them by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. an impossible condition of things. You cannot develop another mine disconnected from that railroad. Now, the gentleman is playing into the hands of this great railroad interest and to the prejudice of his State; and so are the gentlemen from Pennsylvania. There is not a coal mine that can be developed at Present disconnected with the owners of the great systems of railroads who own coal lands. Nobody is benefited by such a condition of things. These States are not benefited. The coal lands are not being developed. I know of these things. I have had experience of them. I know who gets the money. It is not the people of these States.
Mr. WILSON. I have but a word to say in reply to the Senfrom California. The Senator thinks that the remarks I saw fit to make should not come from a Senfrom Massachusetts, for the reason, I suppose, that during the last 40 years Massachusetts is supposed to have been greatly benefited by the tariff policy of the country.
Mr. CONNESS. “Supposed" Do you not know that she has been?
Mr. CATTELL. I suggest to the gentleman that that arises in part from the fact that you have been protected for the last 30 or 40 years.
Mr. WILSON. Not half as much as you gentlemen are disposed to say. We have been protected as others have been protected under this Government, nothing more and nothing less. While I do not denounce the policy of the past nor deny the reasonable benefits that have grown out of it, I do object to this holding up of Massachusetts, and of my section of the country as responsible for this measure. What did we hear here today? What have we heard on the stump during the last few months? What have we heard in the public Press and everywhere? Denunciations of the manufacturers and the mechanics and machine shops of Massachusetts and of the eastern States, as though we were getting up, advocating, and forcing through measures unjust to the other sections of the country. Now, sir, what I said just now is true: that the great duties upon coal, upon iron, upon steel, and upon wool are not compensated to us by anything in this bill; and in no sense of the word is it a Massachusetts measure. I say that here. I am ready to stand by it, and events in the future will demonstrate it. The war in the future will not be upon Pennsylvania steel and iron, nor upon Ohio wool, but it will be after all upon “the manufacturers; the great mammoth corporations of Massachusetts and NewEngland.” What I demand here is that gentlemen who are putting ‘on these duties for their own sections of the country shall take their full share of the responsibility for the tariff we are passing; and I want the country to hold them to the same responsibility they hold us.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I voted against adjourning some time ago in the hope of getting a vote on this amendment; but as there is evidently no quorum Present, I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. FESSENDEN. nays on that motion. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 8, nays 16; 28.
The PRESIDENT protempore. On this question the yeas are 8, the nays 16. The senate refuse to adjourn, but there is no quorum voting.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that the Ser geant at Arms be directed to request the at tendance of absent members.
Mr. GRIMES. I move to amend the motion by adding “to appear tomorrow at 12 o'clock.” [Laughter]
The PRESIDENT protempore. Does the Senfrom Maine accept the modification of the motion?
Mr. GRIMES. Then I move that amendment to the motion.
Mr. WILSON. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUEsday, January 29, 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. Civil Service.
Mr. JENCKES. I desire to call up a motion that I made last onio
The SPEAKER. 'hen the House adjourned last evening the Gentfrom hdIsland had moved to suspend the rules so as to enable him to report bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof. The Gentfrom RhdIsland stated that many gentlemen voted last evening with the understanding that the bill would come up this morning. Is there objection to the consideration of the bill? The Chair hears none. The House accordingly proceeded to the consideration of bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof.
Mr. SPALDING. I call for the reading of the bill.
Mr. DAWES. Does the gentleman propose to put the boll upon its passage today without its being printed 2
Mr. JENCKES. It has been printed 2 or 3 times and is upon the files of members.
Mr. DAWES. We want to know if the gentleman has kept it in the same shape in which it was 1st printed.
Mr. JENCIN ES. I do not wish to interfere with the morning hour. If the ComMilAffrs are desirous of reporting to day, and if, by unanimous consent, this bill can be taken up after the morning hour I will yield for that purpose.
Mr. KASSON. I desire to go into ComWhole on a regular appropriation bill after the morning hour.
Mr. DAWES. I suggest to the gentleman that nobody will object to his recommitting his bill and entering a motion to reconsider.
Mr. JENCKES. if I am entitled to the floor now, unless I can yield it by unanimous consent and resume it after the expiration of the morning hour I prefer to proceed, as this is a very important measure not 2nd to any now before Congress.
Mr. DAWES. I hope the gentleman will submit the proposition to the House and see if there will be objection to his recommitting his bill and entering a motion to reconsider.
Mr. ALLISON. I object to that proposition.
Mr. JENCKES. If this bill is to be presented at all for action, it is full late to Present it now; and as my proposition for postponement is objected to, I prefer to proceed now.
Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman yield to me to make a report from the ComElections upon a question of privilege?
Mr. JENCKES. I will yield willingly if I do not by that means lose my right to the floor.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can yield for a question of privilege without losing his right to resume the floor when the question of privilege shall have been disposed of.
Mr. JENCKES. Then I will yield. ELECTIONS IN MARYLAND.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the motion of Mr. DAWEs was agreed to. Mr. DAWES mtRtv the motion was agreed t;o on the table. ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA.
Mr. FERRY, by unanimous consent, presented communications from the Governor and adjutant general of the State of Michigan, in relation to the militia bills now pending before the Committee on the Militia.P. HoRep; which were referred to the Committee on the Militia, and ordered to be printed. BOUNTIES AND LOST DISCHARGES.
Mr. SCHENCK. With the permission of the Gentfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. JENCKEs, I desire to remind the House that while waiting for some disposition to be made of the bill in charge of i. Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens] and which yesterday was referred to the ComReconstruction, I gave notice that as soon as that bill was disposed Iof would, having leave to report at any time, report from the Military Committee the bill in relation to bounties and lost discharges. My friendfrom RhdIsland [Mr. JENCKEs] has anticipated me by reporting another bill, one in relation to the civil service of the U.S., with which I have no disposition to interfere, because I recognize its importance. But I desire very much to report the bill to which I have referred; and I would inquire of the Speaker whether I can now, the floor being yielded to me for that purpose, report this bill, and let it come up the next thing after the bill introduced by the Gentfrom RhdIsland [Mr. JENckes] shall have been disposed of.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SchENck] with the consent of the Gentfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. JENckes] can report the bill to which he refers, and it will come up after the morning hour, whenever there is a morning hour. The House granted permission for the bill to be reported at any time upon giving one day's notice, the bill to be considered after the morning hour.
Mr. SCHENCK. I now report back from the ComMilAffrs House bill No. 836, to equalize the bounties of soldiers, sailors, and marines, who served in the late f war for the Union, with an amendment in the form of an additional section, Mr. STEVENS. I desire to state that when ever I can get the opportunity I will move to go intooComWhole upon a public bill, which is very necessary, and will not take a very long time for consideration.
Mr. SCHENCK. As I do not know how soon we may be able to take up and consider the bill I have just reported, I will move that it and the amendment to it be printed. The motion was agreed to. ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. SCHENCK. Do I understand that the Gentfrom RhdIsland [Mr. JENckes] is compelled to go on now, because there is objection to laying his bill over till after the morning hour?
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom RhdIsland asked unanimous consent that the bill might be postponed till after the morning hour. The Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAsson] objected, stating that he desired after the morning hour to move that the House go into the ComWhole for the consideration of an appropriation bill.
Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the Gentfrom Iowa will withdraw that objection. This bill has to be considered at any rate, either now or after the morning hour.
Mr. KASSON. At the time I made the objection I understood that the morning hour had begun, that the bill of the Gentfrom RhdIsland was a regular report of a committee, which the committee had the right to make at this time, and that the proposition was now to pass it over until after the morning hour. I learn now that the bill has come in by unanimous consent. I was under an entire misapprehension, or I should have felt it my duty to object. As the chairman of the ComAppropriat has stated, the committee desire that the House shall go into the ComWhole today on one of the regular appropriation bills. If we cannot bring that bill up as early as we desire I do not wish to interfere with allowing the morning hour to take precedence. of the bill of the Gentfrom RhdIsland.
The SPEAKER. If the Gentfrom Iowa withdraws his objection the Chair will again state the question.
Mr. STEVENS. I object to anything that will prevent our going into the ComWhole after the morning hour.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania objects to the arrangement suggested by the Gentfrom RhdIsland, and the gentleman will proceed now. CIVIL SERVICE AGAIN.
The SPEAKER. That will be done unless objection be made. There was no objection.
Mr. HALE. I desire to ask my colleague on the JtCommee whether he wishes to bring this bill to a vote today. I wish to suggest that its consideration be postponed till after the morning hour, so that we may have at once the regular morning hour.
Mr. JENCKES. I am willing to yield for that motion.
Mr. HALE. Is it the desire of the gentleman to bring the bill to a vote today?
Mr. JENCKES. As soon as practicable perhaps not today.
Mr. HALE. I move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed till after the morning hour. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. If I had obtained the floor just now I desired to move the post ponement of this bill for a longer time.
The SPEAKER. When the bill is reached that motion will be in order. SARAH A. GIRAHAM.
Mr. HILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Sarah A. Graham; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. FARNsworth to fill the vacancy on the JtCom on Reconstruction occasioned by the leave of absence granted to Mr. WASH BURNE, of Illinois, for the remainder of the session. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order during the morning hour the call of committees for reports, beginning with the ComAg. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. BIDWELL. Mr. Speaker, there was referred to the ComAg the bill introduced by the Gentfrom Minnesota [Mr. DoNNELLY] to reorganize the dept of Agriculture. I am under the necessity of stating to the House that the committee are not ready to report upon that bill; and for this reason I desire to ask that they may be allowed another morning hour at a later period. This is an important bill; and as chairman of the committee I desire to use every proper effort to have the committee consider the bill, so that we may report it to the House for its action. I am under a pledge to the House I am under what I consider a responsibility in the discharge of my duty as a member of this House as well as a member of the ComAg to do what lies in my power. the Dept of agriculture upon a footing that shall be commensurate with the wants of our country. I therefore ask that the ComAg be allowed another morning hour in which to report on this subject.
Mr. BIDWELL. Then I will state to the House, as an individual member of Congress, I will at an early day endeavor to bring before the House a bill to reorganize that Dept. I will also state, in order to bring the matter before the House and country, that I have prepared a bill for that purpose; and I am willing it shall go upon the Journal of the House, so that members may see what it is proposed to do. he bill proposed to be offered was, by unanimous consent, ordered to be printed. PURCHASE OF SEEDS, ETC.
Mr. RITTER, from the ComAg, reported a bill to regulate the purchase and distribution of seeds, &c., by the ComrAg; which was read the 1st and 2nd time. The bill provides that the Commissioner shall be instructed and directed to purchase for distribution only such seeds, plants, and flowers as are not comraon in the U.S.; and that all seeds, plants, and flowers which have been generally cultivated or raised in, the majority of the States during the period of 4 years shall be considered as common in the country, and therefore are not to be purchased for distribution by or for the Dept of Agriculture; and 'o.further, that the moneys appropriated by Congress for specified objects and purposes for the use of said bureau shall not be used for any other object or purpose than the one appointed without the consent of Congress; provided seeds, plants, and flowers purchased by said Commissioner before the passage of this act shall be distributed as heretofore.
Mr. RITTER. That bill is for the purpose of attaining the object sought by the Government since the organization of that bureau. At the last session a provision was put into the appropriation bill that the Commissioner should only purchase such seeds as were new and useful.
Mr. ALLISON. I move to amend by inserting the word “Dept” for “ bureau.”
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. The Gentfrom Kentucky yields to me for a few moments. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House fully understands the full importance of this measure. The Dept of Agriculture was, in my view, established for the purpose of disseminating seeds grown in the U.S., and the only benefit I can see arising from that Dept is the exchange from one State to another of the different seeds grown in those States. The proposition of this bill is to cut off this interchange from one State to another, and to confine the Dept entirely to the purchase and distribution of seeds not generall grown in the U.S. The great benefit now derived from the Dept is in the fact that seeds grown in Illinois are brought here and sent to Pennsylvania, while the seeds grown in Pennsylvania are sent to Illinois, and we in the West derive the benefit from the experience of Pennsylvania. For my part I think the bill as now framed is entirely wrong, and will confine the Dept to the purchase of seeds which we do not need.
Mr. RITTER. I yield now to the Gentfrom Illinois.
Mr. WENTWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as one of the agriculturists of the country I hope this bill will pass. The abuses of the Dept as now practiced will eventually discredit and ruin the Dept. The object of the dept was originally to distribute such seeds as were rare. ow, we get no seeds that are rare, but only those that can be bought out of any seed shop in any portion of the U.S. are sent to us for distribution. So common are these seeds that members of Congress are made the laughing stock of all the seed merchants of the country. The restriction is a proper one, that no seeds shall be purchased.; have been common in the country for 4 years prior to the date of purchase. The friends of the Dept should see it is not broken down by existing abuses. I do not blame the oCommissioner. 25 years ago I was here and distributed seeds from this bureau. The mail facilities and railroad facilities were not then as now. From that day to this great changes have taken place; but I do think it is the smallest business this country can engage in to run in opposition to the seed merchants with money out of the public Treasury. Therefore I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. HILL. It appears to me the bill in its oresent shape will destroy the usefulness of the Dept of Agriculture. It provides that it shall only purchase seeds, &c., not common to the U.S. within 4 years of the purchase. It does not say particular kinds of wheat or corn, but all plants, all grains; all kinds that have been cultivated shall be deemed common. Now, I would like to know what is to be purchased under this bill by the Commissioner. He cannot purchase wheat because almost all kinds of wheat have been commonly cultivated. Now, it was suggested the other day by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DELANo) that the usefulness of this Dept is in transmitting from one portion of the country to another seeds that have, so to speak, been worn out, but which by a change of climate may be made to produce much more bounti fully. The benefit to the country from that practice which the Dept has been carrying out has been very great.
Mr. DONNELLY. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. DONNELLY. I thoroughly concur in the purpose of the Gentfrom Kentucky in offering this bill. It is, as I understand, to prevent the Dept of Agriculture from degenerating into a mere seed store. There is no doubt very just cause of complaint on that score, but it seems to me this bill would go too far. It is crude and imperfect. Now, the difference between certain portions of the territory of the U.S. is in respect to climate and soil as great as between almost any different portions of the world. The difference between the southern portion of the U.S and the northern is as great as regards climate and soil as between Europe and the U.S. I think therefore that a bill that would utterly eixcloude everything but foreign seeds would be move that the bill be recommitted to the ComAg. The chairman of that committee in the bill to which he referred this morning has incorporated a proviso which I think would elevate the Dept to new usefulness, making it the duty of the Dept to superintend, transmit, and exchange the seeds from one portion of the country to the other, a work of itself of great magnitude and of great use, but which it seems to me would be utterly prevented by the passage of this bill. I j'. that motion if it is in order, with leave to the committee to report at any time.
The SPEAKER. That motion cannot be made until the Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. I?ITTER) surrenders the floor.
Mr. KELLEY. Will the Gentfrom Kentucky yield?
Mr. KELLEY. I hope this bill will be passed. I regard it as one of the most revolutionary that has been introduced.
Mr. KELLEY. It proposes to break up settled habits of the people, and is therefore, if not radical, certainly revolutionary. For 6 years I have been in the habit of sending to my constituents china asters, sweet williams, pinks, and a long list of simple flower seeds, as contributions from the Agricultural Dept, and I know nothing that would more astonish them than to get the seed of a new flower or one from a distant country.
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, hollyhocks in great abundance, single and douif. but always out of the same bag, which has doubtless been on hand since 1860. I therefore regard the bill as a revolutionary one, and as a Radical I give it my hearty, support. I regret exceedingly that the chairman of the Agricultural Committee could not report his bill to reorganize the Dept today.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I would suggest to the gentleman whether, under this bill, any flowers can be purchased.
Mr. KELLEY. If that be so, it would be so much the greater economy, for I doubt whether the Dept would purchase any that are valuable or novel, so devoted are its agents to the old catalogue. I hope the bill will pass and any other bill contracting the power of this Dept until it can be reorganized so that of the many 1000s of dollars we appropriate to it some few tens of them may go to some useful purpose.
Mr. RITTER. Mr. Speaker, I cannot claim the credit of originating this bill, for the subject has been before Congress since 1862, at the time the Dept of Agriculture was established. I therefore am not desirous of claiming honors I am not entitled to. Now, sir, as I remarked before, Congress very clearly in passing the law establishing this Dept of Agriculture confined the business of the Dept to new and rare seeds, showing conclusively that they did not intend the Dept should purchase and distribute the common seeds of the country. They had no idea of making it a depot for the purpose of distributing seeds. Sir, in 1865 the Dept purchased seeds amounting to $28,000, and the putting up of those seeds in little paper or cotton bags cost upward of 40,000 dollars. The gentleman knows that they might have been put up at a less cost. The largest proportion of the business of the Dept is done in the furnishing of the common seeds of the country; and everybody knows that a large proportion of the seeds furnished do not germinate, do not come up at all. It requires a large expenditure of money to provide for the distribution of these seeds, and it is well known that the seeds when received amount to notining. But the gentleman says that we want this Dept of Agriculture as a channel of exchange between one part of the country and another. Well, sir, after an article of seed goes into the ground throughout the country for 4 years it certainly becomes a matter of importance to the country, but it will not be wanted through the Dept of Agricult ure, for it can be obtained through the ordinary channels. Of the important seeds that are distributed over the country this Dept sends out a very small amount, as the gentleman very well knows. I do not deem it necessary to detain the House any longer by remarks upon this subject. It is one that seems to have engaged the attention of every Congress, and therefore I move the previous question upon the bill.
Mr. MORRILL. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. MORRILL. I desire to call the attention of the Gentfrom Kentucky to the phraseology of this bill, and I would inquire whether it is in the language of the head of the Dept of Agriculture or in the language of the ComAg? One clause of it reads as follows: “Seeds and flowers that have been generally cultivated or raised in a majority of the U.S. ”
Mr. RITTER. That is a mistake, and it can be corrected.
Mr. MORRILL. There are several other little mistakes, and I hope that the bill will be recommitted, so as to. the gentleman an opportunity of revising the language. Until it is revised the bill should certainly not be passed.
Mr. RITTER. I understand that, it is clear enough for the gentleman to understand it, and any mistakes in grammar can be corrected here after. I insist on the previous question.
Mr. HILL. I move to lay the bill on the table.
Skip Skip The question was put, and there were ayes 45, noes 33; no quorum voting. Mr. WENTWORTH called for tellers.
Mr. MORRILL. I hope the Gentfrom Kentucky will withdraw the previous question and allow this bill to be recommitte committee with authority to report at any time, provided that it shall not interfere with the morning hour.
Mr. ALLISON. I object, for the reason that this committee has the morning hour tomor row.
Skip Skip Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I object. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. HILI, and RITTER were appointed. The House divided, and the tellers reported ayes 61, noes 48. So the bill was laid on the table. to his. s o r Mr. Hill mtRtv the bill was laid on the table; on the table. The latermotion was agreed to. MESSAGE REOM THE PRESIDENT.
Mr.WuuMG. Moore Communicated to the House of otoiYes a message in writing fion the POTUS MASACREATFORT PEHL. REARNEY.
Mr. D9NNoY., by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read considered and agreed to: Rolved.Thatthe SecyInterior be, andisherebrye, questedto furnish to this House such information as he may have in his possession inlation, fo re. the late massasre of U.S. troops at FortPhil.Kearney, and the causes which produced the same a;nd also as to the causes which, in judgment, his haveled to the Presentalarming condition of our relations with the Indian tribes of the interior. INDIAN DEPREDATIONS IN OREGON, ETC. On motion of Mr. WINDOM, the ComIndAffrs, were discharged from the further consideration of House bill No. 1023, to indemnify the citizens of the Territory of Washington and State of Oregon for property destroyed by Indians in the years 1855 and 1856; and the same was laid on the table. INDIAN AFFAIRS IN ARIZONA. On motion of Mr. WINDOM, the ComIndAffrs were also discharged from the further consideration of House bill No. 29, for the better organization of Indian affairs in Arizona Territory; and the same was laid on the table. DR. F. P. CULVER. On motion of Mr. WINDOM, the ComIndAffrs were also discharged from the further consideration of House bill No. 769, for the relief of Dr. F. P. Culver, late the special agent and commissioner to negotiate a treaty.certain Indian tribes; and the same was laid on the table. INDIANS IN NORTHERN CALIFOIRNIA.
Mr. WINDOM also, from the ComIndAffrs, reported back House bill No. 572, in relation to Round valley and other Indian reservations in northern California, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The substitute was read, as follows: A bill to provide for the care and maintenance of dians in northern California. the Be it enacted by the Senate and HoRep of tho, U.S.A., in Congress assembledT.hat the SecyInterior be, and he is hereby, authorized to adopt such measures as he, may deem necessaryfor the public interest, in order to obtain possession of the whole or so much As he may deem advisable of Round valley, in Men docine county, California, and render the reservation now established there of suitable proportions to answerthe purpose of a homefor the protection and maintenance of so many of the Indians in northern California as it may be public found compatible with the interest to locate on said reservation; and to this end he is hereby empowered to fix the limits of the said reservation at such averagedistance, not to exceedten miles from the border of the said valley and circumjacent thereto, as he maydetermine; and to purchase the improvementsbelonging to settlers in order to acquire full and complete possession o all the land within the limits so established. Sec. 2. Abife: That the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same, is hereby, appropriated out of an money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the purpose of enabling the SecyInterior to carry into effect the provisions of and, this act of any other existing law authorizing him to establish a reservation in riod, northern California: ProThat no liabilities shall be incurred under this act in excess of the amount hereby appropriated.
Mr. MORRILL. As this bill provides for an appropriation, should it not be 1st considered in ComWhole?
The SPEAKER. It is an appropriation bill; and if the gentleman insists upon his point of order, it must go to the ComWhole.
Mr. WINDOM. I ask the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] to withdraw his point of order until the Gentfrom California [Mr. ocan explain the bill.
Mr. MORRILL. I will reserve my point of order for the Present.
Mr. SPALDING. I object to the consideration of this bill unless it be referred to the ComWhole on the state of the Union.
The SPEAKER. The point of order being made, the bill, as it contains an o propriation, must go to the ComW. e on the state of the Union.
Mr. BIDWELL. When will the bill come up for action?
The SPEAKER. Probably not during this session, except under a suspension of the rules by a 2/3rds vote, when that motion is in order.
Mr. BIDWELL. Can the rules be suspended on any Monday to take it up?.
The SPEAKER. At this period of the session it is impossible for the Chair to state when any Monday will be open for a suspension of the rules.
Mr. BIDWELL. I hope the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] will withdraw his objection.
The SPEAKER. The bill will be referred to the ComWhole on the state of the Union. INSPECTION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.
Mr. WINDOM. I am instructed by the committee to move to strike out “complies” and insert “comply.”
Mr. WINDOM. I am also instructed to move to add the following to section 7: And with such other regulations and conditions as may be Prescribedby the board of inspection hereby created.
Mr. MORRILL. I ask the Gentfrom Minnesota to yield, to have this bill printed. It involves a large annual expenditure, and I am sure a bill as important as this should be fully understood.
Mr. WINDOM. I should be glad to yield to have it printed if it will not prevent its bein acted upon at this session of Congress. I will yield to have it printed if I shall have leave to call it up at any time.
Mr. MORRILL. Will it not involve the country in an annual expenditure of $100,000?
Mr. WINDOM. It will do no such thing. Mr. Speaker, I will say in answer to the gentleman that the bill does involve an expenditure of $40,000, but will save half as many millions, as I believe can be shown by an investigation.
The SPEAKER. The bill will be pending at the expiration of the morning hour and will go over until tomorrow.
Mr. SCHENCR. I wish to make one remark. This is, sir, as the Gentfrom Ver mont has said, an important bill, containing a great deal of detail in relation to the organization of the Indian Bureau, and involving a new system of operations in some degree. I dare say, though read at the Clerk's desk as it is, it will be impossible to follow it understandingly; I dare say it is framed with a view to inaugu rating a reform in that bureau. It is a long bill, which we ought to act on with at ull comprehension of its scope and effect, and for that reason, if for no other, it ought not to be carried through under the previous question. In addition to that I wish to remark there is a bill pending now in this House transferring all that relates to the charge of the Indians to the War Dept. The matter has been fully under consideration by the Military Committee, and I am directed to report in favor of that bill with some few amendments. Here, then, will come into conflict a question to be Presented to this House, whether it is not time to take the responsibility from one and transfer it to another Dept of the Government. I shall be glad on that account if this bill should not be acted on without being printed, so the 2 propositions may be considered together. We make a radical reform by transferring the Indian Bureau to the War Dept, where it was at 1st, from its Present place, where it cannot be denied it has become a den of thieves.
Mr. SPALDING. Has not this bill already passed the Senate.
Mr. WINDOM. It was printed at the last session. I have no objection to the printing of the bill. I move that the bill and amendments be printed. The motion to print was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and the bill goes over. FRAZER, TRENHOLM AND COMPANY.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep of the U.S.: In compliance with a resolution of the HoRep of the 7th instant in relation to the attempted compromise of certain suits instituted in the English courts in behalf of the U.S. against Frazer, Tren holm & Co., alleged agents of the socalled confederate government, I transmit a report from the SecyState and the documents by which it was accomNpanoiewd. JOHNSON. WASHINGToN, January 28, 1867. On motion of Mr. DEMING, the message and accompanying documents were referred to the ComForAffrs, and ordered to be printed. AMERICAN PROTESTANT CHAPEI, AT ROME. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep of the U.S.: I transmit herewith a report from the SecyState in answer to the resolution of the HoRep of the 24th instant. ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGTON, January 29, 1867. To the President: The SecyState, to whom was referred a resolution of the HoRep, passed on the 24th of January, 1867, requesting the President, if not inconsistent with the public interest, to gommunicate to the HoRep any information which may have been received by the Government in relation to a removal of the Protestant church or religious assembly meeting at the Aluerican embassy from the city of Rome by an It has. I have examined the Senate H order of that Government, has the honor to report that the Dept of State has received no information concerning the subjectinquired of in said resolution. the WILLIAM H. SEWARD. DEPTof STATE, WASHINGTON, January 29, 1867. The message and accompanying document were referred to the ComForAffrs, and ordered to be printed. NewOrleans RIOT.
The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message from the POTUS: To the HoRep res: In compliance with the resolution of the HoRep of the 12th ultimo and its request of the 28th instant for all correspondence, reports, and information in my possession in relation to the riot which occurred in the city of NewOrleans on the 30th day of July last, I transmit herewith copies of tele graphic dispatches upon the subject, and reports from the SecyWar, with the papers accompanying the same.. " ANDREWJOHNSON. WASHINGToN, January 29, 1867. On motion of Mr. ELIOT, the message and accompanying papers were referred to the select Committee on the NewOrleans Riot, and ordered to be printed. COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE REPORT.
Mr. PERHAM, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the bill providing for the payment of pensions, submitted the following report: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votesof the 2 HOuses on the amendmentsof the Senate to the amendment of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.69) to Jayment provide for the of pensions, having met, after full and ree conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respectiveHouses, as follows: That the Senate recedefrom their 1st amendment to the amendmentof the House, and agree to the same with an amendmentas follows: Strike out the word 'October” and insert “July.” Strike out all after the word “act” in of the House amendment line 11 to the end of said amend Inent. That the Senate recedefrom their 2ndamondment to the amendment of the House, and in lieu thereof agree tosionsof all otherinpseenrtsitohne awgoerndtss“naonwd the commis in office shall continue for 4 years from the passage of this act, unlesssuch agentsaresooner removed.” SIDNEY PERHAM, J. P. BENJAMIN, NELSON TAYLOR, Managersonthepart of the Llouse. H. S. LANF, L. TRUMBULL, C. R. BUCKALEW, Managersonthepart of the Senate.
Skip Skip The report was agreed to. Mr. PERHAM mtRtv the report was agreed t;o on the table. agreed to. DEFENSE OF NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the ComPrintg, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved.That there beprinted for the use of the House 3,000 extra copies of the majority and minority reports of the ComForAffrs on the bill providing for the defenseof the northeasternfrontier. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the same committee, reported the following resolution, which was read, considered, and agreed to Resolved, That therebe printed for the use of the Treasury dept 1,000 copies of report of the J. Ross Browne upon themineral resources of the States and Territories west of the Rocky mountains. CI, ERK TO A COMMITTEE.
Mr. LAFLIN, from the same committee, offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the ComPrinting be authorized to employ a clerk.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. LAFLIN] is entitled to the floor upon his resolution.
Mr. CONKLING. How long do you want your clerk?
Mr. LAFLIN. For this session; and I may say further, lest some gentleman may suppose that this resolution is introduced in the interest of some member of the committee, that we have no person in view for the position, and that if the resolution pass, we shall have to seek a man to fill it. now move 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. LAFLIN mtRtv the resolution was passed; on the table. agreed to.Mr. LAFLIN also mtRtv the various resolutions reported by him from the ComPrintg were agreed to; on the table. agreed to. ADVertising IN THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN.
Mr. UPSON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the ComPrinting be requested to inquire, and report under what law the advertisementfor proposalsfor paper for the public is published in the National Republican of 18city.
Mr. UPSON mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. PRINTING THE ARMY REGISTER.
Mr. ANCONA, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which went to the ComPrintg under the law, namely: Resolved, That there be printed for the useof the House 2,000 copies each of the Army Registers for the years 1866and 1867. INDIAN DePIREDATIONS IN Orix; ON. A GAIN. On motion of Mr. WINDOM, by unanimous consent, House bill No. 1023, to indemnify the citizens of the Territory of Washington and State of Oregon for property destroyed by Indians in the years 1855 and 1856, which was reported upon adversely this morning by the ComIndAffrs, was taken from the table, and recommitted to the ComIndAffrs. APPROPRIATION BILLS.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering the appropriation bills. The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. PoxiK.Roy in the chair.) PENSION APPROPRIATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN. The 1st business in order is the House bill No. 903, making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the U.S. for the year ending June 30, 1868. On motion of Mr. STEVENS, the 1st reading of the bill was dispensed with by unanimous consent. The Clerk then proceeded to read the bill for amendments. The bill appropriates for the payment of pensions for the year ending the 80th of June, 1868, as follows: For invalid pensions under various acts, $10,000,000. For pensions of widows, children, mothers and sisters of soldiers, under various acts, and for compensation to pension agents and expenses of agencies. $23,000,000. For Navy pensions to widows, children, mothers and sisters, as provided by various acts, and to be paid from the Navy pension fund, $280,000. No amendment being offered, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the House. coxsul AR, ETC., ApproPRIATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN. The next bill in order is House bill No. 904 making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the 1st reading of this bill be dispensed with.
Mr. SLOAN. I object. The bill was then read at length. The Clerk then proceeded to read the bill by clauses for amendment. The following clause was read: For salaries of envoys extraordinary, ministers, and commissionersof the U.S. at GreatBritain, France, Russia, Prussia, Spain, Austria, Brazil, Republic of Mexico, China, Italy, Chili, Peru, Switzerland, Rome, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Turkey, NewGrenada, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua, SandwichIslands, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argontine Confederation Paraguay, and Salvador, $301,000.
Mr. MAYNARD. I have that act before me, and I desire to ask the gentleman whether he supposes that the effect of that provision was to repeal the general consular and diplo matic act regulating our foreign relations, passed, I believe, in 1856, which act provides for a minister resident at Portugal, and fixes his salary. If the provision in. act of last year does not have the effect to repeal the act of 1856, then I desire to inquire whether simply leaving the name of this minister out of the appropriation bill will do anything more than throw over the payment of this officer, provided for as an item in a deficiency 111. I will remark further, if the gentleman will allow me, that I have no doubt that either the executive or the legislative dept of the Goverment may with propriety object in the most emphatic manner to continuing in an official position abroad one who would slander or abuse or in any way misrePresent that particular dept of the Government. I can conceive why the Executive should refuse to accredit any officer who would so misrePresent that dept. It seems to me that we may with equal propriety refuse to appropriate money to pay a man who abuses and misrepresents the legislative dept of the government. But I desire to inquire of the gentleman whether in his opinion the act of last session repeals the act of 1856, to which I have referred, and if it does not, whether the omission of the appropriation from this bill does not simply throw over the item to be provided for in a deficiency bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I suppose that the act to which I have just referred is a legitimate enactment. This Congress declares that so long as this man retains the position he shall have no pay; and if this is not a sufficient hint for him and for the Government I do not know what would be. There is a general continuing provision of law that this man shall receive no money; and 1 propose that we shall do now as we did last year omit from the appropriation bill any provision for his payment as minister abroad. If he chooses to stay there till doomsday let him do so. I think that out of the country is the best place for him to be.
Mr. MAYNARD. submit to the gentleman whether the object he has in view will be accomplished in that way. Suppose that we should refuse to make provision for the pay ment of this officer, either in the regular appropriation bill or in a deficiency bill; if he so apply to the Court of Claims will not that court, in executing the law, be compelled to render judgment in his favor, which will be a charge upon the Treasury?
Mr. STEVENS. I do not see how the Court of Claims could render judgment in opposition to a direct act of Congress declaring that a man oecupying a particular place shall be paid nothing. Suppose under the act to which the gentleman refers it had been provided the minister at Portugal should be paid $800, and Congress afterward passed a law he should not be paid anything, or not that repeal the substantial part of the 1st law?
Mr. MAYNARD. I fail to make myself understood by the chairman of the ComAppropriat. The question I Pool goes behind that. Does the act of the last session have any other effect than to suspend the payment of the salary for that year, leaving the law afterward to be revived in full force 2
Mr. STEVENS. The act to which I refer is a general act. So far as this salary is concerned the committee of conference of the 2 Houses at the last session thought it best to put it in this shape.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Harvey was appointed before it was known, and when it was known the Republican Senators went in a body and asked the President to remove him.
Mr. RAY MOND. The whole of them all the Republican Senators?
Mr. STEVENS. I think so the large majority of them.
Mr. HALE. Let me ask a question. I understand one of the charges made against Mr. Harvey is that he communicated information to the enemy at the breaking out of the war. I understand it is said by the chairman of the committee those facts were brought to the attention of Mr. Lincoln by a body of Republican members of Congress, who urged his removal on that ground, and on those facts he declined to remove him from office. I wish to inquire of the chairman of the ComAppropriat whether he charges President Lincoln with complicity either after or before in the treasonable conduct of Mr. Harvey.
Mr. STEVENS. I did not say that the appropriation was stricken out on that account: I said it was on account of the letter. Then I went on to describe who Harvey was, and stated that Mr. Lincoln did not know of his having written this letter when he appointed him, and being a good natured man he never wanted to remove anybody after he had appointed him. I do not think, Mr. approved of him at all, but he had not the heart to turn out a man whom he had put there. And while I am up allow me to say that the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMoND) rather perverts the grounds upon which I put it. I did not put it on the ground of exPressing opinions God knows we should remove a good many if we did but on the ground of vulgar abuse of Congress; not because he supported the policy of the President and opposed that of Congress, but because he acted like a black guard. I have sent for the letter in order that the House may understand it, and after it is read I will move to pass this over.
Mr. HALE. Will my colleague allow me a single question, following out what he has already said 2
Mr. HALE. My question is this: whether when this subject was Presented to Mr. Lincoln the gentleman is not satisfied that Mr. Lincoln was convinced that the charges against Mr. Harvey were unfounded, otherwise he would. have been removed?
Mr. MAYNARD. Before the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMoND] resumes his seat, I desire to make an inquiry of him. I have heard it stated, but I do not know how true it is, and I call the attention of the gentleman to it, believing that he may perhaps be able to verify or refute the statement, that a dispateh was found in the telegraph office of this city, in the handwriting of Mr. Harvey, and addressed to the Governor of SCarolina, which dispatch was prepared and sent with the privity of the Administration of Mr. Lincoln, and perhaps of the Dept; that the object was not clandestinely or secretly to prevent Fort Sumter from being reen. forced, but to let the rebels have full knowledge of the intentions of the Government so that if a collision occurred they would be put clearly and manifestly in the wrong before the country in making war upon the garrison which we were endeavoring to succor. I have heard that explanation given of the conduct of Mr. Harvey, and also that Mr. Harvey was selected for the purpose by reason of his being a SCarolinian. The question I desire to ask of tue Gentfrom NewYork is, whether the information in his possession tends to confirm or to refute those statements.
Mr. RAY MONI). I am unable to say any. thing about that, because I have no personal knowledge of the facts of oo". the case. under guator thatMr. Harvey was not the of the dispatch referred to by the gentleman, but that it was sent through him because he was known at the time to be the Washington correspondent of a Charleston paper and acquainted with prominent persons in SCarolina, as well as the gentleman to whom the dispatch was addressed; of that, however, I am not sure.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I understand the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SchENck] to insinuate that this gentleman, Mr. Harvey, belongs to the “bread and butter brigade.” I understand that he was one of the appointees of Mr. Lincoln, and I was not aware that the “bread and butter brigade” was organized at that time. I would like to hear from the gentleman at that point. p
Mr. SCHENCR. The political army is like other armies. There are deserters from it as from other armies. This “bread and butter brigade” to which I have referred only for the purpose of characterizing Mr. Harvey as one of those composing it, has been made up of recruits from not only the Republican party and the Democratic party, but even from among the very men “'. to civil or even military stations by the Administration that preceded this and by the party to which these men have proved renegade. There is no necessity for bandying words about this matter. Many a “bread and butter” man has gone from the Republican party, and may have enjoyed its honors. The only thing that can be said of such is that they are more detestable than any others, because they have fallen from a higher estate. [Laughter] It did not need perhaps that a Democrat should go down very much lower than he was in order to take a position in this “bread and butter brigade.” But let a man in a higher position fall, and it is very much like the fall of woman the best of all God's gifts or as a gentleman suggests, very much like the fall of Lucifer himself, the depth of whose plunge into hell was just in proportion to the height of those battlements of heaven from which he was precipitated. But this is aside from the question of which I was speaking. I say the only way in which we can effectually reach any man sent abroad by the Executive, in the exercise of his prerogative as Chief Magistrate, to rePresent the country, is to deny the supplies for paying any such man; and the committee have very properly taken the only course that was open to them in this case.
Mr. STEVENS. I have sent to the Clerk the original letter of Mr. Harvey, and I. ask the part which relates to Congress be react.
Mr. STEVENS. I will not ask the Clerk to read any further.
Mr. BANKS, Mr. NIBLACK, and others. Let the whole letter be read.
The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. Pomeroy.) The Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEvoNs,) who has the floor, has the right to say how much of the document shall be read.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I see, on looking at the Blue Book, that Minister Harvey is set down to the credit of Pennsylvania. I have been informed that he is a citizen of SCarolina, and never did hail from the State which I have the honor in part to rePresent.
Mr. STEVENS. The fact is, he roamed about, wrote letters, and insinuated himself among the men of the lobby here. Why he should have been appointed minister to Por tugal, with a salary of $7, 500 a year, I do not know.
Mr. STEVENS. He charges that we are conspiring to rule or ruin the country; that we are worse than the infamous Duke of Alva. I ask whether those charges do not justify my epithets?
Mr. RAYMOND. The question is pertinent, but I think it betrays a sensitiveness on the part of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania I did not expect he would display. Mr. Harvey in these passages makes no allusion to Congress. He alludes to partisans and partisans only. He says nothing about Congress. If the gentlemau from Pennsylvania applies the term to himself, it is only the “galled jade” that is likely to wince.
Mr. Harvey commences his letter by an attack upon Congress.
Mr. RAYMOND. if I understand it, in the beginning of the letter Mr. Harvey exPresses regret a collision has arisen between the President and Congress; and then he goes on to speak of the divergence of opinion, not between those 2 merely, but of that which prevails in the country. He speaks of the country at large and the divisions in the country, and uses phrases not stronger than I have heard upon this floor many times without exception.
Mr. STEVENS. if I understand the gentleman then, because he slanders the whole country it is not personal in regard to congress of Mr. RAY MOND. If I had understood that it is because he speaks disrespectfully of the whole country that his salary is to be stopped I should consider the remark more pertinent. He may have spoken disrespectfully of the country, and he may have committed the enormity to which Sydney Smith alludes, in speaking disrespect. fully of the equator; but I submit his salary should not be stopped on that account.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman allow me here to say that we have received a communication from the State Dept exPressly stating that the President directed it to be made public.
Mr. SCHENCK. Well, sir, the President ordered it to be published; then by my vote the President shall not keep a man at Lisbon or anywhere else to write these partisan tirades to go back to the people of Portugal in order to have them understand what the rePresentative of our Government thinks about our squabbles at home.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would like to make this suggestion to the gentleman; that as it is understood that this was a private letter writ ten to the SecyState, not intended to be published, but was made public by the SecyState and published by order of the President, we may make a mistake in cutting off the salary of this minister; that we ought rather to stop the pay of the President or of the SecyState or of the Gentfrom NewYork. [Laughter]
Mr. SCHENCK. Well, sir, it will not be a bad thing perhaps in some way to stop the President's pay. time. [Laughter] A MEMBER. How about that of the Gentfrom NewYork?
Mr. SCHENCK. That is not the question before us.
Mr. RAYMOND. I would suggest whether my connection with the publication is not part of the inducement by which Congress voted me $2,000 extra pay last year. [Laughter]
Mr. SCHENCK. I cannot say whether it Was or not.
Mr. STEVENS. I understand it was given to the Gentfrom NewYork as an outfit for the convention at Philadelphia. [Great laughter]
Mr. RAYMOND. I accept the explanation, and I am free to admit that the service I performed was worth all the pay I received for it. [Laughter]
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish this matter, so far as I am concerned, to be mixed up with anything that is aside from the question. I put it distinctly upon the broad ground that the rePresentative of our country, whatever may be the difficulties at home or the differences about our domestic affairs, ought to rePresent it as a unit, and that when he, either directly or through the agency of those who send him, is used as a medium to bring such tirades before the world, it is time to say to those who placed him there, “We will pay no such man, we will make no provision for his support there, and you had better reconsider the matter so far as the mission to Portugal is concerned, and send somebody else who will deport himself in a more becoming manner.”
Mr. HILL. I rise to a question of order. I wish to know if we are not acting under the operation of the 5 minutes rule?
The CHAIRMAN. The 5 minutes rule has not been adopted. Mr. No. I will yield now for a o to ISE, the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr.
Mr. KASSON. I wish to say, in behalf of the committee and by the wish of its chairman, that it will very soon be necessary to rise and close this debate unless the 5 minutes rule shall be adopted by unanimous consent.
Mr. NIBLACK. I will not prolong the discussion much. I will yield only to the Gentfrom Kentucky.
Mr. HISE. I have but a few words to say. I understand the Gentfrom Pennsylvania to assume as the basis of his remarks that there is no law existing that precludes the right of Congress to withhold an appropriation for the payment of a minister abroad whose H. opinions are opposed to those of house. Now, this sir, I have a pretty distinct recollection that during the 1st year of Mr. Pierce's administration there was a law passed by Congress by which the pay of all the ministers to Europe, and also, I think, to Central and South America, was established. The Constitution. gives the President the right to appoint ministers to foreign Governments, and the or compensation to aid to the ministers at be
Mr. SCHENCK,: that the only g toata only way in which the law of Congress makes a recognition of and establishes those missions is by making an appropriation.
Mr. HISE. No, sir. That law legalized all these missions and fixed a salary for the minister at the Court of GreatBritain, of France, and of Spain, and of all the other ministers. It was not a mere temporary act of appropriation, but a permanent law, fixing the salaries which these gentlemen were to receive. Now, would it be acting in good faith would it not be perfidious on the part of Congress after legalizing these offices and fixing the compensation which is attached to them, to refuse to make the appropriation for one of the incumbents? Would it be lawful? Would it be honest? This man is in office under the law, and is, for aught I know, in the faithful discharge of the duties of his position shall we, on account of a political difference in opinion with him, turn round and refuse to make the appropriation necessary to pay his salary as provided by law? shall it be said that we have a minister rendering services at this Court of Portugal, appointed under the law at a fixed compensation, who receives no pay because he happens to differ from the majority here in his political opinions? Are gentlemen here prepared to establish the principle, or to advocate it, that now and forever here after they will by this means control the executive patronage of the Government; that they will resort to this practice of striking out the appropriation for an officer, either civil or diplo matic, because he belongs to a different party from their own? What is this letter oil. has been read? It is but an exPression of political opinion in a letter addressed to the SecyState.
Mr. NIBLACK. I must now resume the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope the gentleman will move that the committee rise for the purpose of closing debate. We have been “running emptins” for the last hour.
Mr. Van Bu ren's letter was addressed to a foreign minister; and it was, perhaps, upon that ground that the Senate refused to confirm him, and that he was recalled. Now, I want the country to know, because there is an important principle involved, whether or not the party in, power have reached that degree of partisan forceness that they are prepared, in order to control the executive patronage, to withhold appropriations, and refuse to provide for the payment of officers of the Government whose salaries are fixed by law in order to get rid of them 2
Mr. LYNCH. I wish to know whether the fact that this man at the beginning of the war sent a telegram to persons in SCarolina, notifying them of a secret expedition fitted out by the Government for the relief of Fort Sum ter, is not, in the opinion of the gentleman, a sufficient reason why we should refuse to continue him in office, or if we cannot procure his removal, refuse to appropriate money to pay Hl.
Mr. NIBLACK. Mr. Chairman, the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. LYNCH] has not, I think, heard this debate or he would not ask that question. The Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BANKs] has already stated
Mr. LYNCH. With the gentleman's permission, I wish to say a single word in regard to the explanation made by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, which was that this tele gram was probably sent by Mr. Harvey by the advice or with the connivance of the Adminis tration for the purpose of letting the southern rebels know that we were going to fight. Now, it will be recollected that there was a secret expedition sent out by the Government, and that in consequence of the receipt of this tele gram the rebels opened their bombardment. I ask, is it probable that the Administration, having sent a secret expedition right into the jaws of the rebel batteries, would have taken means to send by an agent here a notification which would induce the rebels to open fire upon our vessels? To my mind the explanation of the Gentfrom Massachusetts is the most improbable that could be given.
Mr. NIBLACK. Mr. Chairman, if the objection which the Gentfrom Maine urges against. Minister Harvey is a valid one, then his pay ought to have been withheld 6 years ago. But, sir, whether or not the objection be a good one, the party rePresented by the majority in this House are estopped from making that objection now, because so long as that party had possession of all the depts of the Government it continued him in office. The occurrence to which the gentleman alludes happened soon after
Mr. Harvey's appointment, but before he left the country. With a full knowledge of all the facts Mr. Lincoln's administration declined to recall him, and sent him abroad on his mission. The suggestions of the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. LYNch] are unfortunate for a friend of the late Administra.tion.
Mr. HISE. I desire to ask the Gentfrom Indiana whether the Present SecyState did not some time ago, in writing to our minister at Paris, and instructing him to make explanations to the French Government in regard to the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine, request our minister to inform Napoleon that the action of this House furnished an indication of its sentiment, but was not to be regarded at all as having any control or influence over the executive dept of the Government of this country. And if the salary of this minister to Portugal is to be withheld on account of the letter which has been read, is not that dispatch of Mr. Seward an equally strong reason why Congress should make no appropriation for the salary of the SecyState?
Mr. NIBLACK. I thank the gentleman for his suggestion; but I cannot allow myself to digress for the purpose of discussing that view of the question now. The object which I had in view in offering this amendment was to have it understood why we are asked to depart from what has been heretofore the uniform practice of Congress, so far as I know, in making aptoo. of this kind. As has been well said by some gentlemen who preceded me, if we desire to get rid of this minister unconditionally we have but to abolish the office; and I think this, in all fairness, is the proper way to meet the question. So long as fo minister is permitted to reside abroad, rePresenting this country, I do think we owe it to ourselves to see that he is paid, and to look somewhere else for a remedy if we are dissatisfied with the minister. Nothing that has been said here is sufficient to induce me vote to withhold the salary of this gentleman or any other gentleman under like circumstances. I do not think it is legitimate political warfare, and will establish a precedent that will demoralize our institutions and degrade us as a people.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope, by unanimous consent, the rest of this bill will be considered under the 5 minute rule.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the gentleman allow a vote to be taken on this question in the House 7.
Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection at all.
Mr. ELDRIDGE. Then we make no objection to the 5 minute rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Then by common consent the amendment will be considered adopted, so that a vote may be taken on it in the House.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Is it in order to move to strike out “Rome?”
Mr. WILLIAMS. I make that motion, and I desire only to say I know no sufficient reason why our Government should have diplomatic relations with a foreign hierarchy. The last information we have had, although it does not come in an official form, is of the removal of the American Protestant church outside of the city of Rome. I do not know whether the Papal Government, comprising now no more than the city of Rome, is anything more than an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. There is no resident here from the Papal States, and I should like the chairman of the committee to give the reason why we should be rePresented by a minister resident at the Papal court.
Mr. STEVENS. If the gentleman had waited I should myself have moved an amendment striking out the word “ltome” and inserting what I will send to the Chair.
The Clerk read as follows: Strike out Rome at the end of line 15, and insert as follows: Whereas it is beneath the dignity and contrary to justice that this nation should be rePresented at any Court or ship by Governmentwhich prohibits freewor American citizens within its jurisdiction of the christian religion; and whereasthe Roman govteornbmeent has lately, ordered the American churches ofree exerciseoby them tohfe ctihtye aCnhdripsrtoiahnibirteeldigtiohne therein: Therefore no money hereby appropriated shall be paid for the support of the U.S. i: at Rome or for the future expensesof such
Mr. WILLIAMS. I accept that amendment as a modification of my own.
Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask whether the same line of argument does not apply to the Court of Constantine ple and the Court of Spain, and whether the tyrannical exercise of power by the Mussulmans toward the Christians is not as just a basis for legislastion toward that Court as that which we are now considering. And I will ask the gentleman whether the rule which he is now seeking to break down at Rome has not been in existence for centuries, and did not exist at the time our mission to that Court was established. I wish gentlemen to draw a line just here, and to take into consideration that at Rome exclusion by reason of faith is the established rule of the Government. Let us not act in the very face of existing institutions established at Rome and recognized by us before any minister was sent there.
Mr. STEVENS. I will answer the gentleman's question, as I suppose he wants an answer. In Constantine ple the exercise of the Christian religion is perfectly protected, and I am not aware it is prohibited in Spain. And it is only lately that our churches have been excluded from Rome I think within 6 months. I saw recently by the London papers that our churches had been removed outside of the walls of Rome.
Mr. CHANLER. We all know that the Christians of the Empire of Turkey are subjected to the most tyrannical opPression. The existing revolution in Crete is the result of the ion by Turkey of the Christians of that island.
Mr. STEVENS. I have not risen to defend Turkey, but only to say that in the city of Constantine ple the exercise of the Christian reli gion is allowed. I think we have several churches there.
Mr. BANKS. If there were any official information in the possession of the House that would justify changing our relations with the city of Rome I would not object to it, but at Present we have nothing but the reports of newspapers. We have sent for information, but it has not yet been given to us. This can be passed over now and taken up and acted on hereafter. I hope the House will not agree to any amendment until we have official information on the subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Deflate is exhausted on the amendment.
Mr. BROOMALL. I suggest to my colleague to strike out from his amendment the word “worship” where it occurs and insert instead of it the word “exercise.”
Mr. HALE. I move to amend the amendment of the chairman of the committee by striking out the preamble down to and including the word “therefore” and by inserting in lieu thereof the words “provided that.” I do it for the purpose of asking the gentleman whether we have any authentic information which can be depended upon, that there has been any such action by the Government at Rome as is recited in that preamble. I suppose it is merely a matter of newspaper rumor.
Mr. STEVENS. I can only say, while there is no official authority for it, all the newspapers that I have seen contain it; and I saw it in an English paper.
Mr. KASSON. I desire to state that there came today from the State Dept a communication on this subject which has been referred to the ComForAffrs.
Mr. BANKS. I beg leave to state that in that communication, in answer to a resolution of the House, the SecyState says the Dept has no information of any fact of the kind, and I will add that the newspaper reports inform us that the Protestant church has been removed from the city with the consent of the American minister.
Mr. HALE. I trust that my amendment will prevail, and that this recital of supposed facts, which may not be facts, will be stricken out. And more than that, I suggest for the consideration of the gentlemen whether, if it were true that acts of the Papal Government which are considered unjustifiable have deprived the Protestant residents of Rome of the privilege of worshipping in their own way, that is not a controlling reason why our diplo matic relations ought to be continued, we are prepared to follow out this proposition with a measure that shall make, perhaps, casus belli. If we propose to Preserve any peaceful relations whatever with the Government there, it seems to me that we certainly ought to have a minister there, for the very reason that we have Protestant residents at Rome entitled to the protection of their Government, and that they may enjoy their own form of worship at the chapel of the embassy, if not elsewhere. I have seen nothing developed in this debate so far that would justify the adoption of the amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania.
Mr. FINCK. I rise to oppose the amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, and I oppose it in the 1st place because he is trying to induce the House to legislate upon a subject upon which he has no official information. e does not know, nor does the House know anything with certainty in reference to this matter. have no intelligence officially communicated to the Government that the order stated by the public Press has been made by the Papal Government, or that the Protestants of the city of Rome have been ordered to remove their churches outside of the limits of that city. We do not know it as a fact that any such order has been made, neither do we know (if such an order has been made) under what circumstances or for what reasons it was made. Now, I submit that before the House takes any action on this question it ought at least be put in possession of all the facts and of the reasons which operated upon the minds of the authorities at Rome in making the order, if in fact it was really made. For the Gentfrom Pennsylvania to Press this question in the absence of all official information seems to be a mere thrust at the Catholic population of this country and at the authorities at Rome. The gentleman before be asks such action as this ought to be sure of all the facts upon which he bases it. 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, is uo timein which to explain or discuss such a matter as this; but when the question is properly before the House I shall desire to be heard upon it. For the Present I can only say that I trust the amendment of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania will not prevail.
Skip Skip The question being upon Mr. HALE's amendment to the amendment, it was put; and there were ayes 67, noes 30. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise as it is about time to adjourn. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Poxferoy reported that the ComWhole on the State of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and particularly the bill of the House No. 903, making appropriations for the invalid and other pensions of the U.S. for the year ending June 20, 1868, and had instructed him to report the same to the House without amendment. Alsc, that the committee had had under consideration the bill of the House No. 904 making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and had come to ono resolution thereon. PENSION APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. STEVENS. I move the previous question on the pension appropriation bill just reported from the ComWhole on the State of the Union.
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, and passed. Mr. STEVENS mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. Printing Or BiLLs.
Mr. SCHENCK. I wish to give notice that at the proper time I shall offer as a substitute what I send to the Clerk's desk for the bill pending this morning reported from the Indian Committee. I move that the substitute be printed. The motion was agreed to. And then, on motion of Mr. CONRLING (at 4 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.
Skip Skip PETITIONs, Etc. The following petitions, &c., were Presented under the rule, and referred to By the appropriate committees: Mr. BUNDY: The petition, of William Wilson, for compensation for service in the Army, &g. By Mr. BURLEIGH: A memorial of the legislative Assembly of Dakota Territory, praying for an appropriation by Congress to erect a capitol building at theseato: in said Territory. By Mr. COBB: The petitition of citizens of Haven, of Grant county, Wisconsin, against anyGlreen duction of the volume of the currency, By Mr. CONKLING: The petition of citizens of Alden, Erie county, NewYork, praying the impeachment of the President. By Mr. DARLING: The memorial of 1,500 soldiers of the late war who have lost their dischargesor are from other accidental causes debarred from the benefits of the special bounty law, praying that they may be put on the same footing as their more favored comrades. By Mr. NICHOLSON: The petition of Cannon, Olivia W. widow of Joseph S. Cannon, for a pension. By Mr. PAINE: The memorial of Society the Historical of Wisconsin, in favor of Congress the purchase by of the library of Peter Force. By Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts: The petition of E. Stackpole, and 41 others, citizens of keag, Maine, Kendus for in rease of duty on fy'Mr. ScHENCK: imported wool. The petition of tanners, sad. dlers, harness makers, and leather dealers of the 3rd congressional district of Ohio;, praying for a reduction of the tax on the commodities manufactured by them to P. cent. Also, the petition of manufacturers of and dealers in cigars and of growers of leaf tobacco, praying for a change in the tax on cigars. Also, the petition of officers of Army, praying that the commuttahtie on U.S. of the ration Ho be restored to 50 cents. Mr. TAYLOR, of Tennessee: the petition of L. M. Jarvis, F. M. Turner, and others, of Hancock county, Tennessee, against further curtallment of currency and suggesting a modification of whisky tax.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. WEDNESDAY, January 30, 1867. Prayer by Rev. J. W. PARKER, D. D., of Boston, Massachusetts.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Jour nal of yesterday will be read.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I move to dispense with the reading of the Journal.
Mr. GRIMES. I think this practice of dispensing with the reading of the Journal is becoming altogether too frequent, and we may ascertain hereafter that it may probably contain sog wnpleasant for us to read.
Mr. GRIMES. The questions upon which we are acting are too important for me not to know how my name is recorded upon them.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will endeavor to Preserve order so that the reading of the Journal shall be heard.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I move that the reading of the Journal be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is there any objection? It requires unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the Journal.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Objection being made, the Journal will be read, and the Senate will be in order. The Secretary proceeded to read the Jour nal of yesterday, but before concluding was interrupted by Mr. SHERMAN. I move to dispense with the further reading of the Journal.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Objection made, the reading must be proceeded With. The reading of the Journal was then resumed and concluded. CREDENTIALS.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a communication from the SecyState of Alabama, certifying that John Anthony Winston was elected on the 22d of December, 1866, by the Legislature of Ala bama a Senator in Congress from that State for 6 years from the 4th of March, 1867; which was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. NESMITH Presented the credentials of Hon. Henry W. Corbett, elected by the Legislature of the State of Oregon a Senfrom that State for the term of 6 years from the;" March, 1867; which were ordered to be e(1. ADMISSION OF NEBRASIKA WETO.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate the veto message of the POTUS on the bill for the admission of Nebraska into the Union.
Mr. WADE. I move that that message be laid on the table and printed. I do not know that anybody wants it to be read.
Mr. WADE. If anybody insists on the reading or wants it read of course I have no objection. It takes up time, and nobody listens to it.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I ask for the reading of the message.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The bill to which this message refers is now reconsidered, and the question is, shall the bill pass, the objections of the POTUS to the contrary notwithstanding?
Mr. WADE. I move that the message be printed, and laid on the table. The motion was agreed to. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a message from the POTUS communicating, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 7th instant, information upon the subject of an alleged recent emigration of citizens of the U.S. to the dominion of the Sublime Porte for the purpose of settling and acquiring landed property there. The message and accompanying documents, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, were ordered to lie upon the table and be printed. PiriNTING OF A DOCUMENT.
Mr. CRESWELL. The report of the SecyTreasury, in response to a resolution of December 4, 1806, in relation to the amount of money paid or ordered to be paid for advertising notices and proposals for each of the Executive Depts, has not yet been ordered to be printed. I submit a motion that the usual number of copies of that document be printed for the use of the Senate. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. TRUMBULL, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 276) to establish a dept of education, reported it without amendment.
Mr. . from the ComForRel, to whom was referred the bill S.R.No. 457) for the relief of Hiram Paulding, rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, reported it without amendment. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 1051) for the relief of Henry P. Blanchard, reported it without amendment.
Mr. MORGAN, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 1030) to regulate the sale of gold by the SecyTreasury, reported adversely thereon.
Mr. FESSENDEN, from the ComFinance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 918) making appropriations for the service of the postoffice Dept during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, reported it without amendment.
Mr. LANE, from the ComPensions, to whom were referred the following bills, reported them without amendment: A bill (H.R.No. 1044) for the relief of John Gray, a revolutionary soldier; A bill (H.R.No. 1045) for the relief of Daniel Frederick Bakeman, a revolutionary soldier; A bill (H.R.No. 1056) for the relief of Lemuel Worster; A bill (H.R.No. 1054) for the relief of Hiram Hedrick: and A bill (H.R.No. 1052) granting a pension to Mrs. Jane Clements. He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the bill (H.R.No. 1055) for the relief of John Moreau, of Machias, NewYork, and the bill (S.No.1053) granting an increased pension to John J. Sohan, reported them with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred resolutions of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Union of Washington city, in favor of the payment of pensions to those pensioners from whom they were withheld agreeably to the provisions of the law withholding pensions from persons holding office under the Government, which law has been since repealed, reported that the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be granted. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a petition of pensioners of the U.S., praying for an amendment to the act ico “An act supplementary to the several acts relating to pensions, ” approved March 3, 1865, so as to restore to them pensions from the 3d of March, 1865, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a petition of the Cincinnati Relief Union, praying for an increase of the clerical force in the Pension Office that greater dispatch may be used in the preparation of papers for pensions, asked to be discharged. its further consideration; which was agreed to:
Mr. RAMSEY. I am instructed by the ComPostOffices, to whom was referred the petition of J. Nole stine and others, mail route agents on the western division of the Ohio and Mississippi railroad, praying for an increase of compensation, to ask to be discharged from its further consideration, the subject having been disposed of by legislation at the Present session of Congress. The report was agreed to.
Mr. POLAND. The ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the jtResolution (S.R.No. 137) authorizing special juries in the DistCol, have had the same under consideration, and recommend that it be indefinitely postponed. A bill has been reported by the ComDistCol embodying somewhat the same provisions, and the committee therefore recommend that this resolution be indefinitely postponed. The report was agreed to.
Mr. POLAND. The same committee, to whom was referred a bill (S.No.442) to prevent courts being used as instruments of per secution against loyal persons, have had the same under consideration, and recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed. An act that was passed at the last session seems to cover substantially the grounds that this bill does. The report was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL, from the ComDistCol, to whom was referred the petition of JHenry Addison and Henry D. Cooke, praying for such an amendment to the act authorizing the construction of a jail in the DistCol that the cities of Washington and Georgetown be required to contribute only their equitable proportion of the expense, reported a bill (S.No.550) to amend an act entitled “An act authorizing the construction of a jail in and for the DistCol, ”, approved June 25, 1866. The bill was read, and passed to a 2nd reading. REMOVAL OF LIQUOR CASES.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The ComJudiciary, to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate directing the committee to inquire concerning the removal of cases from the State courts to the SCOTUS on indictment for the sale of spirituous liquors, have instructed me to report it back to the Senate with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed. I will state that the Supreme Court has recently made a decision which I think accomplishes the object that was sought to be inquired into by this resolution. It was insisted in some of the States that where parties had paid the excise duty or license to the Government of the U.S. to pursue a certain calling they had authority to follow it in defiance of the State laws; as for instance, to sell liquors where the laws of the State prohibited the selling of liquors, or to vend lottery tickets where the laws of the State forbade the selling of lottery tickets; but the Supreme Court, I understand, have decided that the imposition of this excise duty or the collection of this tax by the government of the U.S. does not over ride the State law or make valid that which is made invalid by the laws of the State, and therefore there is no necessity for action on this subject. The committee recommend that the resolution be indefinitely postponed. The report was agreed to. JAMES C. PICKETT.
Mr. SUMNER. The ComForRel, to whom was referred the memorial of James C. Pickett, formerly chargee daffaires of the U.S. at Peru, praying for the passage of a resolution authorizing the read justment of his accounts, have had the same underconsideration, and directed me to reportit back to the Senate with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed. This petition has already once been under the consideration of the committee at the last session. They then reported it with a request to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition and giving leave to withdraw the petition. Now it reappears. The petition is founded on services as chargee daffaires more than 20 years ago, it asks that his accounts during that period should be reopened in order that he may obtain from the Government, according to a recent precedent, the loss of exchange at that time. The committee have thought that whatever might be the merits of such claims when comparatively recent it was not expedient to open one so far back in our history as this. They therefore instruct me to ask that the petition be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Before the vote is taken on the report of the committee I desire to say that I Presented that petition from Colonel Pickett upon the assurance of the fact that just such claims had been allowed by the ComForRel and had been passed by Congress not quite so old, but in the case of Mr. Clay, perhaps Cassius M. Clay.
Mr. HENDRICKS. J.Randolph Clay; and in one other case, perhaps, the allowance had been made. I will oppose its indefinite post.for the Present. I do not care about discussing it now in the morning hour. The o.tempore. It is reported from the committee today, and is not before the Senate, unless by unanimous consent, for consideration, and goes over under the rule, objection being made. BILLS INTRobuckp.
Mr. BROWN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.551) for the construction of a Government tel egraph from Washington to NewYork city; w i. was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPostOffices, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. RAMSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.552) to incorporate the Colored. Mutual Building Association of the city of Washington; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComDistCol.
Mr. CONNESS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.553) to provide for the care and mainte nance of the Indians in northern California; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComIndAffrs, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to introduce a jtresolution without previous notice, that it may be printed and referred to the CompubLands. I am requested to introduce this JtResolution. I do not know anything about its merits. It does not concern the people that I rePresent. I do it to accommodate a friend. There being no objection, leave was granted to introduce a JtResolution (S.R.No. 162) to fix the construction of the act granting lands in Nebraska Territory to the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company; which was read twice by its title, referred to the ComPubLands, and ordered to be printed. COMPENSATION of CIVIL EMPLOYees.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask leave to Present an amendment which I propose to offer tomorrow to the JtResolution (H.R.No. 224) giving additional compensation to certain employees in the civil service of the Government at Wash iintgton, which I desire to have printed so that can be laid upon the desks of Senators. The amendment was ordered to be printed.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the HoRep, by Mr. LLoyd, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills and JtResolution, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:. A bill ( H.R.No. 900) to fix the compensation of the officers of the revenue cutter service, and for other purposes;. A bill (H.R.No. 903) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the U.S. for the year ending June 30, 1868; and A JtResolution (H.R.No. 251) to extend the time for codifying the laws relating to cus toms authorized by the JtResolution approved July 26, 1866. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. The message further announced that the Speaker had signed the enrolled bill (S.No.69) to provide for the payment of and it was thereupon signed by the President protempore of the Senate. COUNTERFEITING, ETC., PUBLIC SECURITIES.
Mr. HENDRICKS, I now move to take up the motion, which I submitted 2 days ago, to reconsider the vote on the passage of House bill No. 719. The ComJudiciarya have since considered that bill informally, an have agreed on such amendments as ought to be made to the bill before it passes. The chair man will Present those amendments, if it is the pleasure of the Senate to reconsider the bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is moved that the Senate reconsider its vote passing the bill (H.R.No. 719) to punish certain crimes in relation to the public securities and currency, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It is now moved that the vote of the Senate ordering the bill to a 3rd reading be reconsidered. The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The bill is now before the Senate, and open to amendment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. This is a bill “to punish certain crimes in relation to the public securities and currency, and for other pur. It was reported by Mr. Clark, of NewHampshire, who is not now a member of the Senate, at the last session, and was called up a day or 2 ago at my instance, in consequence of information I received from the Treasury Dept, that they desired the bill passed. It is a House bill. I had not particularly looked at the bill since the last session, and forgotten all about the punishment Prescribed after the bill had passed, and my attention was called to it, and also that of the Senfrom Indiana; we thought the punishments Prescribed were unusually severe, and probably would defeat the object of the bill itself, as convictions perhaps never would be had if such punishments were Prescribed. It was with the view in correcting the bill in those respects that the motion to reconsider was made. As has already been stated by the Senfrom Indiana, He ComJudiciary reconsidered the subject this morning, and we have agreed to propose certain amendments. I now move to amend the 1st section of the bill, in line 18, by striking out the word “ 15” and inserting “ten;” and in the same line by striking out the words “more than ten’ and inserting “exceeding 5;” so that it will read: And on conviction thereof shall be imprisonednot more than ten years, or fined not exceeding$5,000, or both, at the discretion of the court.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section 2nd, line 13, I move to strike out the words “on conviction be fined $1,000, ” and to insert in lieu thereof “be subject to a penalty of $1,000;” so that it will read: Any person or persons offending against the provisions of this section shall be subject to a penalty of $1,000, to be recovered by an action of debt, 1/2 to the useof the informer.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section 3, line 9, I move to strike out the word “three” and insert the word “one;” so as to read: A penalty of 100 dollars.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section 4, line 17, I move to strike out the word “fif.teen” and insert “ten;” and in line 18 to strike out the words “nor less than 5 years, ” and also the words “less than, ” in the same line, and to insert the word “exceeding;” so that it will read: And on conviction be punished by imprisonment not more than ten years, or $5,000, by fine not exceeding or both, at the discretion of the court.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section 5, line two, after the word “ shall, ” I move to insert the words “with intent to defraud;” so as to read: Who shall, with intent to defraud, have in his possession, &c.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move further to amend the same section in line 7 by inserting after “ shall ” the words “with intent to defraud.”
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section 5, line 11, I move to strike out “ 15” and insert “ten, ” and also to strike out the words “nor less than 5 years, ” in line 12, and strike out the words “less than” and to insert “exceeding;” and also to strike out the words “at the discretion of the court;” so as to read: more than ten years, or by fine not exceeding
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section 6, line 31, I move to strike out “ 15” and insert “ten;” and in the same line to strike out the words “nor less than 5 years, ” and also “less than, ” and the word “not, ” and to insert the word “exceeding;” so that it will read: yeBaersp, punished by imprisonment not exceeding ten or by fine not exceeding$5,000, or both, at discretion of the court. the
The PRESIDENT protempore. These alterations will be made in this section, to make the section conform to the other sections of the bill, if there be no objection.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In section7, line 23, I move to strike out “ 15” and to insert “ten;” and also to strike out the words “more than ten” and to insert “exceeding 5;” so that it will read: And on conviction be imprisoned not more than ten years, or fined not exceeding$5,000, attion of the court. the discre
The PRESIDENT protempore. That change will also be made to make the section conform to the other sections of the bill.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Those are all the amendments that I desire to propose. The amendments were orderengross, and the bill to be read a 3rd time. It was read a 3rd time, and passed. Mi Nister. At vienna.
Mr. SUMNER. I offer a resolution, on which I ask the Present action of the Senate: Resolved, That the POTUS be requested to communicate to the Senate, if in opinion his not incompatible with the public interest, a copy of the letter on which the SecyState founded his recentinquiries, addressed to Mr. Mot ley, minister of the U.S. at Vienna, with regard to his reported conversation and opinions, and to furnish the nameof the writer of oletter. By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. SUMNER. So I say; let it be adopted. I have the honor to be a friend of Mr. Motley, and therefore it is that I have introduced the resolution. I am also a Senator of the U.S., and I deem it important to the public interest that we should know on what authority the SecyState has undertaken to address one of our foreign ministers as he has. I received a letter identical in language, so far as I can judge, with that which seems to be set forth by the SecyState in his letter, and it was addressed to me from Europe, as chairman of the Senate ComForRel; but it was from a person so entirely obscure that I regarded the letter as nothing but anonymous, and I threw it into the fire. The SecyState has made it the basis of inquiries addressed to Mr. Motley, which I will not here characterize. I wish to see the letter.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to the production of the letter
Mr. CONNESS. I object, because the resolution might have been passed a few minutes ago if the s.had not made a speech; and by making a speech he has deprived some of us of the opportunity of offering resolutions. The Pres .tempore. The morning hour having expired, the Chair is bound to call up the special order.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that coming up. TARIFF BiLL. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes.
Mr. DIXON. I desire to correct an error of my own in regard to the amendment adopted by. Senate yesterday relating to stereo scopes. In drafting the amendment which was adopted by the Senate I made a mistake, which by general consent I desire to have corrected; and I have the assent of the chairman of the ComFinance. The amendment as adopted should have been in this form: after line 33 of section 11, page 80, insert these words: On lensesfor stereoscopesw, ith or without frames, 40%. advaloren, and, in addition thereto, for such lensesground and polished on both sides, onedollar per dozenpairs.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The correction will be made if there be no objection. None being made, the amendment will be made as stated.
Mr. CONNESS. On page 47, line 146, I move
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will state that there is an amendment pending on which a vote was taken last evening, and the Senate dissolved for want of a quorum. The pending amendment will be read.
Mr. CONNESS. I have been led into error by the Chair receiving an amendment from another Senator.
The PRESIDENT protempore. That was stated to be a correction of a mistake in regard to an amendment, adopted yesterday; and it was done by unanimous consent.
Mr. CONNESS. I did not understand it to be the correction of a mistake.
The PRESIDENT protempore. It was so stated. The Chair knows nothing of it but from the statement. The Chair understood the Senfrom Connecticut to say there was a mistake in the amendment adopted yesterday which it was desired to correct. The Chair asked if there was any objection to the correction of the mistake; none was made, and the correction was therefore ordered.
Mr. GRIMES. Let the amendment before the Senate be read.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] moves to amend the amendment made as in ComWhole by inserting after line 16 of section 13, on page 84, the words which will be read.
The Secretary read the words proposed to be inserted, as follows:.aOnynpalallce bitumine us coalmined and imported from not morethan 30 degreesof longitude eeaigshttobfuWshaeslhs, inegigthotny, fpifotuyncdesntots tpheer bushel of 20
Mr. SUMNER. So far as I am personally concerned I find no inducement to make any reply to the article which the Senfrom Maryland has brought into this body; but when that article undertakes to speak of a gentleman in the service of the Government as it does, I find a motive for adding one word, which I certainly do not find in any references which it makes to myself. That article, as I say, which the Senfrom Maryland has introduced into this body, uses the language
Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator will permit me to say that I.jntroduced it because I understand it is on the desk of every Senator, put here for the purpose of enlightening us.
Mr. GRIMES. I do not rise, sir, to take part in the discussion of this coal question, but to exPress the hope that while the Senfrom Massachusetts adopts the views of the special comrRev, Mr. Wells, on the subject of coal, he will extend his co operation and give his influence to the support of the other recommendation, contained in the commissioner's report. I must also exPress my surprise that the Senator should deem it at all strange that the commissioner's statement should be called in question, or that he should be maligned and slandered for the statements he has made. Why, sir, I think I toold the Senate that any man who opposed the of this bill must expect to be slan ered, and I think that the prophecy is being fulfilled throughout the country. As another illustration to be added to that furnished by of the the Senfrom Massachusetts truth of this, I wish to state that in the report of the special commissioner made to the SecyTreasury, when discussing the subject of wool, a subject which I have had occasion to investigate somewhat, he gave a statement of the amount of production and consumption in this country and the amount of importation into it; and as the basis of his statement he adopted the report of the Wool Growers' Association themselves, even their precise figures., Now, within the last few days we have an article in the newspapers, and telegraphed all over the country, stating that a
Mr. Dodge who he iIs do not know, but said to be connected somehow as a clerk in one of the Depts of the Government has furnished an altogether different statement. The wool growers were mistaken about their own production it seems, and Mr. Wells is mistaken, and Mr. Dodge, by some species of information which he says he has been able to gather, is able to Present an altogether different state of facts in regard to wool, woolen manufactures, and woolen fabrics, and consumption.
Mr. GRIMES. Yes, sir; as my friendfrom Missouri says, it is simply a “new dodge” to secure the adoption of this bill. Mr. President, I have my own views in regard to this question of f". coal now before us, and it to be distinctly understood that any vote I may give upon this amendment is not predicated upon any principle involved in the general subject or in the bill as an entirety, upon which I profess to stand..
Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Iowa has appealed to me to carry out my principles with reference to this bill. Now I appeal to that Senator to carry out his principles with reference to coal. He must be in favor of cheap coal: I know that he must b;e and I ask for his vote.
Mr. HOWE. Mr. President I am in favor of cheap coal myself and I like to have every thing cheap when I have to buy it.. I am not so particular about it being cheap when I have it to sell. On this question of coal I shall feel compelled to vote against the amendment submitted by the Senfrom Massachusetts, and I should give my vote silently but for the fact that the Senator has Pressed upon us the idea that this tax of 125 cents
Mr. HOWE. 125 I believe it stands now a dollar and a quarter.
Mr. HOWE. Either a tax of $1.25 or $1 50 would, he says, be opPressive and unjust upon an important section of the country. if I believed it were opPressive, peculiarly opPressive, or at all unjust to any section of the country, whether important or unimportant, I should vote with the Senfrom Massachusetts; and if there were not a coal mine in Pennsylvania or Maryland or in the U.S. to be protected, if the idea of protection were alto gether, as it is almost, abandoned by this bill, if we had no regard to anything in the world but revenue, I would still think that this was the mildest revenue duty to be found in the bill. This coal, for the importation of which Senators seem to be struggling at a low rate of duty is used I understand for 2 purposes, mainly to make gas and oil of Mr. FBSSENDEN. Not oil: to make gas and iron.
Mr. HOWE. I understand you get your oil coal from the same neighborhood.
Mr. SUMNER. I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. SPRAGUE. Before the vote is taken I desire to say in reference to my colleague [Mr. ANTHoNY) that he was yesterday and is today confined to his house by indisposition. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 11, nays 25; The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CONNESS. On page 47, in line 146 of section 9, I move to strike out “seven” and insert “ten, ” so as to make the clause read: “On borax, refined, ten cents per pound, ” instead of 7 cents, as the duty is now fixed in the bill. In this connection I desire to call attention to the fact that the Present tariff law imposes on this article a duty of ten cents; that the estimate of the commissioner puts it atten cents; and that in California we have a considerable deposit and manufactory for producing this article, the capital for the manufacture of which has been invested under the Present tariff as it now stands; and I am well advised that it will simply lead to the material injury, if not ruin, of the establishment unless the rate be kept up to what it is in the Present tariff. I have in my hand a dispatch from one of the gentlemen interested in this manufacture, but at the same time I will say one whose character stands so high with those who know him that his statement will not be questioned. I allude to Fred erick Billings, of California. I hope that this change will be made.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not feel like making any disturbance about this matter. It is true, as the Senator states, that the Present tariff law fixes the duty at ten cents a pound, and that rate was recommended by Mr. Wells; but we had before us some statements on the subject from persons appearing on the other side which induced us to change the duty on borax and put it as it is in the bill. If on the whole the Senate think it proper to let it stand as it is in the Present tariff, I shall not make any strenuous objection. I merely state the reason why we changed it. We were induced to suppose that the interest did not require so much protection.
Mr. CONNESS. I knew that. The difficulty in the case was that the parties interested on the other side had not an opportunity to appear before the committee, and but one side was heard. It is not the fault of the committee. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CONNESS. Some other amendments must necessarily follow to make the various items consistent. On the same page, in line 145, I move to strike out “three” and insert “five;” so as to make the clause read: Qaborax. crude or tincal, and on crudeborates not otherwise herein providedfor, 5 centsper pound. 5 cents is the Present rate, as well as the rat; recommended i. the commissioner. be amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CONNESS. I now move in line 147, on the same page, to strike out “three” and to insert “five;” so as to read: On boracicacid, crude, 5 centsper pound. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CONNESS. In line 148, I move to strike out “eight” and insert “ 15;” so as to read: On boracic acid, refined, hydrated, 15 cents per pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope that amendment will not be made.
Mr. CONNESS. That is the rate fixed in the House bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I know that, but I think that the House bill put it too high.
Mr. CONNESS. The recommendation of the commissioner is 12 cents. I desire to say in this connection that. Professor Torrey, who is good authority on the subject, says that 15 cents on the hydrated, and 27 cents on the anhydrous is equivalent to the other rates in the Present tariff.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know who Professor Torrey is. He may be a very good chemist, but I am not aware that he knows everything that may be advisable with regard to a tariff bill. I remember now distinctly the ground on which we put these duties. It was stated to us that there is one firm in NewYork that has contracts for the California borax and its products for a considerable length of time, which gives them the entire control of it in the NewYork market. On the other side we had a letter from that firm, in which it was admitted that they had the monopoly of it. It is an entire monopoly, and the duties are so high as to keep everybody else out. I think now that, on reflection, the commissioner is satisfied with the changes we made, and acceded to them, believing the duties as we have placed them to be high enough. I shall not, however, make any objections to the changes made by the Senfrom California as far they have gone if he will be satisfied with putting the hydrated at 12 cents and the anhydrous at 25, instead of 15 and 27, as he proposes.
Mr. CONNESS. I do not like to make any contest on these points against the honorable chairman of the E. Committee. I am satisfied, whatever the parties in NewYork referred to may do, that the California manufacturers have never made a dollar from their investments up to this hour; and I am also entirely satisfied that the rates proposed by me, 15 and 27 cents, judging from the statements made to me upon competent authority, are the equivalent of ten cents upon the refined. Boracic acid, hydrated and anhy drous, are the articles out of which the refined borax is made; and unless a comparative rate of duty is put upon these articles the result is simply to let into the country at a lower rate of , the articles out of which the refined borax is made, thus competing severely with our products and with our manufacture. I think that the motion I have made is entirely right.
Skip Skip The question being taken; there were, on a division ayes 10, noes 11; no quorum voting. Mr. CONNESS. I ask for the yeas and navs. FESSENDEN. I think there is a quo rum Present, as will be seen if the Chair will put the question again. It is a pity if we have to take the yeas&nays on every question.
Mr. CONNESS. I do not insist on the call..
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to submit an observation in reply to what was said by the Senfrom Maine.
The PRESIDENT tempore. Business cannot proceed until the Presence of a quorum is ascertained. The vote just taken disclosing the want of a quorum, no business can be done until it is ascertained that a quorum is Present. I hope it will not be
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Chair can do that, I suppose, by counting.
The PRESIDENT protempore, (after counting the Senators Present.) The Chair ascertains by counting that there is a quorum of the Senate Present:
Mr. EDMUNDS. Is it in order to proceed with the debate upon this question now? the oprotempore. The Chair ascertained the fact by counting, and announces that a quorum is Present. The Senfrom Vermont is now in order.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I only wish to say respecting this subject of boracic acid, that it is one of the substances out of which the borax which is used in trade is made; and of late years, as is stated in a very respectable book on the subject of arts which I hold in my hand, borax has been obtained by combining native boracic acid with soda. That is the way now that borax is made. Therefore, if we wish to protect the manufacture of borax, it is necessary, in order to adjust this rate to the other rates that have been agreed upon, to make the advance which is suggested by the Senfrom California.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will again put the question. The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom California to the amendment made as in ComWhole.
Skip Skip The question being put, there were on a division ayes 18, noes 7. The PRESIDENT protempore. There is not a quorum voting, but a quorum is Present, as the Chair has ascertained by actual count.Mr. FESSENDEN. Why cannot gentlemen give themselves the trouble to stand up? The PRESIDENT protempore. There are 30 members Present, and but 25 voting.Mr. GRIMES. Let us have the yeas&nays. FESSENDEN. I will let the amend men; go unless somebody objects. I give it: The PRESIDENT protempore. That cannot now be done. The last vote disclosed the want of a quorum. The fact of there being a quorum must be ascertained. Mr. HENDRICKS. Can we not have a recount 7 The PRESIDENT protempore. The yeas&nays being called for, the question will be put upon 2nding that call. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 21, nays 14; 17. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move on page 86 to strike out lines 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61 of section 13, and in lieu thereof to insert: On soapstone, freestone, sandstone, granite, and all building or monumental stones, except marble, 4 dollars per ton of 13 cubic fect.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That amendment leaves out paving stones and lets them come in free.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What is the rate of duty proposed by Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN the amendment? 4 dollars a ton.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask what is the object of striking out all these lines? Why not simply say “on freestone” distinctly so much? Wflags. nsottrikderessoeudt?”“paving stones, slabs, and Mr.FRELINGHUYSEN. I took the amendment as it was offered to the Senate before, simply striking out “grindstones.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. But the Senator strikes out several lines that he cannot really want to interfere with. Why not leave the 57 th, 58 h, and 59th lines, and then insert a portion of his provision as a distinct amendment? Why not make a distinction betweenthe uncut and undressed stone and that which is cut and dressed?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A distinction between the dressed and undressed Nova Sco tia stone would not reach the purpose. The other suggestion of the honorable Senator as to paving stones, slabs, and flags, I have no objection to adopting; but if the distinction referred to should be made this stone would come in partially dressed so as to evade the duty.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In reference to the counsel of the honorable Senator, not to put too much confidence in the statements that are made to me, I admit that that is certainly very proper; but the fact is that the House committee had a full investigation of this subject, had the parties before them, and they, knowing the facts, fixed the duty at 5 dollars, when we now only ask 4 dollars; so that it seems a thorough investigation of the facts led them to think that that duty was necessary and I believe (perhaps I am wrongly informed) that the committee of the Senate had no investigation in regard to it; that the parties were not before them. Probably this was the fault of the parties themselves.. The argument of the distinguished Senator, that this stone coming into our market does not injure American stone, because Nova Scotia stone is offered at the same price, is not a sound argument, for the reason that the Nova Scotia stone is more readily worked than the stone of Connecticut, NewJersey, and Ohio, and consequently has that advantage at the same price. I cannot agree that it is an unworthy argument or consideration for us to bear in mind the difference between the cost of labor here and in Nova Scotia. It is American labor that this bill is intended to protect just that. I do not believe that this bill, whether it is passed or not, makes a great deal of difference to the capitalist. If a man has got a factory he can close it and let it stand still; the doors shut for 6 months, and he can bring the laborers and the artisans of the U.S. to his terms, make them take what wages he gives, even if it is as low
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me say that m friend's statement is exactly in the teeth of o the statements made to us by the manufacturers. They told us their laborers would not work for low prices, and that they were compelled, on account of the workmen demanding high prices for their labor, to ask additional protection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is exactly my idea. The capitalist can close his factory and keep it closed for 6 months, but the laborers and artisans must work or starve. It is to the credit of the employers that they will not force them to that predicament, but that they come here and ask for a tariff which will protect American labor and enable them to pay such wages as the mechanics are entitled to receive. but even, on the statement of the distinguished Senator, there is a vast difference between the price of labor in Nova Scotia and in the U.S. If labor is in Nova Scotia $1.50 a day, it is here $225; but I am informed that the price of labor there is much lower than the sum stated, and that not more than a dollar a day is paid in Nova Scotia. The Senator is also in error, I think, as to the prosperity of our quarries, for I have been informed that for a course of years where they are conducted by companies they have passed dividends and ono profit to those who had their capital invested in them.
Mr. GRIMES. I did not desire to interrupt the Senfrom NewJersey in the remarks he made, or else I should have stated what I have stated on several occasions: that he is entirely misinformed as to my views on the subject of tariffs. I have never declared that I was a free trader or that I was opposed to the protection of American industry; on the contrary, I have always avowed that I was in favor of a revenue tariff, with incidental protection to such branches of American industry as needed the fostering care of the Government; and the question is between the Senfrom New and myself as to what these branches of industry are, and how these duties can be properly laid. I think they are not properly laid in this bill; and the fact that it required the ComFinance the whole time during the recess to owhat the thought was a proper schedule of rates o duties to be imposed by the bill is no evidence that we should take it without thorough investigation and discussion, or that we ought to take it at afl; certainly not if our judgments are convinced that they have not hit upon the right scheme. I do not know but that this constant iteration and reiteration of the charge of free trader against me will finally lead me to believe myself that I am actually one, but I did not come here with that conviction on my own mind, and up to this time I have never avowed myself to be such.
Mr. CRAGIN. Some 3 or 4 years ago, when I was acting as an agent of the Treasury Dept, I had occasion to visit the quarries in Connecticut, at Portland, for the purpose of making investigations there as to the charge of fraud against the importers of Nova Scotia stone, and while there I became fully satisfied and convinced that the quarry there could not prosper under the reciprocity treaty which then existed. The works were languishing and almost absolutely doing nothing. All the questions that have been Presented here in connection with this subject were there discussed and investigated. Very few members of the Senate, perhaps, understand the magnitude of these works. Some $1, 700,000 are invested there, and from 12 to 1500 men, in prosperous times, are employed upon these quarries, and the owners of the quarries own some 100 vessels that reach these quarries on the Connecticut river to transport their products. It appeared in that investigation that the stone in Nova Scotia was easier wrought and gotten out of the quar ries much cheaper than this in Connecticut; and the labor there being cheaper they were of course unable to undersell in our markets the producers of this stone in Connecticut. So far as other quarries are concerned, I am not personally acquainted with them. I rose merely to correct the imPression that these quarries were prosperous under the reciprocity treaty. They certainly were not at the time that I visited them.
Skip Skip The question being put; there were, on a division ayes 12, noes 10; no quorum voting. Mr. HENDRICKS called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 18, nays 14; 20. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I beg leave to say to the Senator with entire respect that if he will keep within the limits of what I did say I shall be obliged to him. I did not say anything about its being changed at the request of the rolling mill men.
Mr. CHANDLER. The Iron and Steel Association?
Mr. GRIMES. I do not know, but I know that it has been raised.
Mr. CHANDLEIR. Again: On horse shoenails, 5 centsper pound. So you see that the effect of this bill will be to utterly destroy the manufacture of iron from the ore. It will benefit the Iron and Steel Asso ciation who are engaged in rolling mills. The rolling mill interest will be benefited, and all other interests connected with iron in the U.S. will be sacrificed. I cannot believe that the honorable chairman of the ComFinance understood the working of this thing. I do not believe he would have brought in such a proposition if he had understood it. This whole section of the bill is gotten up in the interest, and solely in the interest, of the rolling mills of the U.S. It is gotten up to destroy your revenue from all the products of iron. I know the Senfrom Maine did not introduce it o for any such purbut that will be the immediate effect of it. Now, Mr. President, I propose to fix the duty on cast scrap iron at 4 dollars a ton, and on wrought scrap at 8 dollars. The duties ought to be 8 and 12 dollars, as I proposed the other day; but fearing that I may not be able to get that adequate protection for this great interest of the country I have proposed the smallest amount that will be any protection at all.
Mr. CHANDLER. What duty does this old cast metal pay now? Does it not pay 8 dollars a ton?
Skip Skip The PRESIDING OFFICER put the question, and declared that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. CHANDLER called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 18, nays 15 as follows: Yeas 18. Nays AbSENT 19. So the aunendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DIXON. On page 36, section7, after line 282, I move to insert the following: On case hardenedfire irons, known in polished the trade as steelfire irons or sets, in setsof 3 pieces, composing shovel, tongs, and poker, 40 cents per set: tongsimportedseparately, 20 centsper pair; shovels imported separately, ten cents each; pokers imported separately, ten centseach, and, in addition thereto, 45%. advalorem. Without ofup the time of the Senate I will state that I have papers here showing that without this additional protection this business cannot be carried on. If this amendment shall be adopted, I propose afterward to move in line 277 to insert before the words “fire tongs and shovels, ” the words “common, unpolished, ” as this amendment applies to the highly finished article.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot contradict the statement made by the Senator, for I do not know anything about it. It is a new matter which is now brought up. It has not been before the committee at all; but as the Senate seem to be going on and putting on everything that everybody asks for, I do not know but that this may just as well go on as 1000other things, to suit customers all around.
Mr. DIXON. I have not asked for much, and I should not have asked for this if I did not believe it on examination absolutely necessary to save this branch of manufactures. I have a statement here which shows that at the Present rate these articles can be furnished in NewYork at so large a decrease from the cost of the American articles that the business cannot be carried on in this country without some additional protection. It will be observed that not much is asked. The 40 5%. advalorem is in the bill already. What I propose is, to impose on a fire set of a highly finished character, costing perhaps to the purchaser ten dollars a set, a duty of 40 cents a set. Some of them come as high as ten dollars, some 15 dollars, and some as high as 20 dollars, and 40 cents is all that is asked for. It is not too much. I will state once more to the Senate that if this, amendment shall be adopted, I propose, so that this additional duty shall not apply to the common article in common use, to insert in the 277th line, before the words “fire tongs and shovels, ” the words “common, unpolished.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will state that the commissioner has examined this proposition, and his opinion is that it is not objectionable. I cannot tell myself. I know nothing about it.
Mr. HENDERSON. Inasmuch as this is a proposition that nobody seems to understand, and this is an interest that it seems necessary should be protected, and nobody understands it except the honorable Senator who proposes it, and inasmuch as other interests of course will have to follow, and as the committee did not have this subject before them, and it is necessary to protect everybody's interests, I apprehend this proposition ought to be adopted. 'e shall then begin to get something in the bill that nobody understands. Heretofore, in regard to the amendments generally, I believe somebody supposed he understood them. Now we have arrived at that stage in the proceedings when amendments that are not understood must necessarily be adopted. In the course of a day or 2 we shall have an admirable bill, I apprehend, taking together that which everybody understands, that which a portion of the Senate understands, and that which nobody understands. The amendment to the amendment was rejected aye one, moes not counted.
Mr. SUMNER. I now move, Mr. President, to make all books printed prior to the year 1840 free; in other words, to enter them on the free list. This is a motion which at an earlier day I have already made, but I desire to try the sense of the Senate again upon it. If the Senate sees fit to vote it down, it can; but I deem it my duty to Present the proposition again. I do not wish to have this bill need lessly odious. I move, therefore, to insert on o:99, section 18, these words, to come in between lines 30 and 31: “Books printed prior to the year 1840." Now a tax on books printed prior to 1840 must have one of 2 objects, protection or revenue.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope the amendment will not be adopted. The Senate has settled this question once by a vote of 2 to one. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to amend the 2/3rd section of the bill in one or 2 particulars. It is the confiscation section, and suppose there is no interest involved in it. On page 108, section 23, line 3, after the word “may, ” I move to insert, “when undervalued, as herein stated, ” and in lines 17, 18, 19, I move to strike out the words: And to ascertain such undervaluation he shall causefull and detailedinventory and valuation to be made, a copywhereof shall be delivered to consignee, the said And in lieu thereof to insert the following: And to ascertain such undervaluation the collector shall, at the request of the consignee, cause a full and detailed inventory and revaluation to be madeby such officers or experts as the Secretary of" the Treasury mayby general rules and regulations Prescribe. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I believe we had this question up the other day and settled it by a very decided vote. I do not know but all the amendments that are offered have to come up several times in different shapes. I do not very clearly see my way through with the bill any time in this generation the way the Senate are going on. I understood from the Senfrom RhdIsland [Mr. SPRAGUE] that he proosed to offer an amendment which I thought should not object te, but it seems that it has gone out of his hands into the hands of the honorable Senfrom NewYork, and is not the same. The House bill fixed a duty of 30%. on crash. The Senfrom NewYork." is mistaken. It fixed a high rate of duty upon everything but crash, but fixed 30%. on crash. Now, I understood the Senfrom RhdIsland proposed to offer an amendment fixing upon crash a duty of 30 5%. advalorem, and on these other articles as suggested by the honorable Senfrom NewYork. I stated the other day the reasons why I thought that upon these coarse articles there should not be this large duty that will operate so injuriously. It places a heavy duty on an article that is used by everybody, the coarse crash towels that are imported from Russia and are in everybody's hands. I thought the duty was fixed at about what it ought to be; that we ought not to put a duty upon it which will effectually exclude it, because that will be the result from its very low cost. The article that is manufactured in this country is not the same article. That is composed of clear linen, and the article manufactured is linen and cotton, a very inferior article which does not last so long, and is more expensive to the purchaser from the mere fact of its composition. I am opposed to the amendment as it stands, and I hope it will not be adopted.
Mr. HARRIS. It seems to me, unless I am greatly misinformed in relation to this thing, that this amendment ought to receive favon in the Senate. The manufacture of flax in this country is in its infancy; there is but little of it; and if capitalists are willing to go into the manufacture of this article they ought to be encouraged as much as those who are engaged in the manufacture of cotton and woolen goods. Now, if I understand this question, they are not thus protected in bill; this Ha.nd unless there can be an increased provided in some such mannor as I have suggested in the amendment I have proposed this manufacture must go down. Here is a cheap article of linen goods manufactured from American flax, and the only thing that is manufactured from American flax. Now, it is proposed to reduce the duty upon that to a mere advalorem which will not furnish ade quate protection, and these gentlemen, some of them my own personal friends and acquaintances, engaged in this business, gentlemen of capital and intelligence, will be driven from this manufacture into the other kind of manufactures of linen where they are obliged to im ort their flax. It seems to me wise that this j of manufacture should be encouraged, and it can only be encouraged by giving this specific duty.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If our growers will only attend to it, and water rot it and raise it, they can make as good material out of American flax as any other flax. There is no supe riority except in the way in which it is produced; and I do not think any very great harm will come of letting a great many of these very coarse articles be manufactured abroad, used as they are
Mr. HARRIS. If that is the policy of the ComFinance of course you will vote down the amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me tell the Senator the policy of the ComFinance is not, where a manufacture does not exist here at the Present time but is just starting, to impose such duties on the foreign article as will charge everybody in the country, in the beginning and until they can get them established, with this enormous increased burden upon the article; but the policy is to place such a duty as will be sufficient encouragement to begin the manufacture, and take it gradually, if we are obliged to take it at all.
Mr. HARRIS. I only desire to add one word. I offered this amendment, not at the suggestion of the Senfrom RhdIsland, but in consequence of an interview which I had with 2 gentlemen engaged in the manufacture of the article which is involved in the amendment. These gentlemen I know personally. They are gentlemen of intelligence, honorable men, largely engaged in this business. They were satisfied with the bill as it passed the House, because it gave them the protection of a specific duty of 6 cents per square yard; and they were satisfied, or at least were willing to submit to the bill as reported by the ComFinance to the Senate, because it gave them a specific duty of 3 cents a square yard. Now, this duty of 3 cents a square yard, as Lunderstand it, is stricken out, and I proposed only to make it 4 cents a square yard. It is a different proposition to be sure, and gives a little more protection than the bill of the ComFinance did, but not so much, only 2/3rds what was given by the House. The 3 cents a square yard is stricken out, and I propose to substitute only 4 cents per square yard for the cheaper article and 6 cents per square yard for the more expensive article. I am assured by fo these and I believe them as I would believe any Senator on this floor, that if they cannot have this protection they must abandon this kind of manufacture and go into a manufacture of a different kind of linen goods where they import their flax. The question is, whether we shall follow the suggestion of the ComFinance and import this cheaper article of linen manufacture, or whether we shall encourage our own citizens in entering into this infant manufacture.
Mr. STEWART. I only wish to make a single remark on this subject. I am in favor of this amendment, for this reason: this is a great flax producing country, and those of us who are not very familiar with the details of manufacturing generally can readily see that there is very little of this flax used by the manufacturing establishments. They have been unable to succeed in their manufacturing, showing that they must have protection if they are to succeed. During the last summer I had occasion to visit RhdIsland, and I found the Senfrom that State engaged in what he termed an experiment not to make money out of it, however. He had got a large establishment for the purpose of making the experi ment, to see iP.could be manufactured in this country, to bring up the interest. He called my attention to the fact that this was a great flax growing country, and the flax was not being used in this country at all. The fact that nobody to any great extent has succeeded in this dept of manufacture, and that this country is producing a large amount of flax, and is capable of doing so, shows, if we are to. actupon the protective principle at all, that this is an interest to be protected. If we did not growflax in this country, but imported it, and therewas no manifest propriety in entering uponthis branch of industry, I would take no interest in it. But that it has not been protected is shown by the fact that it has not been profit able to manufacture it here, or it would have beendone. It seems to me flax is an article of such general growth throughout the U.S. that we should make some use of it at home, and I an in favor of this amendment. From the statements I get from all quarters I am satisfied that it of be impossible for the manufacturers to succeed unless they can have protection to the extent proposed by the Senfrom NewYork.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I refer the Senate to thestatement made by the commissioner in his report, to which I referred the other day, showingthat there is an abundant sale for all the flax that can be raised in this country at largelyincreased prices. However, I do not feeldisposed to argue it. The amendment to the amendment was agreedto.
Mr. WILLEY. I offer the following amendment: on page 79, section 11, line 18, afterthe word “Pressed” insert “other than flint;” so that it will read: glOanssg, plalasisn, viamlso.ldjeadrs, bottles, and other vesselsof and Pressed, other than flint, notcut, engraved, &c.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose there is something else to come after that, and I should like to have the whole proposition offered at once.
Mr. WILLEY. I will ask the Clerk to read the next amendment which I shall offer, which has relation to this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. EDMUNDs in the chair.) It will be read for the information of the Senate.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to hear it, so that we can have the whole question before the Senate.
The Secretary read the proposed amendment, which was on page 80, section 11, after line 24, to insert: cuOt, nefnlignrtavgelads, sware, plain, molded, and Pressed, not or printed, 50%. advalorem. And in line 38 to strike out “ 40 ” and insert “ 50;” so as to read: On all articles of glass, cut, opainted, colored, printed, stained, silvered, or cluding plate glasssilvered, gilded, not in or looking glass plates, 50%. advalorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What would this advalorem duty amount to per pound 2
Mr. WILLEY. I stated very candidly to the Senate that I did not personally know anything about it. That is the truth; but I stated also at the same time that in conferring with these gentlemen interested in the manufacture, as I acknowledged, they assured me that this trade would not be able to maintain itself without additional protection to that provided for in the bill as it stood.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will state to the senator that if he will put it at 40%. I will make no objection. That would be a large increase on the lower articles of the same description and come up fully to the highest, and probably be more.
Mr. WILLEY. Well, sir, as we shall have another chance in the House I will agree to that modification.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then I will make no objection to it. I shall make an objection to the other amendment in the 38 h line on page 80. The duty there I think is sufficient as it is now from all the information in the possession of the commissioner, who examined that subject carefully.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment as modified by the Senfrom WestVirginia will be read for the information of the Senate. The SECRETARY. The amendment is to insert on page 80, section 11, after line 24, the following: cuOt, nefnlignrtagvleads, sware, plain, molded, and Pressed, not or printed, 40%. advalorem.
Mr. WILLEY. There is also an amendment on page 79, line 18, to insert after th e word “Pressed” the words “other than: flint.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let those amendments be taken together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on these 2 amendments proposed by the Senfrom WestVirginia. The amendments to the amendment were agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the other amendment proposed by the Senfrom WestVirginia, on page 80, section 11, line 38, to strike out “ 40 ” and insert “ 50.”
Mr. Hos. I move that the Senate take a recess until 7 and a half o'clock.
Mr. HI.NDERSON. Before that is done I hope I shall be allowed to offer a resolution calling for some information which I desire to have acted upon.
Mr. HEN DRICKS. Very well; I will yield for that purpose. INDIAN MASSACRE AT FORT PHIL. KEARNEY.
Mr. HENDERSON submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved.That the Secretary of retary War and the Sec of the interior, each, be requested to furnish to the Senateall official reports, papers, andother facts in possession of may, their respective Deptswhich tend to explain the origin, causes, and extent of the late mossacre, of U.S. troops by Indians at or near Fort Phil. Kearney, in Dakota Territory. TREATY WITH HAWAHAN ISLANDS.
Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senfrom Indiana yield to me for a moment? I desire to offer a resolution which will excite no debate. It calls for a report from one of the Depts, and as it is late in the session I desire to have it considered now. It will not take a moment: Resolved.That the SecyTreasury be requested to report to the Senate whether, in opinion, American interests would not his be subserved y a treaty of waiian Islands, commercial reciprocity with the Ha
Mr. GRIMES. I object to the adoption of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Howe in the chair.) Is there any objection to the Present consideration of the resolution?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It lies over under the rule. proposed Ross.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I now insist on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senfrom Indiana moves that the Senate take a recess until half past 7 o'clock.
Mr. WADE. Say 7 o'clock; that will belong enough.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not care myself about the hour; I would as lief say seve o'clock.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Well, then; I move that the Senate take a recess until 7 o'clock.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand that the motion is modified so as to take a recess until 7 o'clock. Well, sir, it is rather against my views, but as I have become satisfied that we shall never pass this bill until the Senate ets sleepy, perhaps we may just about as well o that.
Mr. HARRIS. I hope this motion will not prevail. It takes many Senators, I think, by surprise. I know that several Senators have made engagements for tonight. I am one of them. I cannot be here tonight, and I desire to offer 2 or 3 amendments. I have not troubled the Senate much during the consideration of this bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will have to take his choice between sitting right straight on until this bill is passed or taking a recess.
Mr. HARRIS. We have been threatened a little that way by the Senfrom Maine be fore, and he has not succeeded very well in sitting right straight on and passing the bill.
Mr. FLSSENDEN. I gave notice yesterday that I should ask the Senate to dispose of the bill today, and I hope the Senator will not take it as a threat. He can do as he has repeatedly done, go off and leave us without a quorum and attend to his engagements; and so can other Senators, and leave a few of us here to work on until there is no quorum. The Senator can do it again tonight and tomorrow night, if he chooses. If the Senator's engagements are so much more important than the public business, which is Pressing at this period of the session, he knows best. I only say I hope the Senate will do one thing or the other: either sit on until we get through with it and pass the bill tonight, or take a recess and return at 7 o'clock. That is my wish. Whether the Senate do it or not I am indiffer ent. I only say it is my advice.
Mr. HENDRICIXS. I think that the amendments that ought to be proposed to this bill might be considered tonight; and we might have an understanding that we shall vote on the bill say at 3 o'clock tomorrow. I do not think that this bill ought to take up all the session, though it seems to be an important bill, for I observe that each Senator, as he introduces a proposition to protect a particular interest, says that that interest is going to languish and j. if we do not do it; and that as surance has been given in reference to almost every industrial interest in the country. Judging from this unanimous exPression of opinion the country is in a most critical crisis.
Mr. GRIMES. What is the question before the Senate?
Mr. HENDRICKS. I propose that we have an understanding that we have a night session tonight, and that then we shall take the vote on the bill tomorrow.
Mr. SPRAGUE and Mr. HENDERSON. I object to that.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If that is objected to, I insist on my motion to take a recess. The motion was agreed to, there being, on a division ayes 17, noes 11; and the Senate accordingly, at 9 minutes to 5 o'clock, took a recess until 7 o’clock p. m. EVENING SESSION. The Senate reassembled at 7 o'clock P. m. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.
“The Clerk read” The bill (H.R.No. 903) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the U.S. for the year endin June 30, 1868, was read twice by its title, referred to the ComFinance. The bill (H.R.No. 900) to fix the compensation of the officers of the revenue cutter service, and for other purposes, and the JtResolution (H.R.No. 251) to extend the time for codifying the laws relating to customs, authorized by the JtResolution approved July 26, 1866, were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the ComCommerce. CHANGE OF NAME OF WESSEL.
Mr. SHERMAN. While the Senate is gath ering together, I move to take up for consideration JtResolution No. 159, which has been reported from the ComCommerce, The motion was agreed to; and the JtResolution (S.R.No. 159) authorizing the SecyTreasury to permit the owner of the yacht Mayflower to change the name of the same to that of Silvie, was read the 2nd time, and considered as in ComWhole. The JtResolution was reported to the Senate, orderengross for a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. ABSENCE OF TERRITORIAL OFFICERS.
Mr. WADE. I move to take up Senate bill No. 32, which we had under consideration day before yesterday. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S.No.32) to prevent the absence of territorial officers from their official duties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr.ed MUNDs in the chair.) When this bill was last under consideration, an amendment was proposed by the Senfrom Iowa [Mr. GRIMEs] changing the phraseology of the 1st section.
Mr. WiiiAMS. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. The original phraseology of the bill is, I think, entirely correct, and comprehends all the cases for which the bill was intended to provide. The adoption of the amendment may defeat, in some respects, the objec.t of the bill. amendment was rejected. The bill was orderengross after a 3rd reading; and was read a 3rd time, and passed. JAMES STARKEY.
Mr. RAMSEY. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 660. It is a private bill, which can be readily disposed of a very small affair. The motion was agreed t;o and the bill (H.R.No. 600) for the relief of Captain James Starkey, was considered in ComWhole. It proposes to appropriate $100 to pay to James Starkey, late captain of the StPaul light cavalry, the amount by him paid to Richard Postel, for the loss of a horse killed in a fight with Indians in 1857.
The Secretary read the report made by the ComIndAffrs of the HoRep, from which it appears that in August, 1857, certain bands of Chippewas committed some depredations upon the frontier settlements of Minnesota, a serious out break was threatened, to quell which and to restore peace and order the Governor of minnesota Territory, Mr. MCDary, ordered out the StPaul light savalry, of which James Starkey was captain. This company, under his command, at once marched to the frontier and fought with the Indians. The horse of Richard Postel, a private in the company, was shot and so wounded that it died. Captain Starkey, believing the Government liable to pay for the horse, paid private Postel $100 in full satisfaction of his claim and took his receipt. It was worth a much larger sum. The accounts connected with the expedition and growing out of it were afterward sent to the War Dept, and most of them, excepting this one, were paid. Postel has left the country, and his place of residence is unknown. Under the circumstances the committee believe that the Government was liable to pay the value of the horse, and as Captain Starkey has discharged that liability they can see no reason why he should not be substituted in the right of Postel and receive the $100. The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. soldiers' AND SAILORs' orphan Hoxie.
Mr. WILSON. I move to take up House bill No. 848, amending the act of incorporation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H.R.No. 848) to amend an act entitled “An act to incorporate the National Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home, ” approved Jul 25, 1866, was considered as in Committee. the Whole. It proposes to repeal sections one, two, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the act of July 25, 1866, and to revoke all rights, powers, and privileges thereby granted to the persons therein named, and to constitute U. S. Grant, W. T. Sherman, David G. Farragut, John A. Dahlgren, Oliver O. Howard, Lorenzo Thomas, Amos B. Eaton, Abram D. Gillette, Charles H. Hall, Henry D. Cooke, and James C. Carlisle, and their successors, a body corporate in the DistCol, by the name of the National Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home. The ComMilAffrs reported 2 amendments. The 1st was in section one, to strike out the names “ U. S. Grant, W. T. Sherman, David G. Farragut, John A. Dahlgren, Oliver O. How ard, Lorenzo Thomas, Amos B. Eaton. Abram D. Gillette, Charles H. Hall, and James c. Carlisle, ” and in lieu of them to insert “David K. Cartter, John H. Semmes, Franklin A. Dick, W. B. Woodward, Byron Sunderland, J. W. Alvord.” ‘Mr. WILSON. I move to amend the amendment by striking out “Byron Sunderland” and inserting “J. R. Elvans.” The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to inquire why the amendment is proposed?
Mr. WILSON. "Mr. Sunderland's name was put in without his knowledge, and he really does not desire it.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Why strike out the names already in the House bill?.
Mr. WILSON. Because we want to get the institution into the hands of persons who can attend to the business. These admirals and generals have something else to do. We there ore take it entirely out of the Array and Navy, and put it into the hands of the men here proposed. oD. Cooke, and David K. Cart ter, are well known. John H. Semmes is a large business man here. Franklin A. Dick is a lawyer here. W. B. Woodward is a law yer. J. R. Elvans, whose name I proposed to put in, is a business man.
Mr. Alvord is a very active, energetic, organizing man. The object of the amendment is to put the institution into the hands of men who can attend to it. It is certainly a matter that GenlGrant and GenlSherman and men of that class Gannot attend to. The institution is located here in the city. The corporation has about 28 or 30,000 dollars in money and is taking charge of 20 or 25 very poor children. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The next amendment was in section 3:; line7, to strike out “five “ and insert “4;” so as to make the section read: SEC. 3. Abife: That the persons named in the 2ndsection of this act shall be the board of trusteesof this corporation; and all vacacies causedby death, resignation, or otherwise in the office of trustee, shall be filled by the board by ballot, without unnecessarydelay, as may beprovided in the constitution and by laws of the corporation. 4 of such trustees shall constitute a quorum for the transacting of all business of the corporation, and a majority may of the votesPresent shall decide all questions before it.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred lil.
Mr. WILSON. In the 5th section, after “sailors, ” in the 8th line, I move to insert “and marines, without distinction of color;” so as to read: SEC. 5. Abife:, That immediately upon acceptingthis charter said trustees shall take entire control and management of all property, moneys, or otheroor interest now held or usedforthe benefitof the National Soldiers' andSail ors' Orphan Home in the DistCol, of which they are hereby created trustees, and shall have power to establish a home for and to support and educate the destituteorphans of soldiers, sailors, and marines, without distinction of color, who have died in the late war in behalf of the Union of these States, from whateverState or Territory they may have entered the national service, or their orphans may apply to enter the Home, and which is hereby declared to be the object and purpose of said corpo ration, and to such end and for such usethe said corporation may take and hold property, real or personal, only to an account necessaryf, or the support and maintenance of the Homeand the orphans partaking of its benefits.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The amendments were orderengross and the bill to be read a 3rd time. It was read the 3rd time, and passed. Org ANIZATION OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. TRUMBULL. As the chairman of the ComFinance does not propose to take up the tariff bill yet, I move that we proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 874. The motion was agreed t;o and the bill (H.R.No. 874) to regulate the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other purposes, was considered as in ComWhole. The bill provides in its 1st section that before the 1st meeting of the next Congress, and of every subsequent Congress, the Clerk of the next preceding HoRep shall make a roll of the RePresentatives elect, and place thereon the names of all persons claiming seats as RePresentatives elect from States which were rePresented in the next preceding Congress, and of such persons only, and whose credentials show that they were regularly elected in accordance with the laws of their States respectively, or the laws of the U.S. The 2nd section provides that in case of a vacancy in the office of Clerk of the HoRep, or of absence or inability of the Clerk to discharge the duties imposed on him by law or custom relative to the preparation of the roll of RePresentatives or the organization of the House, those duties shall devolve on the Sergeant at Arms of the next preceding HoRep; and in case of vacancies in both of the offices mentioned, or of the absence or inability of both the Clerk and Sergeant at Arms to act, the duties shall be performed by the Doorkeeper of the next preceding HoRep. The 3rd section makes a violation of the provisions of the act by any of the officers mentioned a felony, punishable, upon conviction of the offender, by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than one year nor more than 5 years, in the discretion of the court. The ComJudiciary proposed to amend the bill by striking out the 3rd section.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The committee recommended the striking out of the 3rd section. which imposes a penalty for violation of the performance of duty, on this principle, that that is an unusual provision to put in a law. We impose a duty upon an officer, and then to make it a felony if he does not perform it is a new feature in legislation; and a majority of the committee recommended that that section be struck out on that ground.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I think, sir, we passed a bill or JtResolution at a former session on this subject. I should like to know in what respect this bill differs from the existing law, there being one, as I understand, on this subject.
Mr. TRUMBULL. This is a House bill. I understand that it differs by providing for other officers. My recollection is that the law as it stands provides only for the Clerk doing this duty, and in case of the sickness or absence of the Clerk there is nobody now provided for to perform it. This bill provides that in case of is absence or sickness the Sergeant at Arms, and in case of his absence the Doorkeeper, shall perform the duty. I think that is all the difference there is between this bill and the existing law. It was before the ComJudiciary and I think we all agreed to it with the exception of the 3rd section.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I have no objection to the addition of other officers besides the Clerk in case of his absence; but if that be the only object of the bill I do not understand why we have so much matter.
Mr. TRUMBULL. There are but 2 sections in it now.
Mr. BUCKALEW. A provision simply that the duties charged upon the Cler by the former law in joi case of his absence be performed by some other officer would occupy but 2 or 3 lines, I suppose, and would accomplish the whole purpose of the House, as I understand the explanation.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Perhaps it might have been more briefly drawn. i. the 1st section reiterates what the former law is, though I am not certain but that the clause is new, which provides “that the Clerk shall place on his roll the names of all persons claiming seats as RePresentatives elect from States which were rePresented in the next receding Congress.” I think that is new. t applies only to those RePresentatives from States that were in the preceding Congress, and provides that he shall not put on others from other States.
Mr. BUCKALEW. What would be ethe action in the case of a new State?
Mr. TRUMBULL. He would not put that on unless they were rePresented in the preceding Congress under this bill.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I should like to understand what is the object of this bill. If it be to exclude persons not excluded by the existing law we ought to have the point distinctly understood. The bill was reported to the Senate, and the amendment was concurred in. It was ordered that the amendment be engrossed and the bill be read a 3rd time. The bill was read the 3rd time.
Mr. BUCKALEW. As the bill is now on its final passage I ask that it lie over until tomorrow until I can examine it in connection with the former law. I move to postpone it for the Present.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no objection to its being laid aside if the Senate desires to at it. look The motion to postpone was agreed to. TARIFF BILL. On motion of
Mr. FESSENDEN, the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. will LEY, to strike out in line 38 of section 11 of the committee's amendment “ 40 ” and insert “ 50;” so as to make the clause read: On all articles of glass, cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, silvered, or gilded, not including plate glasssilvered, or looking glass plates, iitty%.ad valorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will simply say that the cut glass referred to in that particular clause, as every one knows, is the most expensive kind of glass, and the more expensive it is, the more it costs, the more the duty amounts to adca. lorem. The advalorem is 40%., and the Senator proposes to raise it to 50. I think that would be too high, and I must therefore object to it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that if those who are engaged in manufacturing this sort of glass in this country cannot proceed with their business under a tariff of 40%. on this glass they had better engage in some other ". because if I am not misinformed and derive my information from pretty good authority the Present tariff is very nearly prohibitory, and if it be made 50%. almost all this glass will be excluded from the country and we shall lose the revenue upon it, and the price will be very greatly enhanced to the consumer. It does seem to me that on an article of this description, an expensive article, 40%. ought to be sufficient to protect those who are engaged in its manufacture. I hope that this amendment will not be adopted.
Mr. WILLEY. In respect to the question of revenue, there are always 2 sides to it. We have revenue derived from imports and we have an internalrevenue. In our efforts to increase our revenue on imposts it would be well to consider whether we may not destroy our internalrevenue on the articies manufactured at home and the income derived from it at home. The result will be precisely that if by want of proper protection to our domestic industry in reference to any article we destroy its manufacture here. We may perhaps to some extent by increasing the importation into the country of that article increase the revenues derived from that source; but if at the same time we destroy the manufacture of that article at home and withdraw from it the capital now invested in it, and the industry now connected with it, we may destroy prolific sources of internalrevenue, and the revenues of the country may suffer detriment in that direction to a greater degree than they will derive benefit in the other direction. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOWE. I wish to offer 2 other amendments to this bill. I proposed to offer an amendment on page 31, but the information upon which I intended to move it has been corrected. Page 31, line 141 of section7, authorized a duty on the wrought iron tubes and flues there provided for of 3 and a half cents a pound. I was told they were made out of iron such as is mentioned in line 76, on page 28, on which there is a duty of 3 and a quarter cents per pound. But since then I have been told they are made out of a different description of iron.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They are made out of iron on which the duty is 2 and a quarter cents a pound.
Mr. HOWE. On page 32, line 170, after “hollow ware, ” I move to insert “and on all descriptions of wrought iron enameled ware;” so as to read: On glazed, tinned, or low ware, enameledwrought iron hol and on all descriptions of wrought iron enameledware.
Mr. FESSENDEN., I suppose that is a mere matter of description.
Mr. HOWE. It does not change the duties; it is merely a description. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOWE. On page 39, in the 38 h line of section 8. I move to amend by striking out “two and a half” and inserting “three;” so as to read: "On lead in pigs or bars, 3 centsper pound.” I have only to call the attention of the senate to the table I read the other day: I will not produce it again. When the duty was 3 cents a pound all the lead needed was delivered in NewYork from the mines of this country and sold at less than 4 cents a pound: 4 dollars 100; there was none imported. Under the recent rates of duty there is only about a million pounds less than 2 million unds now sent to NewYork, and the price in NewYork is over ten dollars 100, and there are over 30 million pounds imported. Under these circumstances I think we can well afford to raise the duty another half cent.
Mr. FESSENDEN. This lead is of course in very great demand for many purposes. The statement made to the committee was that it was impossible for the lead mines of the West to supply the demand of the country, and for the reason that they could not get their work men to do it. Their workmen had left and gone to other mines, and they could not get the mines worked I would like to know whether that is a fact and the consequence was that lead was absolutely imported and sent West. With all their advantages for making lead, they had not and could not get the force to get the mines fully worked. The tariff did not have any effect on it; the duty is high. It seems they had 3 cents some time ago, and it was put down to two; we have raised it to 2 and a half, and that ought to be sufficient.
Mr. GRIMES. I think the Senfrom Maine has been misinformed as to there being any considerable importation to the West from the East of lead that had come from abroad. This is an article that is produced to a very considerable extent in the western part of Wisconsin, the northern part of Iowa, and in Illinois and Missouri. It was formerly produced to a much greater cztent than at Present, I admit. That falling off has been owing to 2 causes, as I am told: 1st, to the fact that a number of the miners have gone into the gold producing Territories of the West; and 2nd, because it is said of the want of this very protection which the Senfrom Wisconsin proposes to afford. All I have to say in regard to this proposition is, that the relative proportion of increase suggested by the Senfrom Wisconsin is not near as great, I think, as has been put already by the Senate upon copper, upon nickel, and upon that article which is almost a constituent of lead zinc. We have raised them all, and it would seem to me that if we are going to continue this raising of metals, lead should go up pari passit with the others.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senfrom Iowa whether in his judgment this duty ought to be increased from 2 and a half to 3 cents per pound 2Iwant an answer.
Mr. GRIMES. My views in regard to this tariff bill are very well known. I say that if you are jo to raise upon one article that is produced in the country, you ought to raise a corresponding amount upon other articles. That is what I say.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That 'i no answer to my question,
Mr. GRIMES. And as you have raised upon copper, upon iron, upon zinc, upon nickel, I cannot conceive of any substantial reason why there should not be a correspoutling increase upon lead.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We have not raised the duty on those articles 50%. This is an increase of 50%.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly it is: from 2 to 3 cents. It stands at 2 now; we make it 2 and a half, or 25%., and now it is proposed to go to 3 cents. But I do not get an answer to my lofio from the advocate of this increase of duty. He will not give his own opinion on subject. the of Iowa.
Mr. GRIMES. One reason why I do not give an opinion on the point put to me is, because I have expended so much good opinion on the Senfrom Maine without producing any effect upon him that I am conscious that. opinion I should give him now would not influence his judgment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senate, I think, will be able to infer what the Senator's opinion is on that subject.
Mr. GRIMES. I have no hesitation in saying candidly that if this proposition was a new proposition and stood by itself I would not vote for it; but after having raised the duty on all the other products of the earth, all the other minerals that are dug out of its bowels, I cannot conceive why there should not be a proportionate amount, a ratable proportion put upon lead.
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is, as the bill is bad, make it as much worse as possible'
Mr. HOWE. I will only add a word or two. If my judgment had not led me to think this duty ought to be raised to 3 cents a pound I should not have inade the motion. My judgment was formed on no practical experience in this business; I am not interested in it at all; but it was formed on the advice and information communicated to me by others. But I will say of this motion, as I have said of one or 2 articles before, that if there were no lead mines to be protected in this country, the duty we propose to levy here is not a high duty even for the purpose of revenue. It is only 3 cents on an article which is worth from Lead is produced in the upper part ten to 12 cents in market; from 25 to 30%. That is not a very high revenue duty on foreign products. But there are mines to be protected, mines which 20 ears ago furnished you all the lead you had in the U.S., and furnished it to you at less than half the price you now get it at. It is said that now we cannot get labor to work it. There is nearly double the labor in the country that there was then, and these miners could employ that labor just as well as anybody else if they could pay them as well; but they certainly cannot employ them unless they can find a market for the lead when it is produced. I have seen no article produced here which exhibits so strikingly the necessity for protection as this very article.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senfrom Wisconsin if he knows what the price of lead is in the pig 2
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should think that would have something to do with this proposition which has been submitted, as it does not appear what%. this will be advalorem upon the article. Now; the other day the Senfrom NewYork [Mr. HARRIs] who is now absent moved to reduce the duty from 2 and a half cents, as reported by the countmittee, to 2 cents, and rePresented that the necessities of the country imperatively demanded that reduction in the price of lead. Now, the Senfrom Wisconsin rePresents that it is necessary that the tariff should be increased from 2 and a half to 3 cents. I think that it is a very large% age; think that is a very high advalorem tariff upon lead; and according to all the rePresentations that have been made on both sides of this question I should think that 2 and a half cents was as much as ought to be imposed upon this article, and that such a tariff is as high in proportion as the tariff that has been ofupon other articles of a similar description produced in the country. The tariff was 3 cents on lead in 1842. In 1851 it was put at one cent; then it was incfeased to one and a half cent, and finally to 2 cents; so that the Present tariff is 2 cents per pound on pig lead. 1
Mr. HOWE. Was that increase in 1864 or 866 “
Mr. WILLIAMS. In 1864 the tariff was increased to 2 cents per pound. The committee now report an additional half cent; and upon an article of that description, of comparatively so little value or at such low price, a half cent a pound is a considerable addition; and when you come to make the duty 3 cents per pound I think it is 100%. advalorem.
Mr. CAT TELL. The Gentfrom Iowa has indulged in a little pleasantry in looking over to NewJersey in regard to zinc and nickel. I ask permission to say that the tariff now placed upon lead is a higher adralorem, almost double that which has been laid upon either nickel or zinc., The advalorem duty upon lead at 2 and a half cents a pound is, in my judgment, about 60%. That is a rate of duty which my friendfrom Iowa, I think, pretty strongly objects to upon the highest degree of manufactures in the country: and upon an article in its 1st stage of preparation, like lead in the pig, it ought to be abundant even for a protective tariff man like myself. Now, I do not like to oppose what is advo cated by my friendfrom Iowa, for I am under a sort of implied contract with him that in his absence I will not move to reduce the duty upon anything in this bill. I think I made that bargain a day or 2 ago; and therefore I do not like to oppose his view of advancing the duty on lead. A reference to Commerce and Navigation Reports will show the import.ations of lead and its invoice value. The latter is between 4 and 5 cents a pound on the other side, and consequently 2 and a half cents a pound is a tariff of something like 60%. If any more was needed I am the last man who would hesitate to grant it. In my judgment, however, 2 and a half cents is a fair and liberal allowance of duty, this matter, that we should legislate for every more so, in my judgment, than that on any other metal on the list.
Mr. HOWE. I only want to say, in reply to the Senfrom NewJersey, that I do not think it fair to take the price at which an article is invoiced for the purpose of assessing duties as really the market price of lead in the foreign market. I now call for the yeas and naV8. ife yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to ask the Senfrom Wisconsin if 5 cents is not the foreign valuation of this article, and whether he wants more than 50%. on this production?
Mr. HOWE. I have already said that I am not prepared now to state what the foreign rice is.
Mr. SHERMAN. I can find it in the prices current.
Mr. HOW E. 50% is not a high. " it is not a very high revenue tariil. but lead is an article which can be imported at very low freights. It is a desirable kind of freight, but little bulk and a great deal of weight. But, however, I am not going to oocupy the time of the Senate in discussing this matter. I just want to know who is for my motion and who is not.
Mr. HENDERSON. I suggest to the senator that the price upon which the duty was levied upon the importations last year was between5 and 6 cents. I would suggest to him, however, and to the Senfrom NewJersey that the proposition of the Senfrom Wisconsin is not more than half the advalorem duty which was voted this afternoon upon building stone, an article that can be furnished, as I understand, for 3 dollars a ton, and there we voted this evening 4 dollars per ton duty.
Mr. BUCKALEW. A single remark on this amendment. This bill, after the Senate has concluded its action upon it, will go again to the HoRep, and afterward will go to a committee of conference. The House bill is a bill much higher than the one reported from our ComFinance. The practical result will be that all the changes made in this bill after it passes here will be in the direction of increasing rates. There will be no reduction in the committee of conference upon any vote taken by the Senate. all the changes will be to raise the rates. our committee will be obliged, as is usual in such cases, to give up the judgment of the Senate upon perhaps half the items upon which we are passing. Now, this being the condition of this measure, it follows that the Senate ought not to vote to increase any item in this bill as reported from the committee, unless the case is perfectly clear that it ought to be increased. If there is any doubt about it, if the question is dubious and uncertain, we ought to stand by the report of the committee and enable them to have a fair basis upon which to make an ultimate agreement with the HoRep. On that principle, on this and many other amendments, I vote steadily to sustain the report of the ComFinance and to retain the bill at the level of rate It is between 5 and upon which they have reported it to the senate, deviating from this rule only in cases where a particular argument excludes an item from the general rule.
Mr. MORGAN. I suppose we are all striving for a common object, and that is to make this bill as near right as possible. It has been said that it is not a perfect bill, and in that opinion I concur. It was not a perfect bill when it came from the committee, and not in all respects satisfactory. I do not think it has been improved or is likely to be improved much by the amendments made in the Senate. As we are now called upon to vote on this question of lead, I think it would be well nough to state that no persons interested in producing lead asked for an increase before the committee, while there were before the committee several persons consumers of lead who asked that the duty might be reduced instead of increased. The duty now being 2 cents the consumers ask that it might be reduced to a cent and a half a pound; and my colleague, who is not Present tonight, made a motion to have it so reduced. That motion did not prevail; but I wish to say that there is no demand for this increase, there is no necessity for it; it is not required. It is true, as has been said here tonight, that for 2 years past imported lead has been taken to the West and bought very largely. It has been bought very largely for the market at StLouis within the last 2 years. I do not know that that is the case now. Perhaps it may have been owing in part to the small quantity of lead produced at the western mines during the war; but I am satisfied that the rate fixed by the committee, 2 and a half cents a pound, is all that is needed, and I hope the Senate will adhere to the report of the committee.
Mr. SHERMAN. Since the colloquy about the price of lead I have sent and got the prices current as given in the Iron Age of December 27. I find that the price of lead in England was 20 pounds per ton, or equivalent to 4 cents and 4 mills a pound. A duty of 2 and a half cents a pound is 60%. on the Present cost. P". the value of pig iron is $1622 a ton, and the duty proposed on that is 9 cents a pound, about the same rate. The duty on railroad iron is about the same rate, between 50 and 60%. The duty on bar iron is higher than any other duty on metals in the list, probably nearly 100%.; but certainly the duty on lead is jo enough as the bill stands; it is as high as any other metal on the list, except probably bar iron. I shall not vote for an increase.
Mr. HOWE. I wish to say a word in reply to the Senfrom NewYork. He says that the producers of lead have not been here. That I think is a fact; they have not been in the Senate; they have not been before the ComFinance; they were before the ComWays&Means in the HoRep; they did insist upon higher protection, and the House conceded that they were entitled to it and put the duty at 3 cents a pound, just what I ask to have it put here. In the absence of the producers of lead, and as it seems to me by the statement of the Senfrom NewYork, in the Presence of those who import it the ComFinance put down the duty to 2 and a half cents put it down from what the House agreed it should be half a cent. I wish to have it put back. In reply to the Senfrom Ohio I simply wish to call his attention and that of the Senate to the difference between pig lead and pig iron. Pig iron is not what may be strictly called a raw material, but it is a very raw manufacture. Pig lead, when you get that put into market, is the article that you want for all uses. It is refined lead. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 15, nays 20; 17. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOWE. On page I55 have been in formed that the duty we have raised on these places: in lines 352, 358, and 360, on “white lead or carbonate of lead, dry;” on “red lead or minium, ” and on “red lead, moist, or ground in water or in oil.” It is fair to say that in reference to this matter I move entirely upon the opinion furnished me by others. The duty on lead, as has already been noticed, has been raised from what it was before; and as these paints are manufactured from pig lead it of course necessitated raising the duty on them. That duty has been raised to be sure, but it is said that it is not sufficiently raised. I will submit a motion to insert “and a half” in line 352 after “4;” so as to read: On white lead or carbonate of lead, dry, 4 and a half centsper pound.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think when a proposition is made to increase the tariff upon an article of that description some good reason should be given for the change. Now, this is an article that is very generally used; it is one of the necessaryingredients of paint, and its consumption is very large in the country; and to add to the duty would impose a tax upon a very large number of persons who use . article, and I do not think there is any disproportion between a tariff of 2 and a half cents on pig lead and 4 and a half cents on white lead. Why should white lead be raised to 4 and a half cents, when the material out of which it is made is only subjected to a duty of 2 and a half cents? I think that if 2 and a half cents on the pig lead would protect that business, as I Presume it would, 4 cents on white lead would protect the manufacturers of that article. I have had experience enough in connection with this tariff bill to know that all persons who take pains enough to come to Washington to make rePresentations about this tariff say that it is necessary that the tariff should be very high so far as their particular interest is concerned; and I have become satisfied that it will not do to take the rePresentations made by interested parties, and ask the Senate to adopt an increase of duty, when the duty already proposed is certainly reasonable, and in many cases a large duty. I have not had time to compare this duty on white lead as reported by the committee with the duty that was fixed in the House bill. I am not able to say now what the Present duty is on white lead; but these matters were considered by the committee in view of both sides of the question; and to say simply that somebody who is interested in the manufacture of this article desires to have it raised seems to me to be a very poor reason for adding so much to an article of this description.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is raised more than the lead is: it is raised a cent a pound and the lead half a cent.
Mr. HOWE. The simple question for the Senate to pass upon is this: the lead can be exported by foreign producers to this country at 2 and a half cents; the paint at one and a half cent more. The question is whether they will export the lead or whether they will put it into paint and export it in that form; whether the fo producer will send it over here as pig lead at a duty of 2 and a half cents or send it over here as paint at 4 cents. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOWE. On page 66, between the lines 620 and 621, I move to amend by inserting, “on aluminate of soda 2 and a half cents per ound.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. That is a very high duty. The other salts of soda are only at half a cent a pound.
Mr. HOWE. On the sulphate of soda the duty is one and a half cent. I cannot testify what the precise rate should be. such are my instructions.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I. do not know what the article is. I only say how it is with regard to the salts. Soda ash is at half a cent; nitrate of soda is half a cent; sulphate of soda is half a cent. Why not put this at the same rate?
Mr. HOWE. Soda ash and nitrate of soda are the basis of this.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Suppose you put it at 3/4ths of a cent a pound, precisely what sal soda is. I do not know what the artiele is, and the Senator it seems does not.
Mr. HOWE. No; I am not acquainted with the article.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then I doubt whether it ought to be put in at all.
Mr. HOWE. I think that is no objection to utting it in. I do not understand that there is any objection to putting in this article if Senators can be satisfied with the rate. Well, put it at 3/4ths of a cent.
Mr. GRIMES. I object to anything of this kind going in unless the Senator can tell us what it is. It may be some generic term that includes some half a dozen other sodas. “Aluminate of soda:” The Senator cannot tell us what it is.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let it go to the House. It can be put in there.
Mr. HOWE. I would tell the Senate what it was if I knew, [laughter;] but I trust they will take my word upon the other branch of the proposition, and that is that I do not know. oil. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOWE. Now I wish to move an amendment in reference to an article that I think I do know what it is. It is on page o line 1ten. It is “wheat.” [.] I move to raise the duty to 30 cents a bushel. I move to strike out “ 20 ” and insert “ 30.”
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know that that there is any objection to that. I understand it is prohibitory now..
Mr. HOWE. If there is no objection to it
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is for the Senate to Say.
Mr. HOWE. I have one reason for thinking that the duty of 20 cents is not prohibitory, and that is that about half a million of value was imported last year of wheat and flour. I have another reason for thinking that it is not prohibitory. A year or 2 ago the Congress of the U.S. was. A. importuned to rescind what was known as "he reciprocity treaty a treaty that we had with Canada under which wheat and flour could come from Canada here free, and our wheat and flour could go to Canada free; and as an argument to induce us to rescind that treaty we were pointed to the enormous importation of wheat and flour from Canada. My reply was that I was perfectly willing, so far as the farmers who are my constituents were concerned, to compete with the Canadian wheat growers upon equal terms. I they was perfectly willing that should send their wheat and flour here oduty if we could send ours there without duty. I insisted upon it that we had the best soil and the best climate, and that our productions would excel theirs, and that we should sell them more, and we were selling them more than they were selling us. But the argument that it was necessary in order to save our markets to rescind the treaty prevailed. Very well, sir, the treaty is gone. Now you have a duty of 20 cents per bushel to keep Canadian wheat out of our markets. That is not what it costs to get the wheat from the Northwest to the Atlantic markets. It often costs 20 cents a bushel to get wheat from the Mississippi river to Lake, Michigan, and I think it is very seldom that it happens that wheat can be transported from Lake. igan to NewYork for 20 cents a bushel.
Mr. GRIMES. It costs 17 cents from the Mississippi to Lake Michigan.
Mr. HOWE. The Senfrom Iowa says that 17 cents is the price now for transporting wheat from the Mississippi river to Lake Michigan, and it is very rarely the case, and I do not think ever happens, that wheat can be sent from Lake Michigan to NewYork for 20 cents. Therefore we do pay a duty; we do not pay it to the customhouse, but we pay it to your transportation compa nies; a duty of much more than 20 cents a bushel to get to these markets, and we pay 20 cents a bushel over what it costs the Canadian farmer. The consequence is, that by virtue of rescinding the reciprocity treaty and renewing these duties the Canadians have a monopoly of the Atlantic market so far as their productions can supply it and we are excluded from the Canadian markets. Now, that is the justice that you mete out to us by this sort of legislation The House, I believe, put up the duty to 40 cents a bushel. I have earned to be modest during the discussion of this tariff bill and to ask for but very little, and not insist much upon that. I have proposed to put this up to 30 cents, and I fo. the Senate will agree to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HEN. DRicks in the chair.). The question is on the amendment, proposed by the Senfrom Wisconsin, increasing the duty on wheat from 20 to 40 cents a bushel. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOWE. Now, Mr. President, on page 89, section 15, line 24, corresponding with that, I move to strike out “15” and to insert “ 30;” so as to read: On flour and meal, middlings, and mill feed of 3: oats, or providedfor, 30 optehrergrain not herein otherwise cent. advalorem.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have no particular interest in this matter one way or the other, and I suppose my constituents have none; but one Senator rePresents the men who produce the wheat; another Senator proposes this legislation because of the action of the people in Canada; but nobody rePresents the vast proportion of the people of this country who consume this article, and who are compelled to pay a very much higher price for the bread which they eat on account of this additional tariff. It seems to me that this class of people, constituting a very large proportion of the community, ought not to be wholly ignored. Before we put 50% or 40% or 30%. upon wheat and flour, we ought to remember that there are 1000s of poor people in this country who have families to support who will be opPressed by this additional tariff, and it is on their account that I protest against this addition to these taxes upon the food which the people of the country consume.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I am much obliged to the Senfrom Oregon for speaking for the oor, although I fancy that he can have very ittle knowledge of that class of people; but I rePresent in part 325,000 poor people who do not raise any wheat, but who eat it, and I will take the responsibility of speaking for that portion of the community. I . not oppose this section as it stood on wheat and favor the increase on the ground of the hostility of the Canadians to us merely; But I said that we ought not to enter into any legislation which would favor foreigners at the expense of our own producers and laborers and agriculturists for people of that description. That is what I said. Now, we have repealed the reciprocity treaty and set it aside; but if we are to give the Cana dians almost the same privileges under a low tariff that they had under the reciprocity treaty, while we receive none of the corresponding benefits, as few and feeble as they were under that treaty while it lasted, then I say we shall be carrying generosity a great deal further than we do justice. We are able to produce, and we do produce all the agricultural products that all the people of the country need; and if by protecting manufactures and the industrial arts we give employment to the poor of the eastern States, then they will have the means of paying the western States for the products which they furnish for their consumption. Therefore, if i. western States are willing, as they seem to be, to protect the mechanic arts and manufactures so as to furnish the means of industry and of earning to the poor of the East, I say I am willing to protect the agricultural products of the West, so that we shall consume them rather than the products of a foreign country; and I believe that on such a policy the country will grow rich instead of poor. That is my position.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to ask gentlemen if they have entirely forgotten that this bill has some reference to revenue?
Mr. HOWE. I do not know but that I had forgotten that. [Laughter] But I wish to make a suggestion in reply to the Senfrom Oregon. e objects to a raising of the duties on flour after assenting to a raising of the duty on wheat. If we refuse now to raise the duty on flour, the only effect will be that the farmer will send his grain in here in the shape of flour instead of wheat. It will cheat our bill, and still the Canadians have all the benefit.
Skip Skip The PRESIDING OFFICER put the ques.tion on the amendment to the amendment, and declared that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. HOWE and Mr. GRIMES called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 29, nays 8;. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. RAMSEY. I should like the Senator to inform us how a ton of grindstones is ascertained by the cubic feet.
Mr. WADE. Well, sir, that is done by mathematics, I take it, very easily. I have no time to work out the problem now, but I believe I could do it. There is no difficulty about that. I will state that we have already protected building stone, and these stones are used for building stones as much as for grind stones. We have already protected building: stones to the amount of 4 dollars per ton of 13 cubic feet, and I ask now for 3 dollars on these. I leave to the Senate to decide what they will do with the question.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to reply to one remark made in that paper where the gentleman, whoever he is Mr. Wilson, I suppose states that the other people were rePresented.". the committee and he had no chance to by e, &c.WADE. No; he thing. does not say any such Mr. FESSENDEN. Then you said it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There was something of that kind said.
Mr. WADE. I think not. I do not think he mentions anything about that. He strikes right on his subject.
Mr. WADE. No; I did not say one word about it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. It is either one way or the other:Ido not know which. Now, all the evidence there was before the committee I read to the Senate. "
Mr. WADE. I will state what I did say, as it occurs to me now. I said I would read a paper from a gentleman engaged in this business, because I had observed from the statements of the committee that they derived much of their information in the same way; that that was the only way they could derive it, as these men engaged in the business were the only ones that knew all about it. That is what I said nothing more..
Mr. FESSENDEN. We will not dispute about it. All the information the committee had on the subject, besides what they knew themselves, was derived from the 2 letters which I read to the Senate. From one of the letters I read it appears and that contradicts one statement in the paper read by the senator that these grindstones cost in the Prov inces ten dollars per ton, and the rate of duty, ten%, advalorem on the finished article, was one dollar per ton; and this one company that I speak of at one dollar per ton paid $4, 500 a year for duty on grindstones. At the rate in this amendment they would pay $13, 500 a year duty on grindstones, and it would be in that proportion all through. Now, sir, there is one thing that this
Mr. Wilson stated in his letter to me I am sorry I have not the letter here; I left it in my room that he was kept out of the eastern market. I asked him if they did not have the entire control of the western country. He said yes, they did; but they could not get their grindstones down in the eastern market at the rates fixed because freights were so high. I met him afterward and had a conversation with him. The result simply is this: the object is by getting this heavy duty to bring their grind stones, from the western market, where they have the entire control, to the eastern market by imposing this heavy additional duty, so that we must do one thing or the other: pay the heavy additional duty, or we must pay the freight from the western country over the railroads of this very heavy, bulky article. That is the amount of it; and if the Senate think that is just or proper, when these men have the conThen the Senator said trol of the market in the West, the Senate will SO vote.
Mr. WADE. The gentleman speaks of this as a very heavy additional duty.
Mr. WADE. It is among the lightest duties that have been put upon any article on which you have placed duties. I do not suppose it is over 15%. There is 4 dollars per ton on building stones, which would amount to just about 20%.; but I suppose the increase here would be about 15%.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If you strike out the ten%., which is about one dollar, and put the duty at 3 dollars, it will be nearly 33 and 1/3rd%.
Mr. WADE. It is a very light duty and it is analogous to all the duties levied on these things, and it is difficult now to distinguish between the principle I am advocating and that the Senate has already passed upon in regard to this other building stone.
Mr. FESSENDEN. One of the arguments used in regard to freestone was that it was an article of luxury used in veneeering and making fine articles, and all that. This is an article of prime necessity, used by everybody, a very cheap article, while that is an expensive one. This is mere rough stone.
Mr. WADE. No, sir, it is not rough stone, not the way they are brought in. Nearly all the work is done upon them that is found necessary to fit them for the business for which they are desired. I can see no difference betweenthe principle of this and the others, and the duty 1 place lower than it was fixed on the other. But I did not wish to continue the argument upon it; it is understood by the Senate. I ask for the yeas&nays upon it, as I am afraid a division would not disclose a quorum.
Skip Skip The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 12, nays 19: as follows: Yeas 12. NAYS 19.21. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amend the bill on page 89, section 15, by striking out the word “ 20 ” in lines 6,7, 8, and 9, and inserting “ 30;” so that the clause will read: On animals living, namely, on horses, mares, colts, asses, and mules, 30%. all valorem, on neat cattle, 30%. advalorem, on sheep, goats, calves, and swine, 30%. advaloren, on all kinds not otherwise hereinprovided for, 30%. advalorem. I think that the rate imposed upon these ani mals, as compared with the advalorem rate upon all other classes of importations, is below the just average; and inasmuch as all these animals are of Canadian production, or else are very high priced imported animals from abroad, that 30%. advalorem is not too much, either for revenue or protection. I call for the yeas&nays upon the amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted ayes 14, nays 16;–22. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. t
Mr. EDMUNI)S. I have 2 or 3 other amendments I should like to offer.
Mr. SPRAGUE. If the Senator will give way, I desire to add a proviso to the section he is upon that I think will commend itself to him and to the Senate.
Mr. EDM UNDS. I hope my friend will allow me to go through with the amendments that I propose to this section. I propose to amend on page 92, section 15, by inserting after line 79: On oats, ten centsper bushel. I think that is an accidental omission in the bill. On a careful search I am unable to find any place in the bill where any in post is laid upon oats. The Present rate is ten cents per bushel, and is probably right. It ought to be at least that; and I Presume it to be an accidental omission. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amond the bill touching the subject of lumber. On page 93, section 16, line 9, I move to strike out the words “whitewood and” and to insert after the words “basswood, ” in the same line the words “and pine, valued at not over ten dollars per 1,000 feet;” so that the clause will read: On sawed boards, plank, deal, and other lumber of spruce, hemlock, basswood, and pine, and valued at pernot over ten dollars per 1,000feet, onedollar 1,000 feet, board measure. The object of this amendment is to place whitewood, which is a costly wood and enters into the finer descriptions of architecture, under the 2 dollars 1000head which follows. That is the 1st object.
Mr. EDMUNDS. With the high priced pine in the two dollar class. I Presume no objection will be made to that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I Presume the Senator is mistaken in that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. As I understand, white wood is a very cheap wood. It is used a great deal for linings for furniture and one thing or another of that sort. I suppose the next move will be, after raising that from the lower class, to put up the duty on furniture, because it costs so much more for whitewood that the furniture will cost more. Pine is considered the most valuable lumber; and in this, as in other tariffs, has been placed in a higher scale than other kinds of wood of that description. I think it operates a little differently up there in Vermont, where the Senator lives, from the duty on animals. They have got animals enough, but they have not got pine enough, and “for the benefit of the American laborer” they would like to get pine a little cheaper from the Provinces. I cannot account in any other way for the fact that the Senator wants to change the Present classification, which is the proper one, as I believe. The Senate will do as it pleases about it. I believe my friends up in Michigan feel a little interest in this matter with regard to the duty on pine and the transfer of it to the two dollar instead of the one dollar schedule. I leave the question, therefore, to the honorable Senfrom Michigan.
Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Secretary to read the amendment again.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will suggest in addition, before the honorable Senfrom Michigan goes on, that as this is to be a matter of valuation we do not know what kind of lumber will come in under the valuation of ten dollars 1000feet.
Mr. CHANDLER. I hope the amendment will not be made if pine is put in. I under stood the Senfrom Vermont to say that he proposed to put whitewood at 2 dollars 1000of a certain quality; but I object to inserting pine. I hope the amendment will not be made.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to say one word in reply to my friendfrom Maine, who suggests the difficulty as to valuation. I have discov ered the secret of making this classification by valuations from the committee itself. In the case of oil paintings, which I take it is quite as difficult to classify in respect to valuation as lumber, they take exactly that rule; that is, upon pictures valued at not exceeding a certain sum they place a certain tax; and upon pictures valued exceeding that sum a certain other tax; and I think that is not an unusual or oproceeding. The committee did right in that respect; but having done right in that respect, I am sorry to see them turn around and object to a similar proposition based upon the same principle upon the mere ground that it wik be. to ascertain the classification between one kind and another. Now, it is well known to the customs officers in the U.S., in every port into which lumber is introduced, that there is practically a classification now by value, although there is a advalorem duty; and the 1st thing that the inspector of lumber does is to see that the lumber is properly classified into the assortments that are sold in the market under one head or another. That classification having been made, then the duty of 20%., as the Present law is, is imposed upon it. There is no practical difficulty whatever among practical men in reaching a classification of that description.
Mr. CHANDLER. This valuation of course will be the Canadian valuation. If you come to a classification it will be open for very great fraud. Lumber, as is well known, all costs about the same, and it is then graded for manufacture. Somewhere about one 5th is clear lumber; another portion of it middling clear; another common; another culls. It is Shipped usually altogether, and sold altogether, and then assorted by the purchaser, and he fixes its different grades of valuation. The common est pine lumber is worth in our markets much more than the price fixed in this amendment; but with the Canadian valuation, and with the opportunities for fraud, I am satisfied that this amendment will work injury to the lumber interest. I hope that it will not be adopted in this Present form. I should be in favor of put ting whitewood of a certain quality into the higher list, but not of putting pine in a lower One.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. I think there cannot be any practical difficulty whatever in distinguishing between lumber at ten dollars and lumber valued at over ten dollars. I know there is no practical difficulty when you go to buy it. There are but few kinds of lumber that will come in under the reduced duty. The lowest priced article sold in the Chicago market is now selling at 21 and 22 dollars per 1,000; and that is only fencing lum ber, joists, scantling, and small timber. There is none except that which is selling in the Chi cago market at less than 30 dollars and from that to 60 dollars per 1,000. There is not, and cannot be, any practical difficulty whatever in making the distinction between lumber worth ten dollars and lumber worth more than ten dollars; and the adoption of this amendment will have a tehdency to reduce the price of the lower grades of lumber that enter into the fencing of the West, that every man living in the West is interested in having reduced. I had occasion to say the other day, in a few remarks on this subject, that we used pine boards in fencing our prairies. It is an absolute necessary for us; and it does seem to me strange that we insist upon placing duties upon articles that are thus of prime necessity to men living in our western States at least.
Mr. WILSON. Did you vote to raise the duty on wheat?
Mr. EDMUNDS. Canadian wheat is not a necessity.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. We can raise all the wheat in this country that we consume, and do raise all that is necessary for the consumption of our country and a large surplus besides.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then why do you want a duty of 40 cents on it?
Mr. KIRKWOOD. To prevent that of Can ada coming into competition with ours. I am told, I do not know how truly, that the extent of pine forests in this country is not very large. We have some in Michigan, some in Wisconsin, some in Maine, perhaps some upon the upper waters of the Susquehanna river. It is not an inexhaustible supply. We were talking about taxing coal the j.day, of which we have an inexhaustible supply, a supply that will last for centuries, and gentlemen were unwilling to put a tax upon that to develop that which we had in inexhaustible quantities. The quantities of lumber we have are far from being inexhaustible. They are small compared with the demands of the country; and it does not seem to me to be wisdom to follow such a plan as will exhaust our own forests and compel us to rely in the future entirely upon the forests of Canada. We have then, I think, 2 objects to secure by this proposition to get the lower grades of lumber, the very commonest kinds of lumber, such as are absolutely essential for the development of the prairie country at a low price, and at the same time save to some extent our own forests for future use.
Mr. HOWE. There is no practical difficulty in fixing the valuation of lumber, especially if you leave the Canadian manufacturer to do it. The practical effect will be that all pine lumber manufactured in Canada will be valued at less than ten dollars, and will come in at one dollar duty under the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Vermont. Now, one of the great inducements held out to induce the country to repeal the reciprocity treaty was that Ganadian lumber was coming in competition with ours. Carrying out the promise of greater protection to our lumber interest, it is now proposed to admit all pine lumber from Canada at one dollar 1,000. That is practically the proposition. That will be the practical effect of it. That does not begin to pay the difference between the cost of manufacture in this country and the cost of manufacture on the other side of the line. The internal duties that our lumbermen have to pay on their machinery, and the in direct taxes they have to pay, will more than eat up the 2 dollars that is provided for by the bill as it now stands, and this duty is therefore very light, and I can hardly believe the Senate will be prepared to reduce it, notwithstanding, I suppose, there are but very few of the Senate whose constituents are directly interested in this manufacture. That is true of a great many other manufactures that we have endeavored to take care of in this bill. If one article so important as this, the manufacture of which amounts to about 100 million dollars annually, is selected out and made a burnt offering, as it were, for all the rest, it does not look to me like equal justice, and I hope the Senate will not agree to it. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope the amendment will not be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER put the question, and declared that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let us have a division. This duty is as low as it ought to be.
Mr. EDMUNDS. This amendment makes it higher for the higher priced lumber.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We have got on the importec's side now, and I shall make the same objection to that that I did to the other.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for the yeas&nays on the amendment. We cannot get a quorum in any other way, it seems. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The amendment as offered does not describe it as sawed lumber at all. It simply means lumber.
Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir; you are mistaken about that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to hear it read again.
Mr. EDMUNDS. It Preserves the 1st branch of the clause as it stands, and then follows right on.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How would it read? The SECRETARY. The 1st branch of the amendment is to strike out the words “spruce, whitewood, and basswood;” so that the clause will read: heOmnloscakw, edboards, plank, deal, and other lumber of ure. onc dollar per 1,000 feet, board meas And after life ten to insert: On spruceand basswood, $150 per 1,000feet, board measure. On pine, whitewood, ash, and oak, 2 dollars per 1,000 feet, board measure. Ine eansubrlaec.k walnut, $250 per 1,000 feet, board.
Mr. FESSENDEN, I should like to have it described as sawed lumber throughout, so that there shall be no mistake.
Mr. EDMUNI)S. I have no objection to that. Following in the same classification, I thought that the words “sawed, ” &c., would appiy to them. If the Senfrom Maine has any doubt about that, I will modify the amendment by adding before each one of these subsequent clauses, “ on sawed boards, plank, deal, of pine, of spruce, and basswood, ” so as to attach that description to each one of the classifications. It did not appear to me that it would be open to this construction as it stood.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Does the Senator leave in the proviso 2
Mr. EDMUNDS. Oh, certainly; the proviso attaches to all other varieties of lumber.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The proviso attaches to lumber of every sort.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly; I leave it just as it stands, applying to everything.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have the whole read as it will stand, if amended.
The Secretary read as follows: On sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of spruce and basswood, $1 50 per 1,000 feet, board in easure. On sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of pine, whitewood, ash, and oak, 2 dollars per 1,000 feet, board measure. On sawed boards, plank, deals, and other lumber of black walnut, $25oper 1,000 feet, board measure.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The next lines “on all other varieties of lumber” should be retained.
Mr. EDMUNDS. My motion does not apply to the succeeding part. That stands just as it now reads.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will call the roll on the amendment.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If there is no real objection to the amendment, I will ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to withdraw the call for the yeas&nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the withdrawal of the call?
Mr. FESSENDEN. All I can say is this: I suppose this proposition would suit my constituents; it raises the price of lumber, and I live in a lumber State; but the bill as it stands was discussed and considered and finall adopted in the committee, and I feel dispose to act with regard to this clause in good faith as I have upon all other matters upon which the committee agreed, and not to change my position simply because it happens to apply to my own State particularly in. instance. I am obliged, I find, to contend against members of the committee, as well as other gentlemen, and I am pretty much tired of the whole thing.
Mr. SHERMAN. There was no occasion for the last remark of the Senfrom Maine. I will do in regard to this matter as I think right. I never committed myself to vote for this particular clause; on the contrary, I exPressly disclaimed it in committee, and said that if necessary I should move to increase the duty on lumber; and it is unnecessary for the Senator to make such remarks here to me.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no recollection of anything of that sort.
Mr. SHERMAN. I stated it in committee, and I state it now; and even if it were not so, I did not propose to bind myself to adhere in all cases to the action of the committee, notb any means. Where I think they are right adopt the suggestions made in debate, and shall do so.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is at liberty, unquestionably, to do just as he pleases; I do not dispute his perfect right to do it; but it makes it very difficult for me as chairman of the committee to bring in a bill here, upon all the items of which the committee have agreed, with perhaps one or 2 exceptions where notice was given in committee of a disagree ment, and not only be obliged to meet gentlemen on the different sides of the Senate, who have their particular objects to accomplish with regard to particular things, but while I must adhere to it, as chairman of the committee, rePresenting the committee in all cases, to have the different members of the committee at perfect liberty to vary just as they think proper to be right, after the matter has been decided, and leave me to stand alone to defend the action of the committee, and see if I can get the bill through. While I do not dispute the right of Senators to do so, I say it makes it pretty difficult for the chairman. I think the chairman has a right, ordinarily, to the aid of the members of the committee.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I have only to say this in respect to the committee, and it may as well be said once for all: I entertain the highest respect for the ability, the fidelity, the faith fulness, and the courage of the committee; but I do not think it right for the committee to say that it is not perfectly right and just and fair and fit for the Senate to make any suggestions of amendment to the report of the committee.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not complain at all of the Senator or any other Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the withdrawal of the demand for the yeas&nays?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I would rather" that the vote should be taken by yeas&nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection being made, the question will be taken by yeas&nays. The question being taken by reo yeas&nays, 15, nays 17; 20. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques.tion is on the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Vermont.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for the yeas and naws. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken resulted yeas 12, nays 15;–25. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move on page 66, in line 619 of section 9, to insert “one and” after “ash;” so as to read: On soda ash, one and a half cent per pound. Soda ash is an article that goes largely into the consumption of the country. We import an immense quantity of it 80,000 tons. I propose to put up the duty from a cent to a cent and a half.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Before the question is put I merely wish to make one observation, not to argue it. There are a great many other things in this bill that are predicated upon the duty on soda ash and if you change the duty on soda ash you must necessarily go through with those articles and change the duties on them also. I j'.the Senfrom Michigan is prepared to do that, to change them all, to make them square with what they should be, provided this duty is raised from half a cent to a cent and a half.
Mr. SPRAGUE. This article of soda ash is used in bleaching used probably more extensively than anyone article for that purpose. I hope the duty will not be increased. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRIMES. On page 91, in the 70 4th line of section 15, I move to strike out “ 30 ” and insert “ 40, ’” so as to read “on malt, 40%, advalorem.” The Senate yesterday raised the duty on bar ley from 15 cents, which the committee reported as the proper rate, to 20 cents a bushel. My amendment is to raise the duty on barley after it shall be converted into malt from 30 to o%., exactly the same increase that has been voted on barley. This amendment becomes necessary in consequence of the amendment made yesterday increasing the duty on barley. I ask for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. GRIMES. I desire simply to say that this is a question whether or not we shall have the barley that is raised in Canada converted into malt on the other side of the Can ada line or on our own side. We have already increased the duty on barley to 20 cents, and this amendment carries up the duty on malt exactly in the same proportion that we have. the duty on barley.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is no need of carrying it up in the same proportion. That argument is a nonsequitur entirely. The question is whether 30% is high enough. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 15, nays 12; 25. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON, (at 20 minutes past ten o'clock p. m.) I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask for the yeas&nays on that motion.
Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the Senator will withdraw the motion to allow me to offer an amendment.
Mr. WILSON. I withdraw it for that purpose.
Mr. FESSENDEN. nays on that question. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken. resulted yeas 12, nays 14; 26.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. EdMUNds in the chair.) The Senate refuses to adjourn.
Mr. WILSON. Let us have a vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The call for the yeas&nays appears to show the fact that no quorum is Present.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Some other Senators. have come in since.
Mr. MCDo) UGALL. I desire to have my name recorded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The result having been announced, the vote of the Senfrom California cannot be received except by unanimous consent.
Mr. SHERMAN. I suppose his appearance makes a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the name of the Senfrom California will be recorded in the negative on the motion to adjourn. The Chair hears no objection. The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio.
Mr. RAMSEY. I call for the yeas&nays on that amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered.,
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not think the roepeal of so important a law as the one proto be repealed should take place in a ill like this. My imPression is that I was opposed to the measure which is proposed to be repealed, but the repeal ought not to be in this bill. We have not time properly to consider the question nor to review the considerations that influenced Congress in the adoption of that policy. I have some recol lection, though not very distinct, that there were certain privileges granted to the Pacific road in the iron and coal mines along the route that had something to do with this particular provision; but I am not able tonight to refresh my memory about it. I think the proposition is of sufficient importance to come before the Senate as an independent bill. I cannot vote for it as an amendment to this bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. This is the proper place to put this provision if we intend to suspend these laws or repeal them. There is no other bill likely to pass at this session to which it would properly apply. The objection that it is out of place I think is not well taken. This bikl levies duties on railroad iron. There is a provision in 2 or 3 railroad laws limit.ing corporations created by Congress to the purchase of American iron. This bill is designed to raise revenue from duties on railroad iron. It seems to me no place could be better for such an amendment. The question is perfectly understood, and I do not want to debate it tonight. I am willing to take the vote without discussion.
Mr. CONNESS. Ibeg to suggest to the Senfrom Ohio that it is very evident that it is unwise to come to a vote tonight on this proposition. As has been stated, it is a pretty important one. I do not know just now how I shall vote upon it myself. There is probably ho than a quorum in the Senate at the Present Ine.
Mr. SHERMAN. If any Senator wants to offer any other amendment, I am willing to withdraw this now and offer it in the morning.
Mr. CONNESS. It is very evident to my I move that the Senate do I ask for the yeas and mind that we shall not be able to proceed any further tonight. I voted against an adjournment before, but I do not think there is any more business left, in the Senate tonight. That is my imPression; and I move therefore that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. FESSENDEN called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken resulted yeas 12, nays 16; 24. So the Senate refused to adjourn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the Senfrom Ohio.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I understood that the Senfrom Ohio proposed to withdraw it.
Mr. SHERMAN. If there are other amendments to be offered I am willing to withdraw it tonight and renew it tomorrow. I do not wish to break up the Senate.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thought we were stay ine rs tonight in order to finish the bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. If we are going to sit it out I insist on my amendment, otherwise I am willing to withdraw it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How can it be with drawn after the yeas&nays have been ordered 2
Mr. CONNESS. I hope it will be with drawn tonight.
Skip Skip The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques.tion is on the amendment of 10. the Senfrom The resulte YEAS–12. NAYS 17. ABSENT 23. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. MCDOUGALL. I desire to give notice that I shall move to reconsider the vote just taken. I voted in the negative in order to be able to move a reconsideration. I now give notice of that motion.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On page 57 I move to insert “of 7 and a half pounds” after “gallon” in line 4 14 of section nine. reference to linseed oil. A gallon of that oil is 7 and a half pounds, and it is sold constantly and uniformly by weight. The reason is because the bulk of it is very much affected by the temperature, so that a cask will at noon hold 2 or 3 gallons more than it will at night. Great errors occur in gauging it. I have consulted with the commissioner on this subject, and this amendment meets his approval.
Mr. SHERMAN. I suppose that they have custon house regulations upon this subject, and that will apply if they are now in force. Why not leave them alone?
Mr. FitELINGHUYSEN. The customhouse regulation is to have some process by which they gauge the quantity of gallons there are in a cask, and errors are constantly occur S.
Mr. SHERMAN. You are introducing here, without inquiring, a new system and a new mode of gauging, which is a departure from the general rule. It seems to me rather an unwise step. What assurance has the Senator that 7 and a half pounds constitute a gal lon? We have never heard of that before. The gentleman who appeared before us never made the rePresentation. ring. fobeing taken by yeas&nays, yeas 12, nays 17; as follows: This amendment is in
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is my information from gentlemen with whom I am well acquainted, who are extensively engaged in this business, and I have no doubt of its correctness. Qf course, if there should be any deception in this matter it can be corrected before the bill becomes a law; it has to pass through the other, House. I am perfectly satisfied, or I would not make the motion.
Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to ask the Senfrom NewJersey if he has any information in reference to the weight of the different kinds of oil mentioned in this clause. I apprehend that when he speaks of oil being 7 and a half pounds to the gallon he refers to flaxseed oil simply. Is it not true that hemp seed oil is less in weight? I Presume the flax seed oil is heavier. If there is any difference in the weight of these oils, it would not be proper to apply this rule to all the oils mentioned here.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There may be something in the objection of the Senator which had not occurred to me. My amendment was intended to relate to linseed oil. I withdraw it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I now move on page 30 to strike out from line 127 to line 132 inclusive of section7, and in lieu thereof to insert: On chains, trace chains, halter chains, and fence chains made of wire or 8ths rods notoless than 3 of an inch in diameter, 2 and a per pound half cents; less than 3 8ths of an inch in diameter and not lessthan No. 9 per pound; wire gauge, 6 conts lessthan No. 9 wire gauge, 8 centsper pound. Persons engaged in making these chains and cables referred to in this amendment have exPressed great dissatisfaction with this bill. This amendment was placed in my hands by the commissioner, I believe written by him, stating that it would be satisfactory; and I offer it that a vote may be taken upon it, without making any remarks about it.
Mr. HEN DRICKS. I hope it will not be adopted. It is a very great increase, as I understand it, from the proposition of the committee, which was protective in its character.
Mr. FitELINGHUYSEN. Persons eith ployed in manufacturing these chains and cables assure me that under the Present tariff they cannot carry on their business; and the object of this amendment is to have an increase of tariff. That is the purpose of it; and in stead of that being an objection to ment, the amend it is its very merit. The increase has been adjusted by the approval of the commissioner in a manner satisfactory to him.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I dare say that the Senfrom NewJersey has his information from very respectable sources, but it is from persons who are interested in this pufsuit. I am astonished, sir, that this country is threat ened with such an entire ruin of all her interests if this bill does not pass. If we take the assurances made here by Senators, based upon information they receive from parties interested in particular pursuits, there is not a single pursuit of importance in this country that is going to survive 2 weeks the defeat of this bill. Now, with the greatest respect in the world to the Senator's information, I do not believe a word of it. I do not believe this country is in any such imminent danger. These pursuits have gone on, and men invested their money with a full understanding of the business long before they had such a system of protection as existing laws furnish, and they have made money. But, sir, what is to coin ensate the men who are to use these chains? What increase does the farmer get when he has to pay 1/3rd more for the chains he uses, by a policy that cuts him off from a foreign market and makes him look exclusively. to a home market? None in the world.
Mr. KIRKWOOD, [at 11 o'clock and 5 minutes] I move that the Senate adjourn. Mr. FESSENDEN. nays on that motion. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 6, nays 17; 29.
The PRESIDENT protempore. There is not a quorum voting.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, January 30, 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. REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE. ComCommerce leaavbeiltlowrheipeohrtthferocmhathire man of that committee [Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois] was to have reported had he not been compelled to leave in consequence of sickness. It is a short bill and one that it is very necessary should be passed. I hope there will be no objection to it. No objection was made, and Mr ELIoT accordingly reported back House bill No. 800, to fix the compensation of the officers of the revenue cutter service, and for other purposes. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 3rd time. The bill was read at. length. The 1st section that from and after the 31st day of ecember, 1866, the compensation of the officers of the revenue cutter service shall be at the following rates: Duty pay Captains, $2, 500 per annum; 1st lieutenants and chief engineers, $1, 800 per annum; 2nd lieutenants and 1st asst engineers, $1,500 per annum; 3rd lieutenants and 2nd asst engineers, $1, 200 per annum. Pay on leave of absence or while waiting orders Captains, $1, 800 per annum; 1st lieutenants and chief engineers, $1,500 per annum; 2nd lieutenants and 1st asst engineers, $1, 200 per annum; 3rd lieutenants and 2nd asst o$900 per annum. The 2nd section provides that from and after the 31st day of December, 1866, each officer of the revenue cutter service while on 3 shall be entitled to one Navy ration per aV. The 3rd section provides that, to enable the SecyTreasury to carry out the provisions of this act during the last half of the current fiscal year and during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, the sum of $133, 400 is hereby appropriated for the expenses of the revenue cutter service out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. ELIOT mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. FORT RILEY RESERVATION. On motion of
Mr. ANDERSON, the ComPublLands were discharged from the further consideration of a petition of citizens of western Kansas in relation to the Fort Riley reservation; and the same was referred to the ComMilAffrs. POTAWATAMIE INDIAN CLAIMS. On motion of
Mr. KASSON, the ComAppropriat were discharged from the further consideration of the memorial and ." of a delegation of Potawatamie Indians, asking an appropriation of $164, 584 75 due them from stipulations of various treaties made between them and the U.S., and the same was referred to the ComClaims. BRANCH OF BALTIMORE AND Oil IO RAILROAD. On motion of
Mr. KOONTZ, Senate bill No. 507, to amend an act entitled “An act to authorize the extension, construction, and use by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company of a railroad from between Knoxville and Monocacy Junction into and within the DistCol, ” approved July 25, 1866, was taken from the Speaker's table, and referred to the ComDistCol.
Mr. KOONTZ. I ask that the committee have leave to report this bill at any time.
Mr. KOONTZ. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his objection; for the reason that this is a measure of great importance, not only to Washington city, but to the whole country.
Mr. FTHOMAS. I would suggest to the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Koontz] that he can accomplish the object he is aiming at by simply entering a motion to reconsider the reference.
Mr. KOONTZ, Very well; I motion. submit that The motion to reconsider was entered upon the Journal. CAPTAIN DANIEL C. TREWHITT.
Mr. STORES. I ask unanimous consent to introduce for consideration at this time a JtResolution for the relief of Captain Daniel C. Trewhitt, of Tennessee, and late of the U.S. Army. I will in a few woods state the reason for this bill. Captain Trewhitt was placed upon the staff of one of the generals of the Union Army; his name was submitted to the President, who sent the nomination to the Senate, and the Senate put upon the nomination the proper indorsement, and he was duly commissioned. But the paymaster refused to pay him unless he. produce the paper from the Senate. That he could not do, for he had lost it, with all his other papers, at the battle of Stone river. Now, he served faith fully, and I think he should be paid for his services.
Mr. ALLISON. I would suggest to the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. Stokes] that the case to which he refers is fully covered by a general law now upon the statute books. do not recollect the precise provisions of that law, but I am certain it covers this case.
Mr. STOKES. Very well; I will not Press this matter until I can examine the law to which the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. ALL1son] refers. CONSTANCE BATEMAN AND OTHERS. On motion of Mr. HIGBY, by unanimous consent, the ComAppropriat were discharged from the further consideration of papers relating to the claim of Constance Bate man, Augustine deCaindry, and Julia L. Wamaling, and the same were referred to the ComClaims. RIGHTS OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS.
Mr. COOK. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a resolution, and I may state that I !. to have referred to the ComFornAffrs certain memorials on the same subject. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That the ComForAffrs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of an assertion by Congress of the principle that naturalization by the U.S. of a native born subject of any other State exempts such naturalized citizen from the performance of military service under any foreign Government, so long astarily renounce the rights he does not yolun: of a citizen of the U.S. w There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to. FLOinA MEIGS.
Mr. HUMPHREY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Flora Meigs; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComInvalidPens. COMMON SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to establish a system of common schools for the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the select committee on the subject, and ordered to be printed. PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to conform the rules, practice, and pleading in the courts of the U.S. to the laws of the respective States; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComJudiciary. PRACTICE IN supreme court.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I ask that the bill which I introduced some time ago in reference to the practice of the Supreme Court may be ordered to be printed. There being no objection, it was ordered accordingly. CIVIL SERVICE. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order the consideration of bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof; on which Mr. HALE was entitled to the floor.
Mr. HALE. To accommodate gentlemen who are interested in the business of the morning hour I move that the further consideration i. this bill be postponed till after the morning Our. The motion was agreed to. INSPECTION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order during the morning hour the bill (S.No.204). i “An act to provide for an annual inspection of Indian affairs, and for other purposes, ” on which Mr. WINDoM was entitled to the floor.
Mr. SCHENCK. I ask the Gentfrom Minnesota [Mr. WINDoM] to permit me now to offer the substitute of which I gave notice yesterday.
Mr. WINDOM. I have no objection to allowing the substitute to be voted on.
A MEMBER. Which church is to make the selection?
Mr. WINDOM. My friend asks me which church is to make the selection. Under this bill all the churches which hold annual conferences or conventions are to make their recommendation, and the President is to make his selection from such persons as may be thus recommended. There are to be 5 appointed each year.
Mr. WINDOM. I suppose if the bill passes now they will be appointed by this President. But it cannot be that men of the high character of those who compose these annual conferences and conventions will recommend any other than pure, straightforward, high minded men for this position; so that we may be sure of securing on each one of these boards at least 2 men who will be above suspicion, above indulging in any of the frauds now charged against the Indian system. As to the honesty of the other member of the board, who may be a politician, the House can judge as well as myself.
Mr. COOK. I would like to ask if any provision has been made for those religious societies that have no general annual meeting.
Mr. COOK. Some of the largest religious denominations in the U.S. I believe have no general convention of any sort for instance the Baptists and Congregationalists.
Mr. WINDOM. I am not aware that any provision is made in the bill to meet that case. will yield to the gentleman to offer an amendment for that purpose. The special committee of investigation to whom I have referred have submitted a report upon this bill. As it is very brief and s.tates succinctly the grounds upon which this based, I desire to have a portion of it read.
Mr. SCHENCK, Yes, sir; and mileage. This, however, is in my opinion a matter on tirely subordinate and inferior to the great question as to which Dept shall have charge of the Indian Bureau, and which dept, if intrusted with it, will probably conduct its affairs with not only most economy, but most security to the Indian, and most protection of both the Indians and the Government from all manner of fraud. The gentleman says that if the management of Indian affairs be turned over to the military we have no security that men with straps or stars on their shoulders will be any more honest than civilians. Mr. Speaker, we have this security: if we turn this bureau over to the military we turn it over to a class of men who receive no additional compensation for the peoformance of this duty, who perform it as they perform any other duty to which they may be assigned by the head of the Dept or the head of the Army; who perform it, not under official bonds, which are ordinarily, I think, of very little consequence in any case, but under the still stronger security imposed upon them by the fact that their commissions are at stake and a trial by court martial will be the consequence if they do anything which may fairly be construed into a violation of the law or a disregard of their proper obligations, in connection with this duty imposed upon them.
The SPEAKER. The ten minutes of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Schexck] have expired.
Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the previous ques.tion will not be sustained, that we may have an opportunity to discuss this question fully.
Mr. WINDOM. I yield to the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr.?oten minutes.
Mr. RAYMOND. With the permission of my colleague, [Mr. HART, JIdesire to ask the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Schexck] a question. This is a subject of very great importance, and of course it is one on which the House desires all possible information needed for the formation of a correct judgment. I have understood whether from proper authority or not, I do not know that a communication has been addressed to the committee of which the Gentfrom Ohio is chairman, from the general of the Army or from some of his staff specially qualified to give information and exPress valuable views on this point. I should be glad if the Gentfrom Ohio would inform the House whether this is so or not. If there be soch a communication, it would be proper that it should be printed for the examination of the House before action is taken on this bill.
Mr. SCHENCK. I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer that question. I have here a communication made in the shape of a report to the General in Chief of the Army by Colonel Parker of his staff, who was himself an Indian chief, and who is a man of remarkable intelligence and sagacity. His report covers this whole matter, referring not only to the transfer of this bureau to the military dept, but also to the plan which should be pursued by the U.S. for Preserving peace with the Indians and making the whole management of their affairs under the control of the U.S. just what it ought to be. I had intended to ask that this document should be printed; and I had hoped there would be an opportunity to have it printed before the discussion of this bill. The report is a most able and indeed an exhaustive paper on this subject. It comes to the ComMilAffrs from the General in Chief and the SecyWar, with a request that special attention may be given to it. I should be very glad to have it read now.
Mr. WINDOM. I cannot yield sufficient time to have it read. I yield to the Gentfrom NewYork, or ART]
Mr. KASSON. Will the Gentfrom Minnesota allow me to offer an amendment?
Mr. WINDOM. I want to ascertain 1st what the House desire to do with the bill. The morning hour has nearly expired.. I have been requested by one or 2 gentlemen to make it a special order. I wish to know whether if that is done it will be likely to be reached.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that there are 4 special orders on the Calendar made during the 1st week in the session and not yet reached, having been interrupted by privileged reports and matters introduced by unanimous consent. There are now 2 measures pending of the latter character: the bill in relation to the civil service and the bounty bill. After all these were out of the way this would come up, unless some committee authorized to report at any time inter. venes, or some motion of privilege, or some of the bills should be brought up now pending on motions to reconsider.
Mr. KASSON. There is hardly a special order before the House of so much consequence to the Treasury as this bill.
The SPEAKER. There is one special order, the bill in regard to removals from office, reported by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. WILLIAMs;] one in relation to the counting of illegal Presidential votes, reported by the chairman of the ComJudiciary, [Mr. WILsoN, of Iowa;] another in relation to ban king, reported by the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. Hooper] and one or 2 others, that have all been pending since the 1st week of the session, and not yet reached or decided.
Mr. KASSON. I think the importance of this will justify us in making it a special order for an evening session.
Mr. ROSS. I would like to be allowed a short time on this bill.
Mr. WINDOM. I will yield if we go on with it today, after the previous question is ordered. In order to test the wishes of the House on this subject I jo. to call the previous question now, and if the House prefer to continue the discussion of this question in the morning, of course they will sustain it.
Mr. DONNELLY. Before the previous question is 2nded I desire to offer an amendment to the 3rd section of the original bill by adding the following: And in case of the suspension of an Indian agent, the duties of his office, until the confirmation or rejection of his successorbythe Senate, shall beperformed by the asst agent, or in casethere shall be no such asst, then by the chief clerk of such agent, and it shall be the dynty of the President to transmit to the Senqte, with the nomination of his successor, a statementof the causesof such suspension.
Mr. CHANLER. I desire to offer the following amendment to come in at the close of the one just offered: That the rights, privileges, and franchises conveyed to the black men within the States and Territories of the U.S. by establishedlaw thereof be, and herebyare, given and secured to all the Indians haying the protection of isting laws. this Government underexThat all laws or parts of laws inconsistentwith this section be and are herebyrepealed.
Mr. WINDOM. I cannot agree to that. It will never be reached.
Mr. HIGBY. Then I will not make the motion. I will leave it to the chairman. But one hour is worth nothing in the investigation of a question like this.
Mr. SCHENCK. With the permission of Ithe.Gentfrom California [Mr. HIGBY] state that for one, having charge of this subject, I have been taken somewhat by surprise. I ought to have known better, but I was under the imPression that the bill would go over after the previous question was 2nded until tomorrow. And I have a very great desire that a paper upon this subject from Colonel Parker, which contains more and with due deference to every gentleman who has spoken, including myself is better stated tFhan.it has been stated by any of us, shall be and laid before us for consideration. hope, therefore, that the motion to reconsider whatever disposition may be afterward made of the subject, whether it comes up tomorrow morning or some evening is.for its consideration will prevail; so that we may get this information, as well as the information referred to by the Gentfrom California, [Mr. HIGBY, who was on the committee appointed to examine this subject. This will aid us in arriving at a correct conclusion.
Mr. WINDOM. I desire to make one word of explanation. I stated distinctly, when I called the previous question, that I did it for the purpose of testing the wishes of the House upon this subject; that if they desired to continue this discussion during the morning hour, they would of course vote down the call for the previous question. Neither the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SchENck] nor any other gentleman arose in his place and objected to the call for the previous question; and the previous question was therefore sustained. Now, I should much prefer that this subject should be further discussed; but I do not see how it can be done without losing the bill. I am willing to have the vote reconsidered by which the main question was ordered, provided that will leave the bill open to consideration during the morning hour. But I would rather have unanimous consent to have it assigned for a certain evening, when it can be fully discussed.
Mr. HIGBY. Then I would suggest that we set apart tomorrow and in the mean time, the report al of Colonel Parker can be printed.
Mr. WINDOM. Do not say tomorrow evening; say this evening.
Mr. HIGBY. I want time to have this report printed.
Mr. HIGBY. Very well; I “o will say Friday Mr. WENTWORTH, I must object to that, unless it is understood that no vote will be taken upon that evening.
The SPEAKER. The proposition then will be to assign Friday evening for debate on this bill, the vote to be taken the next morning after the reading of the Journal.
Mr. KASSON. I do not think that ar rangement will accomplish the result desired. If gentlemen do not come here and listen to the debate upon that evening and hear the facts then to be developed, the arrangement will fail entirely of its purpose.
Mr. HIGBY. Then I will simply move to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The effect of that motion, if adopted, will be to leave this bill open for debate during the morning hour of each day; and no committee will be able to report during the morning hour until this bill been disposed the motion of Mr. HIGBY was agreed to.
Mr. SCHENCK. I now move that the report of Colonel Parker, together with communications from GenlGrant and the War Dept upon this subject, be printed for the use of the House. The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour has now expired, and this bill will go over till the morning hour of tomorrow. CODIFYING CUSTOMS LAWS.
Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, introduced a JtResolution to extend the time for codifying the laws relating to customs authorized by the JtResolution approved July 26, 1866; which was read a 1st and 2nd time. The JtResolution was read at length. It provides for extending the time for codifying the laws relating to customs for a period of 3 months after the expiration of the Present session of Congress.
Skip Skip The JtResolution was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the time, and passed. Mr. D mtRtv the JtResolution was passed; on the table. agreed to. MICHAEL M’CANN.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I now move to proceed to business upon the Speaker's table.
Mr. . I would inquire of the gentleman if there is any particular bill upon the Speaker's table which o desires to reach. I want to get through the appropriation bills in ComWhole. If the gentleman wants to reach any particular bill I hope he will confine his motion to that bill.
Mr. INGERSOLL. There are several bills there which require action now, but there is one bill in particular I desire to reach, amending the registry law of the DistCol.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union for the popo of considering the appropriation bills.
The SPEAKER. The motion of the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. INGERsoll] is in order at any time at the conclusion of the morning hour, notwithstanding a special order may have been assigned for that time, but the motion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] takes the precedence of the motion of the Gentfrom Illinois, because it is a motion to suspend the rule under which he is entitled to make the motion.
Mr. STEVENS. Before the question is put on my motion to go into ComWhole I desire to move that all general debate upon the consular and diplomatic bill, the ilitary Academy bill, and the fortification bill terminate in ten minutes after their consideration is begun in the ComWhole.
Skip Skip The motion was agreed to. The question being taken upon the motion of Mr. STEvens that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union for the consideration of the regular appropriation bill, there were ayes 46, noes 81; no Voting. quorum. SPEAKER, under the rules, ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. STEvens andingERsoil. The House divided; and the tellers reported ayes 67, noes 30. So the motion was agreed to. CONSULAR, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The House accordingly resolved itself into ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. PomeRoy in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of House bill No. 904, making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes. The pending question was upon the amendment of Mr. Stevens as amended on motion of
Mr. HALE, reading as follows: In line 11, strike out the word “Rome;” and at the endof line 15 insert the following: Provided, That no moneyshereby or . otherwiseap shall be paid for the support of States legation the U.S. at Rome, or for the future expenses of any such legation.
Mr. DODGE. I have received several communications in regard to the action of the Government at Rome.
Mr. DODGE. I move to strike out the last 2 words. Mr. Chairman, I have received this morning from a friend who is spending the winter in Rome a letter which I will send to the Clerk's desk to be read:
Mr. DODGE. I am not through. I with draw my amendment.
Mr. KASSON. I renew the amendment and field the floor to the Gentfrom NewYork.
Mr. DODGE. I take the floor and ask the Clerk to read a letter I have received this morning, which will 5 the House a better view than I can myself.
The Clerk read as follows: "We arecurious to seetheissue of this affair. If report the be confirmed: if order, the Pope has issued such an and if our minister submits to it, then is countrydisgraced. Why our should we sufferourselves thus to be turned out of Rome? It has come to a Prettypass if the minister of the U.S.A., cannot have worship in his own private house.Next he will be forbidden to say his prayers inside the city walls! To all such interferencewith Private liberty there is dignified but one answer afirm and remonstrance. If that fail, then let our Iministerpack HP his trunks and turn his back on Rome. It would be no great losseither to Rome or to hisowncountry. Our embassy to the pope is a ridic lousabsurdity. What do we want of a minister to Rome? England has none and getsalong as well as wewith our petty embassy. There o:have been ome excusefor it a few yearsago, when the Papal Stateswere quite a respectable Power. But since the late revolutions those States have shrunk away almost to nothing, and the little remainder is ready just to beswallowed by the kingdom of Italy. To keep up an embassy at such a shadow of a court is a force. We have no more need of a minister to Pope the of Rome than to the Khan of pack Tartary, i.et him his trunks and come away, and if there is any Reed of diplomatic interiference we are very sure thatour excellent minister at Florence, Mr. George Marsh will interfere promptly and to someeffect:, But if he remains, we trust our Government will oist inflexibly on his right to ship have Protestant wor in his own house. little firmness here will ove, an excellent effect. It is time that the Pope heard a voice from this side. of may bring the Atlantic which him to his senses, like the warning of stern old Oliver Cromwell, who put an end to Papai perse utionby a message that "if favor were not shown to the peopleof God, the thunder of.. British cannon in the castle of StAngelo.”
Mr. HALE. Upon whose authority does the gentlemen depend for his statements?
Mr. DODGE. Dr. Prime, a friend of mine, who is spending the winter in Rome. This is directly from him.
Mr. HALE. I supposed it to be an anonymous communication.
Mr. DODGE. In addition I simply wish to say, as we are all in favor of economy and restricting our expenses, I hope this item will be stricken out.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that Rome has no minister resident here. She does not condescend to send one here, and I do not know any reason why we should send one there.
Mr. KASSON. I withdraw the amendment for the purpose of making another proposition, oIhave not had time to submit it to the chairman of the ComAppropriat. I move to add:. No moneyhereby or be paid for the support otherwise appropriated shall of the American legation at Rome.
Mr. STEVENS. If the gentleman will say “any American legation at Rome” instead of “the American legation at Rome” I will accept it.
Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman allow me to say that I understand that is simply a rule of Mr. BeAtNiqKueSt.te and nothing more? It is the rule wherever Rome is rePresented, and it is sometimes unrepresented in Protestant countries for that reason. In Catholic countries it is less objectionable than it would be here.
Mr. KASSON. They put it on the score of the supremacy of the church.
Mr. BANKS. I do not object if gentlemen desire to omit the appropriation for the representative at Rome; but I trust the House will not take that decisive action proposed in the amendment, moved by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania and repeated in a different form by the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAsson] putting our action in exactly the same words that we have applied to a rePresentative of this Government who, we think, has committed an offense against the people and the Government he rePresents. I would not have our action exPressed in that form. If we do not like to make an appropriation for the diplomatic rePresentative. ' our country at Rome, let us wait until we have some official information as to the facts affecting the rights of American citizens, and then take such action as the dig nity of the Government may demand.
Mr. STEVENS. if I understood the letter correctly, all Presbyterian worship within the walls of Rome is prohibited. Now, sir, there is a letter here from Dr. Adams which has not been read, which states that Mr. King has hired a chapel outside of the walls of Rome, according to the order of the Pope.
Mr. BANKS. Dr. Adams says that if the statements be true, then the American minister has not done his duty. But it does not appear that they are true. The letter read at the desk refers to the interests of British subects. J
Mr. MORRILL. I move to add at the end of the proviso moved by the Gentfrom Iowa the words “after the 30th day of June, 1867.” In my judgment we ought not to have had a ministerial rePresentative at the Court of Rome for the last ten years. There is no possible reason why we should have one there. this a useless expenditure, merely to provide a place for some one who wants the position. If there were any important matters of business requiring one there I should be the last to object; but under the circumstances as now Presented, with the Present territory of the Pope confined to the city of Rome, I certainly think that a mere consul is all we require. I deem the Present an opportune moment for with holding any appropriation that calls for the continuance ominister at that place, and I. trust the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. MORRILL. Is there any more reason for our having a minister at Rome than for our having one at Patagonia?
Mr. FINCK. I do not propose, Mr. Chair man, in the few minutes to which i am limited in this debate, to discuss the necessity of having a minister at Rome. What I object to now is the manner gentlemen propose to take for get ting rid of the minister at that Court. But I will say in answer to the gentleman that there is just as much necessity for having a minister at Rome today as there was when he was 1st appointed. fo the hammer fell] he question was upon Mr. MoRRILL's amendment.
Mr. KASSON. I will modify my amendment, so as to make it read “after the close of the Present year.”
Mr. MORRILL. All I desire is that this minister shall not be required to return home at once; but I will agree to the modification.
Mr. BIDWELL. I move proforma to amend the amendment by striking out the letter “e” at the end of the word Rome, and insertin instead the letter “a;” so that it will rea “Roma.” Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I do not think we ought to be hasty in removing the American legation at Rome. I am in favor of extending the influence and authority of this Government every way in every locality where it can be done with advantage to the country. The American people now go to almost all parts of the globe; but there is no place which Americans visitomore than Rome. Every one who goes to Europe makes it a point to visit that city on account of its great historical interest and the associations that attach to it. Now, whether or not Rome is rePresented in this country, I believe that the U.S. ought to be adequately rePresented at Rome, not on account of any respect which we owe to the Papal Government, but for the purpose of extending protection to those of our own citizens who visit that city. And as we have no official information upon this subject, I hope we will not withdraw the support to the American legation there.
Mr. MORRILL. I would ask the gentleman if a consul would not be as fully competent to give protection to our citizens in Rome as a minister is?
Mr. BIDWELL. If that he the case, then we should send a consul and not a minister to the Courts of StJames and at Paris. But I think a minister has a power and a dignity that do not attach to a consul. I was in Rome during the past summer; and although I did not, for want of time, call upon the American minister there, yet when I passed by the residence and saw the American flag waving over it, and knew that there was an American minister there, I felt a degree of security and a degree of pride in the power of my country that I should not have felt if we had had no legation there. I hope, therefore, that we will not take the action proposed in this matter, for I think there is no necessity for it.
Mr. BANKS. Will the Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HH.L] yield to me for a moment?
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise, for the purpose of closing debate.
The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. Poxferoy in the chair.) The Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. HILL. I will yield to the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BANKs] for a few Ine ments.
Mr. BANKS. I desire to state a reason why this mission to Rome should not now be discontinued. The reasons given for the discontinuance urged by those who favor the proposition might have been assigned as well 5 years ago as today. The reason why we should not at this moment discontinue our mission to Rome is that the Papal Government is in peril, and also it has rendered to this Government essential service in regard to a most important matter. Upon the 1st suggestion through our minister the Roman Government exPressed entire willingness to give up a person who is alleged to have been concerned in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln, and to give him up without imposing any condition whatever upon us. There is not probably another Government in all Europe which would have so acted under the same circumstances. We had no extradition treaty with the Roman States; we had made no formal demand for the surrender of the criminal; but the Roman authorities acceded to the simple request of our minister, without imposing any condition whatever. But when application was made to the Italian Government by our minister, Mr. Marsh, for the surrender of the assassin, the authorities stated distinctly that they would not surrender him except upon the condition that he should not be subjected to capital punishment if found guilty.
Mr. GRINNELL. I desire to ask a question of the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS.]
Mr. BIDWELL. I now withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MORRILL. I desire merely to remind the House of what I believe is the fact, that the Pope is the only foreign Power that form ally recognized the southern confederacy. Several MEMBERs. That is true.
Mr. BANKS. The Gentfrom Vermont will allow me to say that he is mistaken in that statement.
Mr. MORRILL. What other Power gave that confederacy recognition?
Mr. BANKS. I do not say that any other Power did; but I deny that the Pope did so. The facts are these: Jeff. Davis wrote to the Pope, introducing to him some persons; and the Pope made a reply in which he addressed Davis by the same title by which he had subscribed himself. I will not be positive; but I think there is no act on record which shows that the Roman Government recognized the orn confederacy in any other way than this.
Mr. GRINNELL. Did he not exPress sympathy for the rebel government?
Mr. BANKS. I think not. My belief is the correspondence will show that he merely exPressed a desire for peace.
Mr. STEVENS. What title did he address him by?
Mr. BANKS. The same as he signed himself. [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. BANKS. I ask that the correspondence of Mr. King with the Papal Government in once to the surrender of Surratt be read.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise for the purpose of closing this debate. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the Speaker hoavi;ng resumed the chair, Mr. Poyferoy rethat the ComWhole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the state of the Union.' and particularly the bill of the house No. 904, making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service of the government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and had come to no resolution thereon. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.
Mr. COBB, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled Senate bill No. 69, to provide for the payment of pensions; when the Speaker signed the same. CONSULAR, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL–AGAIN.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that all debate on the pending section of the consular and diplomatic appropriation bill in the ComWhole, together with all the amendments thereto, be closed in 5 minutes after the consideration of the same shall be resumed. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering House bill No. 904, oappropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into ComWhole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Poweroy in the chair.)
Skip Skip Mr. KAssox's substitute was agreed to. The question then recurred on the amendment as amended. The committee divided; and there were ayes, 51, noes 48. So The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows: For salary of the interpreter of legation to Japan, 2
Mr. CHANLER. I move to strike that item out. The same line of argument that has been used in regard to the conduct of the Roman Government applies to that of Japan.
Mr. KASSON. I raise the point of order, that debate is closed by order of the House on the entire section.
The CHAIRMAN. By the usage of the committee each footi has been hereto fore treated as a section, and the Chair will so rule unless the committee direct otherwise.
Mr. KASSON. The chairman of the ComAppropriat made his motion in the form he did for the exPress purpose of embracing the whole.
The CHAIRMAN. The custom has been to treat each paragraph as a section.
Mr. MAYNARD. I call the attention of the chairman of the ComAppropriat to this item in this point of view: it provides for the salary of the interpreter to the legation of Japan; but I do not see that this bill makes any appropriation for this legation itself. If there is any such appropriation it has escaped my notice. Either this ought to be out or the other in.
Mr. KASSON. That, I believe, is provided for; I cannot find it just at Present, and I will not detain the House to examine it now.
Mr. BANKS. It is probably provided for in the act of 1856, which .fthis legation.
Mr. MAYNARD. My point is, that this makes no appropriation for that legation, but merely for the interpreter. The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. CHANLER, it was disagreed to.
Mr. KASSON. I find there is an omission in the bill to provide for the consulate at Que bec. I move, therefore, on behalf of the ComAppropriat, to insert in line 74, after the words “Prince Edward Island” the word “Quebec.”
Mr. KASSON. In view of the action already taken by the committee abolishing the mission to Rome, I move to insert after the word “Rot terdam, ” in this clause, the word “Rome;” so that there may be a consul there.
Mr. KASSON. I move to insert, at the close of line 81 the following: And the salaries of the consuls at Rome, Quebec, and Spezzia shall be respectively$1,500;the salary of the consul at Spezzia to commence at the beginning of the current year.
Mr. KASSON. In order to correspond with the amendments already made the appropriation should be $429,000. I move that amendment.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would suggest to the Gentfrom Ohio whether he has not made. amendment too broad. We have vice consuls, who act temporarily during the absence of the consul, whose emoluments are not such as would justify any man in going abroad from this country. There are also consular agents, whose whole compensation would be insuf. ficient to pay the expenses of a person in going to Europe and returning.
Mr. KASSON. If the Gentfrom Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD) will allow me, I will propose an amendment which I think my friendfrom Ohio [Mr. Schexck] will accept to exclude from the operation of his amendment all those embraced in schedule C; that is to say, let his rule apply to all who receive $1,5 upward a year.
Mr. MAYNARD. Would it not be well also to exclude vice consuls and consular agents?
Mr. KASSON. I do not understand that they are included in the amendment.
Mr. MAYNARD. Very well; I have no objection to that.
Mr. KASSON. I move to amend the amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SchENck] by striking out the following:, Nor shall any consul or commercial agent not a citizen of the U.S. be authorized to charge or receive feesof any kind for services as such consular agent. And insert in lieu thereof the words: Except the consulates and agencies embracedin schedule C.
Mr. SCHENCK. I understand the object of the gentleman rePresenting the ComAppropriat [Mr. KAsson] is to get rid of that portion of my amendment which applies this rule to those who are only paid by fees.
Mr. KASSON. And also to those who are allowed the privilege of trading. In some very bad places where Americans will not go, our agents are allowed the privilege of trading.
Mr. SCHENCK. I will modify my amendment, in accordance with the suggestion of the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAsson] so that it will read: No moneyappropriated by this act shall be applied to the payment of salary or compensation to diplomatic rePresentative any of or to any consul or commercialagent of the U.S. who is not a citizen of the U.S., native or duly naturalized, exceptthe consulatesand agenciesem braced in scheduleC. I want to try the experiment of being represented abroad by Americans.
The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill. The following clause was read: For salaries of the marshalsfor the consular courts in Japan, including that at Nagasaki, and in China, ', on, $9, and turkey, including lossby exchangethere
Mr. STEVENS. I move to insert after the clause just read the following: For the salaries of consuls at the Mahee Seychelles Islands, and at hereby StDomingo, which consulatesare established and added to schedule B, $1,500 each, $3,000
The Clerk resumed reading the bill. The following clause was read: For expensesunder the act to encourageimmigration, $20,000.
Mr. CHANLER. I would like to ask for the sake of information the gentleman who is in charge of this bill what is really the object of this. I understand that the person who was placed in charge of this Immi. gration Bureau in the State Dept has left it to take some position in his native State or in the State of NewJersey. Now, I would like to be informed if that Bureau of Immigration is really in practical operation at this time; where it reaches the immigrant in Europe; and where are its officers on this side of the Atlantic, whereby the immigrant can be expe dited to the place to which he would go. So far as I know every State, and nearly every county in every State, has its agents in Europe for the very purpose of encouraging immigration to this country, and they incur large expenses for this purpose. Now, it seems to me to be rather inconsistent and useless to be taxing the people twice over for the same thing, unless some particular benefit arises from this bureau in the State Dept. I think it is due to the country that we should vote knowingly upon this matter, and for the purpose of bringing the question to a test I move to strike out the clause relating to the encouragement of immigration.
Mr. STEVENS. I suppose the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CHANLER) does not need to be informed by me that the Bureau of Im migration is established by law and is now in operation, the officers having been appointed by the President under an existing law. The ComAppropriat have only recommended the appropriation necessary to carry that law into effect. If you wish to avoid car rying out that law it must be repealed. If the house chooses to repeal iIt do not know that I shall have any particular objection to it. But until that is done the gentleman must see that the committee were bound to recommend the appropriation.
Mr. CHANLER. The gentleman misunderstands the drift of my inquiry. My object is not really to strike out this appropriation, but to learn whether the existing is really being carried out:, whether the State Dept is really doing its duty in this matter. I understand that the person who was placed in charge of that bureau is not now in his place; that that bureau at this moment really has no head to it. I desire information from the Gentfrom Pennsylvania on that point. I was fully aware that this appropriation was in accordance with existing law; therefore what the gentleman has said does not meet my inquiry.
Mr. STEVENS. I did not fully understand the gentleman before, probably because there was so much noise about me here. Whether the SecyState has properly carried out this law or not I should of course feel great delicacy in inquiring. I took it for granted that all the officers of this Government were doing their duty, and until some malfeasance is alleged against them I shall Presume that every officer of the Government is fulfilling his duty and executing the law.
Mr. CHANILER. I will ask the gentleman in this connection whether it is not the practice of the ComAppropriat to send to the different Depts for information with regard to the propriety of the appropriations which are called for. Is it supposed that these gentlemen who send in their estimates are always right? Is not the committee appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the facts justify the appropriations asked for by the different Depts?
Mr. STEVENS. All I can say is that it has not been the custom of the ComAppropriat to send to the heads of Depts to ascertain whether they are doing their duty. We are without any precedent whatever of that sort. When a Dept sends us as in this case, its estimate, and when we find that estimate to conform to an existing law providing for such an appropriation, we report in favor of the appropriation, unless there be some allegation against the Dept. We Presume, in the absence of information to the contrary, that they do their duty.
Mr. CHANLER. Then I ask the gentleman with what consistency he moved his amendment striking out the appropriation for the embassy at Rome? Where are his allegations, where is his proof on this subject? If on this question ignoramus is his plea, he is welcome to it.
Mr. STEVENS. I shall not go back to Rome today. [Laughter] We have passed that matter. All I can say is, that where we ourselvees know facts which appear to justify us in withholding an appropriation, we su. it to be our duty to withhold it. We now of no allegation against the administration of this bureau by the SecyState; and I am satisfied that the gentleman will not now bring a railing accusation against that of ficer for the purpose of inculpating the Committee of Appropriations.
Mr. CHANLER. I think that is impossible. [Laughter]
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir; I supposed so. Hence this appropriation ought to pass.
Mr. STEVENS. Qur corps of surveyors and engineersare out in Oregon, and have been for the past year, and this is asked to pay the necessary expenses of the Government as required by law. Whether or not it is all required for running this boundary line I do not know. It is a rough country out there.
Mr. MAYNARD. Why I thought we told that was the most were feasible route for a railroad from ocean to ocean?
Mr. STEVENS. The railroad route to the which gentleman refers is somewhat south of boundary line, this in some places 2in others 300 miles. That it is the most feasible, route for a railroad from the waters of the Atlantic to the waters of the pay cific, I say, after careful examination, I not the least doubt. That have it will become the great thoroughfare between the waters of Atlantic and China. the I have no doubt whatever. But, sir, that is not the question now. We are running the line othat country which is now inhabited by Indians. How it is so much has been expended I cannot tell. I do not know how we are running it. There is no report of what has been done. I am sorry that we did not get “ 54 degrees and 40 minutes.” think it is a shame we did not go up to Vancouver's island; I am sorry we were compelled to split the channel of one of the best harbors in the world. That is one of the errors of the past. It is now for us to make what we have available.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to reduce the sum to $15,000. I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, so long as we continue to make this appropriation, increasing and doubling it every year, these gentlemen will have employment from now to 1900.
Mr. MAYNARD. I am willing to make it the same as that of last year, $13, 110. If the gentleman will modify his amendment in way that I will accept it. oIwill modify it in that way.
Mr. STEVENS. As these are step children of the Republic, if gentlemen in the center are unwilling to take charge of them I shall not object.
Mr. DENNY. Mr. Chairman, although I do not regard Washington Territory as being much more interested in this question than any other section of the country, as it is the line between the U.S and British Possessions, it consequently is a national question. I will, however, say that the work has progressed very well, and that it has been so far well executed. I think this is acknowledged by every one who has any knowledge of it. I certainly think the Gentfrom Tennessee is mistaken in his statement, that any Delegate from Washington Territory asserted that this precise line was the most practicable route for the Pacific railroad; but we do assert that very near to it is found the best and most practicable route for a railroad across the continent. I join him in regretting that we did not get all up to the line of 54 degrees and 40 minutes, and I think every other American citizen who has a personal knowledge of the country will do the same. I am not only sorry that we did not get it, but think most decidedly we ought to have it. I hope that the amount called for by this bill will be allowed.
Mr. MORRILL. I modify my amendment so as to say: Provided, That when this sum shall be exhausted no further payments shall me made or authorized.
Mr. HILL. This seems to be an attempt to bind future Congresses from further legislation.
Mr. MORRILL. Ibeg the gentleman to understand that this applies only to the executive dept. They are in the habit usu ally of going on and acting precisely as if they had authority to make expenditures when there has been no appropriation made. If this shall be made, it o. preclude the executive dept from going on and involving the Government in the expense without authority.
Mr. HILL. I am glad of having given the gentleman an opportunity to make the explanation.
Mr. MAYNARD. I will say in regard to the amendment of the Gentfrom Wer mont, I am not particular as to the precise form nor as to the amount being 1000 dollars more or less. We have already appropriated for the purpose of running this bound ary line $500,000; and certainly the statement made by the Delegate from Washington Territory [Mr. jhas failed to give us any adequate reason why this work should be continued any longer. I accept the amendment of the Gentfrom Vermont, and hope it will be adopted.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to amend by inserting in line 14, page 2, “Japan” after “Paraguay.” It is to supply an omission in the printed bill.
The Clerk resumed, and concluded the reading of the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I offer the following amendment, to come in at the end of the bill: Provided however, That the missions at nada, Bolivia, NewGranada Nicaragua, CostEacRuiacda, orH. oVnednuerzausela Para Gguuaateymal Salvador, an shall be filled by consular appointment for each of the said States at such point therein as may be deemed most convenientfor purposes of in tercourse with the said Governments respectively; and no part of the appropriation herein made shali be applied to the paymentof any agentor uninister of higher grade. I intended to move to amend by striking out this, but was prevented. I now offer this proposition, embracing as it does no less than ten of these States, called by courtesy republics, but which I hold are under the dominion of anarchy and chaos.
Mr. KASSON, I make the question of order that this amendment proposes to change the provisions of existing law, and therefore needs further legislation to give it effect.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have stated my reasons for moving the amendinent.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw it 2
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order and rules the amendment out,
Mr. KASSON. I move that the bill be laid aside, and that the committee take up bill No. 912, the Military Academy appropriation bill.
Mr. SCHENCK. Before that is done I would like to offer an amendment. When we declined to make an appropriation for the mission to Rome it was moved, as from the ComAppropriat, to insert a provision for a consuf at Rome, upon the ground that there was no consul there. I thought it strange at the time. It seems upon consulting the Blue Book from which this list is copied that there is not only a consul but a vice consul there Mr. Cushman and Mr. Brown. I therefore would like to understand from the ComAppropriat whether the consul and vice consul have been kept at work there drawing pay without any appropriation whatever.
Mr. STEVENS. I Presume that this appropriation was accidentally omitted in the estimate, as they do not appear in the estimates upon which we acted.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If it be in order, I will move to go back to the 1st section of the bill, in order to strike out the names of the several States included in my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not in order if objection be made.
Mr. STEVENS. I must object. The bill was then laid aside, to be reported to the House. MILITARY ACADEMY BILL. The committee then proceeded to the consideration of bill of the House No. 912, making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending June 30, 1868. By unanimous consent the 1st reading of the was dispensed with, and the Clerk proceeded to read it by clauses for amendment.
Mr. MORRILL. I observe somewhat pecu liar phraseology in this bill. It is as follows: For additional appropriations for which estimates were not inade last year. I desire to ask whether these appropriations, amounting altogether to quite a large sum, one being for $7, 500, one for $75,000, and so on, are absolute deficiencies, or whether they are not appropriations which we should consider?
Mr. STEVENS. These are not deficiencies; because last year we declined to make any appropriation for these purposes, although I believe the Board of Visitors to the Military Academy thought that they were necessary. I would ask the chairman of the Military Committee what information he has in regard to them?
Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out all of them. There is no Pressing reason why we should make these appropriations; and I hope priation; this year, that we shall not go into extravagant appro
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman canfdt move to strike out all of them, as they have not yet been read.
Mr. MORRILL. I move, then, to strike out what has been read, and which is as follows: For additional appropriations for which estimates weFroerneontlmaragdineglacsatdyeetalra:undry, $ 5,000.
Mr. SCHENCK. As the chairman of the ComAppropriat has appealed to me upon this subject and has referred to the fact that these items, or some of them, were brought to the attention of the House at the last session of Congress, I will make a moment's explanation. Some of these items, but not all of them are such as were recommended by the Board of Visitors as necessary appropriations for improving the condition of the Academy at WestPoint. I had the honor to be President of that board, and thus my attention was at tracted to the subject as well as by the communications which I received as chairman of the ComMilAffrs. There is an item “for enlarging cadets' laundry, $5,000.” Then there is one, “for furniture for soldiers' hospital, an item of only $100.” The 3rd is in relation to increasing the supply of water. These, I believe, were all recommended by the Board of Visitors. In relation, too, to the item “for a fire proof building, ” it was deemed absolutely necessary for the Preservation of the records and other valuable property at the Academy.
Mr. MORRILL. I would ask the gentleman. whether this sum of $15,000 will complete the building, or whether this is but an initiatory step to further expense?
Mr. SCHENCK. I am not able to answer the gentleman's question, because I do not know what kind of building they propose to put up, and therefore I have no data on which to determine the amount of appropriation that may be requisite. I speak only of the general necessity of such an appropriation. And the same may be said of the item for a fire proof building for a chemical laboratory. That was deemed to be essentially necessary. As to the 2 remaining items, “for a stable and forage house” and “for a permanent der rick on the wharf.” I have no recollection. In regard to the derrick, it relates to an improvement which has been completed since the time of which I have been speaking. The most of these items, therefore, designating them as I have done, I can only answer for as items which, in the opinion of those who examined the Academy and the condition of things there, it was deemed necessary to appropriate for. This is the only explanation I can make to the chair man of the ComWays&Means, [Mr. MoRRILL.J For the rest I must refer him to the War Dept, which made the estimates and asked for the appropriations.
Mr. MORRILL. I do not understand that there has been any new information before the ComAppropriat or before the Hoousei. lM.y experience is that when we make for improvements, the 1st step is really the one that involves all the cost. Hav.ing commenced the improvements we shall become involved in the expenditure of unknown sums for each and every item. Some of these items here which begin with the modest sum of ten or 15,000 dollars will very Foin the end cost not less than $100,000. therefore warn the House against the commencement of these improvements.
Skip Skip The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MoRRILL; and upon a division there were ayes 50, noes 24; no quorum voting. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. KAssos and MoRRILL were appointed. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 43, noes 54. So the amendment was not agreed to. The Clerk resumed reading the bill.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the following: For coins the supply of water, replacingmains, w. I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that these appropriations are for the beginning of large expenditures, which, I think, will involve the Government in an expenditure of not less than 5 or 600,000 dollars to complete them. Now, unless we are prepared to go on and complete these works we should not make these appropriations.
Mr. STEVENS. My friendfrom Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL] is in the habit of seeing things very largely; and I do not know but it is a very good idea. Just think of the idea of the replacing some old mains to convey water from a spring costing the Government some 4 or 500,000 dollars. I remember the other day we were told by the Gentfrom Vermont [Mr. No. the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. DELANo) that if we passed poor old Armes's bill we would be letting in a flood of claims to the amount of $2,000,000,000. Now, upon a fair estimate, I think it will require only some 50 or 100 million dollars.
Mr. MORRILL. Did the gentleman look beyond the claims for the county of Lancaster?
Mr. STEVENS. I did not look there at all, for Lancaster has no claims that I know of. I believe there was an appropriation of $500,000 made in Pennsylvania for some purpose; and perhaps the member, for Lancaster was too lazy or indifferent to look after his share, and we may have a claim. But this habit of making such large exaggerations to frighten men who have not time to look into the matter I think ought to be checked.
Mr. MORIRILL. I move to amend the clause I proposed to strike out by reducing the appropriation from $15,000 to $10,000, merely for the purpose of saying to the committee that the remarks I made do not apply to this item alone, but to the items for an ice house, for fire proof buildings, for public offices, and for a chemical laboratory, for breast high wall of water battery, for stable and forage house, &c. I desire to have them all stricken out. I now withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Skip Skip The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. MoRRILL; and upon a division there were ayes 36; noes not counted. So the amendment was not agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows: roFoomrs, i$ce7, h5o0u0s.e and additional stove in servants'
Mr. KASSON. I would ask the gentleman if he does not want the servants to have a stove 2
Mr. KASSON. That is for the ice house as well as for the stove.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. MoRRILL; and upon a division there were ayes 43, noes 40; no quorum voting. Tellers were ol and Messrs STEvens and HILL were appointed. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were ayes 36; noes not counted. So the motion to strike out was not agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows: For fire proof building for public offices, $15,000.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out that appropriation. I will merely say that these things have been asked for for some 6 or 8 years past, but they have never before been granted by any committee of this House.
Mr. DRIGGS. The very reason the gentleman assigns for rejecting these items is the very reason why we should vote for them. It is not economy to allow public property to go to waste. The amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out lines 64 and 65, as follows: For breast high wall of water battery, $5,000. On agreeing to the amendment there were ayes 36, noes 37; no quorum voting. l I move to strike out that c
The Clerk read as follows:. fire proof building for chemical laboratory, 25, Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the clause just read. On agreeing to the amendment there were ayes 47, noes 33; no quorum voting.
The CHAIRMAN, under the rule, ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. STEvens and Mor:RILL. The committee divided; and the tellers reported ayes 49; noes not counted. So
The Clerk read as follows: For stable and forage house, $10,000.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out the clause just read.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to amend by adding the following as new sections: Abife: That the cadets of the Military Academy be entitled to the ration now receemivye, deobmymtheenaccintigngmidshipmenat theNaval Acad law authorizing thaetstahmeed.ateof the approval of the Abife:, That hereafter the asst professor of Spanish shalf receivethe same pay and emolumentsallowed to the asstprofessors of the Academy.
Mr. PIKE. I desire to inquire of the chair man of the ComAppropriat what increase of pay this will give to the cadet 2
Mr. STEVENS. Simply one ration, the same that is now allowed to the midshipmen in the Naval Academy.
Mr. PIKE. The amendment seems to me a little obscure, and it may be so to other members. I would be glad if the Gentfrom Pennsylvania or some member of the ComAppropriat would explain it a little more fully. ". like to know just what it means. I suppose it means a little more money in some shape to these cadets.
Mr. KASSON. This amendment is in accordance with the recommendation of the inspector general and the SecyWar. In their communication they ask for some additional provisions which would involve a direct increase of pay and which the committee declined to report. This is only a proposition to equalize in the matter of rations the cadets at WestPoint and the midshipmen at the Naval Academy. It is supported by the chairman of the ComMilAffrs and is in accordance with the recommendation of the SecyWar and the chief officer in charge of the Military Academy. It seems to be but a matter of justice and equality.
Mr. MAYNARD. Is the gentleman quite sure that the midshipmen of the Naval Academy draw rations?
Mr. MAYNARD. My imPression is that unless the law has been very recently changed, of which I am not aware, such is not the fact.
Mr. BLAINE. This amendment provides that the cadets shall be entitled to “the ration now received by the acting midshipmen at the Naval Academy;” so that if the midshipmen do not receive any ration the cadets will receive none.
Mr. PIKE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the provision for an additional ration. I do not wish to vote on this point without a proper understanding of the question. If I understand the proposition correctly and if I do not the gentleman in charge of the bill will correct me its effect will be to give to each cadet at WestPoint oi"; like 100 dollars additional pay. believe that is what it means. The question is whether or not we shall pay to the boys there $100 additional. For my part, without some further explanation I am not willing to do it. The ordinary way of raising pay at the other end of the avenue has been by equalizing it. I do not know while I have been in Congress any direct increase of pay has been made. Some one is always paid more than another, and then the other comes in and asks his pay may be equal to the higher pay. Here comes a proposition to allow the cadets at WestPoint the same as the midshipmen at the Naval Academy. It is the old fashion of equalizing pay.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. What is a midship man's pay? i. EE. 500 dollars a year, I think.
Mr. HILL. I think midshipmen have no ration; and I desire to know whether, if so, this will give the cadets at WestPoint any ration?
Mr. KASSON. This does not deprive anyone of any pay. It simply gives the cadets at the Military Academy a ration which they have not now. Midshipmen receive a ration in addition to their pay; and the object of the amendment is to give an actual ration to the cadets to eke out their Present meager compensation.
Mr. HILL. I desire to say if this increases the pay of cadets of the Military Academy at WestPoint one dollar I am opposed to it. I doubt not every member of this House has application upon application piled up upon his table for the position of cadet at the Present pay. It is not right to pay them any more. If we are to make additional appropriation, let us do it for the widows and orphans of those who have fallen in battle, and not for those who occupy a position which 100s and 1000s are unsuccessful in obtaining at the Present pay.
Mr. PIKE, by unanimous consent, withdrew his amendment.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think the cadets at WestPoint receive $5no rations, and the midshipmen 41 dollars a month and a ration. A MEMBER. 500 dollars a year.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Then the pay is precisely the same, with the exception that the midshipman gets a ration and the cadet does not. If we pass this amendment it will make them alike in all respects; they will have the same pay and the same rations.
Mr. PIKE. If the midshipman has no ration, would not this be considered as giving them both this ration?
Mr. PIKE. I think the midshipman receives $5no ration, but I am not certain about it.
Mr. SCHENCR. Do not the midshipmen have a ration? I think they do. I yield to the Gentfrom Massachusetts, chairman of the ComNavAffrs, to answer.
Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair man, I do not think the midshipmen while they are members of the Naval Academy do draw rations. At the time their salary was raised provision was made that when they left the Academy and were waiting for the appointment of ensign they should receive rations. Therefore, this refers to midshipmen who have been members of the Academy and are waiting for their appointments as ensigns. There are no acting midshipmen in the Naval Academy.
Mr. SCHENCK. If the gentlemen who oppose this amendment succeed in showing anything, it is that it is a most simple one in its character. If the midshipmen at the Naval Academy receive no ration now, neither will the cadets at WestPoint receive any; but if the one receives it so will the other. It puts the cadet at WestPoint upon the same footing precisely with the midshipman at Annapolis. I differ with the Gentfrom Massachusetts, and believe the midshipman does get a ration. My imPression is that every one in the Nayy is allowed rations, beginning with the highest down to the lowest. i submit that the cadets are as much entitled to this ration as the acting midshipman.
Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. What does the gentleman mean by “acting midshipman?”
Mr. SCHENCK. I mean one appointed to the Naval Academy who goes through the transition state from midshipman to ensign. They have no other name given to them. I would have offered this amendment if I had not been anticipated by the chairman of the ComAppropriat, having had a communication on the subject from the War Dept, and having looked into it.
Skip Skip The committee divided; and there were ayes 40, noes 44; no quorum voting. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. Schexck and PIKE were appointed. The committee divided; and the tellers reported ayes 54, noes 44. So The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise and report the bills to the House, with. the amendments.
Mr. LeBLOND. I hope the gentleman will allow us to have a separate vote on the appropriation for the minister at Rome.
Mr. STEVENS. I will not ask for any vote on the bills in the House today.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can demand a separate vote on any of the amendments in the House. The motion that the committee rise was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Pox ERoy reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and particularly the bill of the house No. 904, making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes, and had instructed him to report the same to the House, with sundry amendments thereto. Also, that the committee had had under consideration the bill of the House No. 912, making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and had instructed him to report the same to the House, with sundry amendments thereto.
Mr. STEVENS. I move the previous question on the pending bills.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. ForNEY, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed a bill (H.R.No. 719) to punish certain crimes in relation to the public securities and currency, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. revenING SESSION.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move that the House take a recess from now till half past 7 o'clock this evening, with the understanding that the bank bill shall then be taken up for consideration.
Mr. POMEROY. I object to the latter part of the motion.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Then I modify it by moving that the evening session be devoted to the business of the House. The motion was disagreed to. And then on motion of Mr. STEVENS, (at 4 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m.,) the House adjourned.
###HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, January 31, 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. HON. E. H. WEBSTER.
Mr. DAWES. I ask unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution; and I will state that it is the last one of this kind, and is in precisely the words of the resolutions previously adopted: Resolved.That the Sergeant at Arms be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Hon. E. H. Webster the amount of increasedpay of a memrovided by 39th law from the comCongress to the date ber of this House mencement of of his resignattihoen. The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. DAWES mtRtv the resolution was adopted; on the table. agreed to. PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING.
Mr. ELIOT. I ask consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 525, an act supplementary to an act to prevent smug gling, and for other purposes, in order to put it on its passage, with an amendment from the ComCommerce. No objection. made the bill was taken up and read. It provides that the act to prevent smuggling approved July 18, 1866, shall be so construed as not to affect, any right of suit or prosecution which may have accrued under any prior act of Congress, repealed or supplied by said act previous to July 18, 1866, and that all such suits as have been or shall be commenced under such prior acts for acts committed previous to July 18, 1866, shall be tried and disposed of as if said act of July, 1866, had not been passed.
Mr. ELIOT. The committee have instructed me to move to amend by adding the following sections: SEC. 2. Abife: That section 26 of the act aforesaidbe so amendedthat the SecyTreasury be, and he is hereby, authorized, in his discretion, to make such regulation as shall enable vesselsengaged in the coastingtrade cbleutswiveeelny, ports and placesupon Lake Michigan exand laden with American productions and free merchandiseonly, to previously obtaining unlade their cargowithout a permit to unlade. SEC. 3. Abife:, That section 25 of saidact be hereby amended bying insert: the word “March” in place of "July” in said Section.
Mr. SPALDING. I would inquire of the Gentfrom Massachusetts why this is confined to Lake Michigan.
Mr. ELIOT. It is confined to Lake Michigan because that is the only lake where there 890 January 31, is no foreign country contiguous; and the bill is so framed as to give permits only to those vessels where no smuggling can be committed. It could not be extended to the other lakes without repealing substantially the previous act prohibiting smuggling. 'Mr. SPALDING. It has a bearin vessels going up through the Wellan to Lake Michigan.
Mr. ELIOT. It is confined in its operations to vessels that go from port to port on Lake Michigan.
Mr. HALE. I desire to ask the gentleman if the bill saves the rights of the Government for the enforcement of penalties which ensued under the former law in cases where suits have not been commenced.
Mr. ELIOT. That is the object of the 1st amendment to the Senate bill.
Mr. HALE. I understand that under the former law that was not saved where the suits had not been commenced at the time of the passage of the act of last session.
Mr. HALE. The object of this is to save the forfeiture where the suit had not been commenced the same as if it had been.
Skip Skip The amondments reported by the committee were agreed to. The bill was then ordered to a 3rd reading: and was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. ELIOT mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. PriNTING OF A REPORT.
Mr. DONNELLY, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, and under the law referred to the ComPrintg: Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the House 5,000 extra copies of the report of the SecyWar in relation to the improvement of the navigation of the Upper Mississippi utaries and its trib upon canal ALMANSON EATON. On motion of Mr. DONNELLY, by unanimous consent, the ComPubLands were discharged from the further consideration of bill of the House No. 887, for the relief of Almanson Eaton, receiver of public moneys for the district of lands subject to sale at Stevens's Point, Wisconsin; and the same was referred to the ComClaims.
Mr. ALLISON mtRtv the bill was so referred; on the table. agreed to. LUCAS COUNTY, Iowa.
Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of Lucas county, Iowa; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComPubLands.
Mr. HALE. I now insist on the regular order of business. CONSULAR AND DIPLoMATIC BILL. The House resumed the consideration of the bill oyesterday from the ComWhole on the state of the Union, making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic services of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1858, the pending question being upon the amendments reported by the committee.
The SPEAKER. Those amendments upon which separate votes are not demanded will be considered as agreed to.
Mr. LeBLOND demanded a separate vote on the amendments in regard to the missions to Portugal and Rome. The other amendments reported by the ComWhole on the state of the Union were agreed to. The question then recurred on the amendment in reference to the mission to Portugal.
Mr. LeBLOND demanded the yeas&nays; and called for tellers on the yeas&nays. foilers were not ordered. The yeas&nays were not ordered. The amendment was disagreed to. The next amendment upon which a separate vote was demanded in relation to the mission to Rome, was in line 11, to strike out the word “Rome, ” and to add at the end of line 15 the following: And no money hereby or otherwise appropriated shall be paid for the support of an American legation at Rome fromor after the 30thday of June, 1867.
Skip Skip Mr. ANCONA. I demand the yeas&nays upon that amendment. The yeas&nays were not ordered.
Skip Skip The question was taken upon the amendment and there were ayes 82, noes 18. So The amendment was 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. STEVENS mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. MILITARY ACADEMY APPROPRIATION.
The SPEAKER. The next business in order is the consideration of amendments reported from the ComWhole to House bill No. 912, making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending June 30, 1868, upon which the previous question has been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. There were 2 amendments made by the ComWhole upon which I desire separate votes. I refer to the amendments striking out the following clauses: For fire proof building for chemical laboratory, For stable and foragehouse, $10,000. The 1st question upon which a separate vote was asked was upon agreeing to the amendment of the ComWhole striking out the appropriation for the chemical laboratory; and being taken, upon a division, there were ayes 60, noes 38. So
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The next question upon which a separate vote was asked was upon the amendment to strike out the appropriation for stable and forage house.
Mr. STEVENS. I will not insist upon a separate vote upon that amendment; but will let the question be taken upon all the amendments reported from the ComWhole. The amendments of the ComWhole were agreed to.
Skip Skip The bill, as amended, was then orderengross and read a 3rd time; and bein engrossed, it was accordingly read the i time, and passed. Mr. STEVENS mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. AMNESTY SUFFRAGE IN Territories.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I am instructed by the ComEnrollBill, which committee are authorized to report at any time, to report for consideration at this time, the preamble and resolution which Isend to the Clerk's desk to be read.
The Clerk read as follows: Whereas the bill to repeal section 13 of an act to supPressinsurrection, to punish treasonandrebellion, to scize and confiscate the propertyof rebels, and for other purposes, approved July 17, 1863 and the bill to regulatethe electivefranchise in the Territories of the U.S., were severally passed by both Houses at the Present session of Congress, and have been reported by the ComEnrollBill to have beenPresented to the POTUS, the former on the oth and the latter on 12thinstant; and whereasthe President hasfailed the to notify the House that he has signed the same, and has also failed to return, the same to the HoRep, in objections; which they originated, with his and whereasby section 7, article one, of the Constitution of the U.S. the said bills hnoatvebeneonwpbuebeliosmheed laaws lsa;wasnodfwthheer U.S. have Resolved.That the SecyState be to inform the Housewhetherthesaid laws hadvierebeeteedn filed in his Dept.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. This, I think, is the 1st instance in the history of this Government
Mr. FINCK. I rise to a point of order. I would inquire of the Chair in what manner this resolution has come before the House.
The SPEAKER. It is reported by the Gentfrom Michigan [Mr. TRowbridge] from the ComEnrollBill, which is authorized to report at any time.
Mr. FINCK. That means enrolled bills and JtResolutions.
The SPEAKER. On o 89 of the Digest, the gentleman will find the rule which authorizes that committee to report at any time.
Mr. FINCK. Mr. Speaker, I submit the question of order that that rule will not allow. ComEnrollBill to report ori ginal resolutions; it only allows them to report enrolled bills and enrolled JtResolutions, not an original resolution upon some other subject. This resolution is in regard to the passage of some law in regard to the Constitution of the U.S., and in regard to the duties of the SecyState. I object to the resolution as not in order.
The Clerk read as follows: “It shall be in orderfor the comEnrollBill to report at any time.”–1'ule 101.
The SPEAKER. There is no qualification nor limitation; they are authorized “to report at any time.” This resolution is in relation to enrolled bills submitted by them to the POTUS
Mr. SPALDING. Have they the right to report an original bill at any time?
The SPEAKER. They have the right “to report at any time.” The Chair cannot limit their report on any proper subject any more than any other committee.
Mr. FINCK. I admit that they have the right to report at any time. My point is, that they have no right to, report anything but enrolled bills and enrolled JtResolutions.
The SPEAKER. This matter has been referred to that committee by the House. Bills passed by both branches of Congress are submitted, as the rules require, to the ComEnrollBill, and they report when they submitted them to the POTUS for his signature. The committee report that they have submitted certain bills to the President, that they have not been returned by the President, nor have they been published officially among the laws. of The Clerk will read from the 9th joint rule the 2 Houses.
The Clerk read as follows: “The said committee shall report the day of Presentation to the President; which time shall also be, carefully entered on the journal of each House.”–November 13, 1794.
Mr. FINCK. Have not the committee already reported the fact that they did Present. these bills to the President for his signature?
The SPEAKER. The Chair has no doubt that they have so reported, and this resolution appears to grow out of the duties devolved on them. The Chair rules that they have the right to report at any time upon any matter growing out of the business referred to them.
Mr. FINCK. Have I a right to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair?
The SPEAKER. Certainly; the gentleman has that right.
Mr. EINCK. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The SPEAKER. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?.
Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I move that the appeal be laid on the table.
Mr. HALE. I rise to a point of order. My point is, whether this resolution, being a call for executive information, does not come within the general rule requiring such resolutions to lie over one day, unless unanimous consent be given for their consideration?
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that [. would have been a good one if it had been made in time.
Mr. HALE. I made it as soon as I could get the floor.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Michigan [Mr. TRowbridge] had commenced his speech before the point of order was made by the gentleman on the right, [Mr. FINck] By the usage, the point of order suggested by the Gentfrom NewYork must be made when the resolution is read at the Clerk's desk.
Mr. HALE. If the Gentfrom Michigan will allow me, I wish to inquire whether there is any precedent for this action; whether a resolution of this character is by the practice of the House the ordinary course of giving the House or the country official information as to when a bill has become a law. I suppose that heretofore there must have arisen cases in which bills have become laws by the operation of this very provision of the Constitution; and I should beinclined to think that no further action would be necessary; that in some form it o should be for granted that the bill had become a aW.
The SPEAKER. With the consent of the Gentfrom Michigan, the Chair will reply to the inquiry of the Gentfrom NewYork. This matter has been examined by officers who have been connected with both branches of the Government for a long time, and they cannot find or remember any case in which a bill which has become a law by the declination of the President to give it his signature has not been officially published. The laws mentioned in this resolution have been laws for some time, and it appears have not yet been published.
Mr. HALE. I have no objection to the resolution, if it is in accordance with the ordinary course.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. If the gentleman will listen to me, perhaps some of his doubts will be removed. When the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. FINck] raised his point of order I was about to state that this is the 1st instance in the history of our government in which a bill which has been passed by both Houses of Congress, and has failed to secure the signature of the President or to be returned with his objections, has not been officially published. These 2 bills, the titles of which are rehearsed in the preamble of the resolution, have passed both Houses of Congress, been signed by their respective Presiding Officers, and by the ComEnrollBill have been Presented to the POTUS on the 9th and 12th of January respectively. The time during which the President is allowed to retain in his hands a bill which has passed both Houses of Congress has some time since expired; but he has neither. returned these bills to the House with his objections, nor has he notified Congress of his approval of the same. Therefore they have become, under the imperative requirement of the Constitution of the U.S., laws. But, Mr. Speaker, the SecyState is required to publish the laws which shall have been enacted by Congress. He has published bills which have obtained the approval of the President, and by that jo.become laws, since the time when these 2 bills became laws in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. But he has not published these 2 bills. It seems, then, to the ComEnrollBill important and essential that these bills shall be filed with the SecyState and placed where they may be published as the other laws of the U.S. are; and as the 1st step toward placing them in that position the committee recommend the passage of the preamble and resolution which they have reported to this House.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I would like to ask the gentfeman whether he has found the bills; whether he knows where they are now; whether he has seen them.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. That is the very purpose of the resolution, to find the bills; and if they are not with the SecyState, then the committee propose to follow this action by some proposition requiring the Clerk to make a new enrollment of the bills to be filed in the Dept of State, or proposing some other action which after full consultation the committee may deem appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I now call the previous question.
Mr. I have not heard the resolution, and I should like to have it again read. SCHENCK. I hope the gentleman will withdraw the demand for the previous question as we ought to be careful of what steps we take in this matter.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I will yield to the gentleman after the preamble and resolution have been again read. The Clerk again read the preamble and resolution.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I withdraw the demand for the previous question, retaining the floor, before yield to the Gentfrom Ohio. I suggest to him by this resolution we may obtain from the SecyState information whether the bills have been filed at his office; and if that be so no further action may be necessary. If not, then the committee will introduce some resolution to supply the deficiency; and under that resolution this whole subject will come before the House properly for discussion.
Mr. SCHENCK. It is only because this is a new question I desire to say anything at all, and that in the nature of inquiry rather than anything else. Here are 2 laws which have become such by force of constitutional provision through the neglect or by the refusal of the President to take any notice of the action of Congress. Now, sir, all laws upon the statute book have some authentication. If the law receives the approval of the Executive it is published in the statute book with the statement of the date when signed and approved. If not approved by the Preesident, but returned with his objections and over the veto, it is then published as having been thus passed over the veto by the requisite 2/3rds majority of each branch of Congress. It seems to me this resolution does not go far enough. Suppose the SecyState says these laws are enrolled and he will publish them with the other laws, then they will go upon the statute book without any authentication. They will not be marked as approved by the President, or as having been passed over the President's veto by the requisite 2/3rds majority. These 2 Houses, it seems to me, ought to take some action, by JtResolution or otherwise, to publish these laws with the statutes to show what the facts are, that they have become laws notwithstanding the neglect of the President. Therefore I ask whether this proposes to rest satisfied with the statement, he has inclosed these with other statutes in his keeping at the State Dept, and whether it would not be necessary, before publishing them to the people of the U.S. as statutes, to accompany them by some act of authentication which will verify the facts that the President having retained them without adjournment of Congress beyond the period of ten days and not returning them they have by the Constitution become laws.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. My opinion is the latter alternative is the course that will be taken, and a declaration made when these laws shall take effect. That is in contemplation of the committee. I call the previous question.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the opera taidonopstethde. reof the preamble and resolution were Mr. TROWBRIDGE mtRtv taken; on the table. agreed to.
The SPEAKER subsequently said: There was a question before the House this morning in relation to a resolution reported by the ComEnrollBill, in regard to the manner of attesting bills which have gone into ope ration and become laws, but. have not been signed by the President. The Chair since then has looked into the matter, and the Clerk will now report 2 precedents which occurred during the administration of President Buchanan.
The Clerk read as follows: “A messagewas receivedfromthe POTUS, by A. J. Glossbrenner, his Private oo: the House that an act for the relief of Hockaday & Liggett having been Presented to the President on the 16th of February, 1861, and not having been returned by him within ten days, (Sundaysexcepted.), it has now, become a law under the Constitution of the U.S.:, “A message was received from the POTUS, by A.; J. Glossbrenner, his Private Secretary, notifying the Housethat a JtResolution (H.R.No. 62)for the benefit of George H. Giddings, having been Presented to the President on the 18th of February, 1861, and not having beenreturned by him within ten days, (Sundays excepted, it become has now a law under the Constitution of the U.S. ” CIVIL SERVICE. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order the consideration of bill of the House No. 889, to regulate the civil service of the U.S and promote the efficiency thereof, on which Mr. HALE was entitled to the floor.
Mr. HALE. To accommodate gentlemen who are interested in the business of the morning hour I move that the further consideration; this bill be postponed till after the morning Our. The motion was agreed to. PURCHASE OF THE STEAMSHIP Illinois. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the SecyWar, in response to a House resolution, transmitting papers relative to the purchase of the steamship Illinois; which, on motion of Mr. TAYLOR, of NewYork, was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. COMMON COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also stated by request he Presented the memorial of the common council of Baltimore; which was referred to the ComJudiciary. INSPECTION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. The SPEAKER announced as the 1st business in order during the morning hour the bill (S.No.204) entitled “An act to provide for an annual inspection of Indian affairs, and for other purposes, ” on which Mr. Higby was entitled to the floor.
Mr. HIGBY. I supposed the arrangement was to take this matter up tomorrow evening, but I find by the Globe it comes up this morning. I move the bill be left open for debate Friday evening.
Mr. SCHENCK. We can dispose of it morning. this
Mr. HIGBY. For 15 minutes, if he wishes all that time; or, sir, I will yield the floor indefinitely.
Mr. Maxfield, a missionary among the Pawnees, a very short extract of which I will read for the purpose of showing what they think upon this subject. And let me pause here to make my acknowl edgment not only on behalf of myself, but of the country, to the diligence of the newspaper correspondents of this House, who have sought for and obtained certain reports that were made by the investigating committees sent out nearly 2 years ago to examine into these matters. I find some passages from one of these reports, none of which have been Presented to this House so far as I know, published in the Cincinnati Gazette. I would like to read them all, but I will content myself with a single extract.
Mr. HIGBY. One word. I am quite as much surprised as the gentleman himself that those reports were not distributed. I do not know why they were not.
Mr. BURLEIGH. I would like to ask the gentleman when and where an Indian tribe which has made a treaty with the Government with Indian agents has violated its treaty obligations., I have heard common charges of this kind made against them, but I will say that the charges were all upon Indian agents and traders.
Mr. KASSON. Let me speak from the record, and so far as Dakota is concerned I refer the gentleman to the appendix to the report of the Indian Commissioner, I will read from Mr. Nesmith's report.
Mr. BURLEIGH. Will the gentleman an swer my question?
Mr. HIGBY. I would ask the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. KAssox] if he thinks we cannot have a system in the civil service which will take care of the Indians.
Mr. KASSON. I give up the Present system.
Mr. HIGBY. I agree with the gentleman in regard to the Present system, but I go for a more stringent system.
Mr. KASSON. The system proposed by the ComIndAffrs merely changes the Present system in a way to lead to greater expenditures. It proposes to have upon each board a military man, a priest, and a politician 3 different interests being rePresented. i notice that by that bill you actually compel the military men to come before these boards and testify and act under their direction. You thereby increase this very conflict upon the plains between the military and the civil authorities. And I think those boards will satisfy themselves very soon that they can do nothing without the aid of the military. Wherever they go, over the plains or through the mountains, you must send the military with them. Why not, then, put the management of Indian affairs under the control of the War Dept of the Government? In that way it will all be united under one head, and if you choose he can send out civilian inspectors. He can order military reports by telegraph over half the continent in a week's time. Under the Present system you could not and did not get a report before the House for 2 years after you sent out a special commission for the pur. Ose. p I thank the Gentfrom California [Mr. Higby] for the time he has yielded to me. I did not intend, when I commenced, to take so much time as I have.
Mr. HIGBY. How much time, Mr. Speaker, have I left?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has 11 minutes of his time remaining.
Mr. HIGBY. I will yield 3 minutes of my time to the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Ross]
Mr. ROSS. Being a member of the ComIndAffrs, I desire to occupy more time than 3 minutes, and I therefore decline the offer of the Gentfrom California, oHIGBY]
Mr. HIGBY. I now yield 3 minutes of my time to the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. DARLING]
Mr. DARLING. I suppose that time will be all I shall desire to occupy. I desire to say, as a RePresentative of the great State of NewYork, that I thank the distinguished RePresentative from Ohio [Mr. Schexck] for introdu cing this subject as he has done. I think the time has come when there should be a change in the policy of the Government in reference to the management of our Indian affairs. And I can see no other way out of the difficulties that surround us in this matter than to transfer this bureau to the War Dept. By so doing we will secure the discipline and efficiency of that arm of the service, and secure the fidelity which results from that system and that discipline. We will secure friends for the Indians and punishment for those who inflict upon them the wrongs which for a long series of years have induced them to commit atrocities upon the unoffending whites upon our borders. It seems to me that the only idea which has controlled the Government has been to get rid of the irregularities and troubles which have resulted from the intercourse betweenthe Indians and the whites, by driving the Indians still further into the wilderness. The nomadic as well as the permanent tribes have been subject to this process as the advancing tide of civilization and emigration has overtaken them.. I am glad to see the opportunity now offered for the American Congress to do justice in this matter, by taking completely the control of our Indian affairs from the bureau where it is alleged these abuses have so long existed and transferring it at once and without delay to the War Dept. Here the hammer fell]
Mr. HIGBY. I now yield 3 minutes to the Gentfrom Wisconsin, P. SLOAN]
Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Speaker, I only desire to say that I have been long of the opinion that any change in the management of our Indian affairs must of necessity be a change for the better. The Present system of appointing Indian agents is essentially vicious. These appointments are. as rewards for political and partisan services. Selected from the States the appointees have in most cases very little experience in Indian affairs and very little knowledge of the Indian character. Going among the tribes many of these men, as appears from authentic evidence, are governed by the mere motive of making all that is possible during the short time that they can expect to hold their offices. The result of this system is that plundering and fraud are common in the management of our Indian affairs. The wrongs which the Indians suffer drive them into armed conflict with the whites, and then the military force of the country is turned upon them to ravage and destroy. We need some permanent and efficient system for the management of our Indian affairs. It was urged yesterday by the Gentfrom Minnesota [Mr. WINDoM] that men can be selected from civil life of as high a character as any military officers. Yet T submit that, under the prevailing system of giving appointments as rewards for political and partisan services, we are not likely to obtain suitable men. On the other othe accountability of the military officer to the War Dept must work a beneficial change in the management of Indian affairs if we adopt the plan advocated by the chairman of the Militar Committee. I trust that his proposition will meet the favor of the House. [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. HIGBY. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, [Mr. Bidwell]
Mr. BIDWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very lad t.hat tIhtis question is being agitated by this is my fortune to have been inti mately acquainted with the condition of the Indians west of the Rocky mountains for the last 25 years, and I can say that the disposition manifested by the Government to ward those Indian tribes has it seems to me had in view the welfare of the Indians. Congress I believe has had the best intentions in making appropriations for the maintenance of those Indians. I believe that in a great majority of cases the agents themselves have done their utmost to benefit the Indians under their charge. I know from personal experience that it has been the intention of the Indian Bureau to make appointments and spend money, in such a manner as to benefit to the greatest possible degree the Indians. But, sir, it is a lamentable fact that all the efforts which have been made and are being made are not adequate to accomplish what is designed. Some change is absolutely necessary; and I, for one, see no better mode of working the needed reform than by transferring this whole business to the War Dept. While I say that I believe this to be the best plan, I do not intend to impugn the action or the motives of any agent or any Dept of the Government; for I have already stated that I believe the officers of the Government have acted in good faith. The Present system, however, is radically wrong. A change is demanded, and I believe that a military officer is better fitted to superintend an Indian reservation than a civilian. I will tell you why [Here the hammer fell]
Mr. HIGBY. I now yield the floor to the Gentfrom Minnesota, [Mr. WINDoM]
Mr. WINDOM. I call.the previous question.
The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Minnesota [Mr. WINDom] is entitled to the floor to close the debate.
Mr. WINDOM. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the Gentfrom Oregon, [Mr. HENDERson]
Mr. WINDOM. I now yield 20 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Ross, and when e has concluded, I now give notice I can yield no further.
Mr. BIDWELL. The gentleman complains of the treatment of the Indians in NewMexico by the military. Now, I ask him if that is not under the Present system, which leaves the man agement of Indian affairs in the Dept of the interior?
Mr. KASSON. I understand that a little while ago, during my absence from the House, the gentleman made some personal allusion to myself. I should be glad to know what it was.
Mr. WINDOM. I will yield to the gentlemanin a moment. Now, let us look for a moment at a specimen of the management of Indian affairs by the War Dept. There are 6,000 Indians in NewMexico on the Bosque Ro dondo, who are under the entire management and control of the War Dept; and doc umentsnow before me show that the expenditures for those 6,000 Indians were $1,500,000 in one single year. That is what it cost the War Dept to take care of those 6,000 Indians; while this terribly extravagant Indian Bureau takes care of 300,000 Indians for less than double that sum. The cost of subsistence of those 6,000 Indians in NewMexico was a little less than $700,000, and the cost of transportation for them a little more than $800,000. documents before me show that the cost of transportation for the $2, 468,050 expended by the Indian Bureau is only $127, 368. It will be seen, therefore, that in the item of transportation alone, it costs the War Dept 6 times as much for 6,000 Indians as it does the interior Dept for 300,000 Indians. Yet we are caosnketrdol of with apparent sincerity to transfer the 1. affairs to this wonderfully economical War Dept in order to save money to the Treasury. But a little further on that subject. When the Gentfrom Ohio was addressing the House yesterday and speaking of the protection given to the Indians by the military, the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] asked me how much it cost to kill one Indian; to which I replied about one million dollars. He seemed to think that was a little extravagant, and I agreed to compromise on $500,000 per Indian. Now, after further reflection and investigation, instead of compromising on $500,000for each Indian killed, I should double my former estimate. On the 7th of June last I had the honor to introduce into this House a resolution calling upon the SecyWar to inform us what was the cost of the military expeditions for the supPression of Indian hostilities in 1864 and 1865, and I ask the Clerk to read the answer.
The Clerk read as follows: WAR DEPT, WAshingtox City, Decembe3r, 1866 SIA: In compliance with a resolution of the HoRep SecyWar to inform the June 7, H1o8u6s6ed, wirhe acttinag mtohuen Steoef dHioanney has been expended for the supPression of In ilities, &e., during the years 1864and 1865, I have the honor to send here with reportson thesub' from the QuarterMGen, the Commissarygeneralof Subsistence, and the PayMGen, mwhich it will be seen that – 1864 quartermaste r'sdeptexpen$d9e, And that the total expenditures in 1864and 1865amount to. $30 Some of the above information having been only ocently received, this report could not be madein t“ime foor the last session of Congress, but the earliest is now taken for Presenting it. our obedient servant EDWIN M. STANTON, SecyWar. Hon.Schuyler Colpax, Speaker of the hoRep.
Mr. WINDOM.Mr. you will receive by this report of the SecyWar that the Indian military expeditions of 1864 and 1865 cost over 30 million dollars. The expedition in the Northwest under General Sully cost in quartermaster's stores alone $6, 636,000. Let me give the result of that expedition, as stated by one well acquainted with the facts: “General Sully, with 1063 officers and men and 1867 horsesand mules, during a campaign of several months, having marchedmorethan 1600 miles, did not succeed in killing a single Indian, except probably one Indian killed after the expedition returned to Fort Rice. An express rider claims that he killed one; so that matter is in dispute. The Indian at any rate was admitted to be friendly and foolish. General Sully is an excellent officer; it was not his fault becausehe did not find the Indians; he could not overtake them; theyweretoo cunning and too fleet for him. His lossof course was not heavy; he did, however, kill about 100 horses, to rev.ent themfromfalling into the handsof the In I have been informed by a general officer in the U.S. Army, who hashad a large experience in Indian affairs, who says it costs nearly 2 million dollars a year to support a regiment in the Indian country $2,000,000 to kill one Indian.” The report of the SecyWar shows that over 6 million dollars were spent in kill;ing this one Indian; and it is still doubtful whether he is living or dead. [Laughter.] " So much for the question of economy. These are specimens of what the War Dept can do. Over 30 million dollars expended in 2 years, and excluding the massacre of friendly Indians by Colonel Chivington in cold blood, I venture to say it has cost the Government on the average over 2 million dollars for every Indian killed by the War Dept.
Mr. KASSON. When I was absent from the House I understand the Gentfrom Minnesota alluded to me, saying that a squaw followed me when I was upon the plains and did not catch me. In his case I suppose the squaw did overtake him. (i.;
Mr. WINDOM. I admitthe gentleman can run faster than I can. [Laughter].
Mr. KASSON. One other point I wish to present, and that is touching the number of.killed.
Mr. WINDOM. That settles the squaw question, and I cannot yield further. [Laughter.
Mr. KASSON. I want to state one fact touching the number of Indians killed in that war. That is one side entirely of the question of what caused the war. The number of Indians killed in the fight north of the Upper Platte and near the Powder river in a single engagement by military report appears to have been much larger, 4 or 5 times at least, than the number now stated by the gentleman. I was on the plains at the time the battle took place.
Mr. WINDOM. Was that General Pope's report?
Mr. WINDOM. I did not know but it was one of those battles where 10,000 pris oners were taken. There is a point made by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SchENck] to which I wish to allude, namely, that this transfer will be for the benefit of the Indian himself. Let us look at a few facts on that point and see how much the friends of the “poor Indian” propose to do for him by this transfer. As I have said before, we can only take a few instances, because there are but few of them where the military has had entire control, for the pur. pose of showing what they would do if clothed with full powers. In these few instances we may ascertain what would be the result if the substitute proposed by the Gentfrom Ohio jicpass. Take, for instance, the case of the Indians at Bosque Rodondo, to which I have referred. I ask the Clerk to read a short extract from the report of Mr. Norton, the superintendent for NewMexico, as to the manner in which gentlemen of the military profession treat the Indians under their control.
The Clerk read as follows: Extractfrom the annual Report of SuperinteridenNt or ton for 1866. “Of the state of the health and morals of vajosyou theNa can formsomeideafrom theinclosedreport of the surgeon of the hospital; andfrom the bestin formation I could gather when I visited the Basque the tale is not half told, because they have such an aversion to the hospital that but few of sick, those taken will ever go there. What a commentary is this on the humanity, Christianity, and civilization of the white man! what a disgrace to the nation that 7,000 Indians, while held, as prisoners of war, thus treated; that the family circle is invaded their women, wives, and daughters, are thus prostituted and diseasedby the embraces of licentious soldiery ! You will, also see% the report o my conference with the chiefs that they complain of being molestedby the soldiers. The only remedy for all this unbridled sensuality and licentiousness must comethrough the secyWar, in anorder the proper channels, to the commander of e post.
Mr. WINDOM. I will leave that extract, without comment, to make its own imPression upon the House and the country. But there is one other case to which I will refer, and that is the management by the War Dept of Indian affairs in Colorado territory. I send to the desk to be read the deposition of James D. Connor, lieutenant of the 1st infantry NewMexico volunteers, taken by the special committee of investigation. I have erased from this report certain portions describing the action of white soldiers, because they are too atrocious and revolting to be read in the hearing of this House; too horrid even to be spread on paper.
Mr. BIDWELL. I would like to ask whether the conduct of Colonel Chivington was not rebuked by the War Dept at the time?
Mr. WINDOM. I Presume, Mr. Speaker, that it was rebuked; but when gentlemen stand here arguing that it is for the benefit of the Indian to turn him over to the hands of men who have shown themselves capable of such brutal conduct, I think it is but fair that some examples of their mode of treatment should be presented to the House. Here was a band of about 500 friendly, quiet, and peaceable Indians, en camped with their wives and children, attacked by 1,000 U.S. soldiers, massa cred in cold blood, and treated in a manuer which would make the very fiends below blush for shame. I would have preferred not to call the attention of the House to this revolting subject, but I do it as an offset to the charge made against the civil service. If anything can be found in the conduct of the civil authority half as bad as this, I will vote for the amendment of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SchENck]
Mr. HIGBY. I have the best authority for stating that before I left SanFrancisco in the fall of 1865 a lieutenant in command of a squad of men then in the service of the U.S. in Nevada came across the dead body of a squaw who had upon her breast a living infant, and the lieutenant ordered one of his men to take that child and throw it over a precipice and throw stones upon it so as to destroy it. I have the best authority for making that statement.
Mr. SCHENCK. I desire to ask the gentleman how it is that he can claim that the carrying on of wars against the Indians, cruelly or otherwise, affects the question of the administra.tion of the Indian dept? Does the g!ent.leman propose that under his system no shall be kept there, and that if there is trouble with the Indians that no troops shall be employed to supPress it.
Skip Skip Mr. SCHENCK. 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 76, nays 78, not voting 42;. So Mr. SCHENck's amendment was adopted. Mr. SCHENCK. mtRtv just taken; on the table. On the question, shall the motion to reconsider be laid on the table? there were ayes 74, noes 68. Mr. WINDOM. I call for the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeas 77, nays 70, not voting 44; So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. WINDOM. I move that the bill, as amended, be laid on the table, and on that motion I demand the yeas&nays. The SPEAKER. The gentleman can call the3.&nays on ordering the bill to be read the 3rd time. Mr. WINDOM. Very well; I withdraw the motion to lay on the table. The SPEAKER. The question recurs on ordering the bill, as amended, to be read the 3rd time. Mr. WINDOM. On that I call the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative–yeas 91, nays 52, not voting 48;. So the bill was ordered to a 3rd reading. The bill was accordingly read the 3rd time. Mr. SCHENCK demanded 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.
Mr. SCHENCK. I move to amend the title so as to make it read “A bill to transfer the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the War Dept;" and on that demand the previous question.
Mr. WINDOM. I move to make it a bill to massacrethe Indians and deplete the Treasury.
Skip Skip The previous question was 2nded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the amendment of Mr. Schexck was agreed to. Mr. SCHENCK mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the ComEnrollBill, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill (H.R.No. 660) entitled “An act for the relief of Captain James Starkey;” whereupon the Speaker signed the same.
Skip Skip MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. FoENEY its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed a bill and JtResolution of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested: An act (S.No.32) to prevent the absence of Territorial officers from their official duties; an A JtResolution (S.R.No. 159) author.izing the SecyTreasury to permit the owners of the yacht Mayflower to change the name of the same to that of Silvie. The message further announced that the Senate had passed without amendment an act (H.R.No. 660) for the relief of Captain James Starkey. Ottoer OF BUSINESs.
Mr. INGERSOLL moved to go to the business on the Speaker's table. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HALE. all prior orders be postponed to take up the bill regulating the tenure of civil officers.
Mr. WRIGHT. I object. ExeMPTION OF PROPERTY IN DISTRICT. The SPEAKER laid before the House, as the 1st business upon his table, amendments of the House to Senate bill No. 218, exempting property of debtors in the DistCol from levy, attachment, sale, or execution, returned by the Senate, with concurrence in the 1st and non-concurrence in the 2nd amendment.
Mr. INGERSOLL moved the House recede from its 2nd amendment. The motion was agreed to. ILLEGAL WOTING IN THE DISTRICT. On motion of
Skip Skip The bill was ordered to a 3rd reading, and it was accordingly read the 3rd time, and passed. Mr. INGERSOLL mtRtv the bill was passed; on the table. agreed to. i tio th I ask unanimous consent that ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. STEVENS. I rise to a privileged mo m.. I move that the rules be suspended, and at the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the fortification appropriation bill.
Mr. HALE. I hope the gentleman will not insist upon that. There is a very important bill lying on the Speaker's table which we ought to reach and can reach by proceeding with the order now.
Mr. STEVENS. I think you cannot get through that today, and I therefore insist on my motion. The motion was disagreed to ayes 38, noes 64. B.A.L.TIMOREAND POTOMAC RAILROAD. The next business on the Speaker's table was the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to House bill No. 388, to authorize the extension, construction, and use of a lat eral branch of the Baltimore and Potomac railroad into and within the DistCol. The amendments of the Senate, which were mostly of a verbal character, were concurred in.
Mr. INGERSOLL mtRtv taken; on the table. agreed to. U.S. COURTS. The next business on the Speaker's table was the consideration of the amendment of the Senate to House bill No. 605, to amend an act to establish the j'. courts of the U.S., approved September 24, 1789. The amendment of the Senate was to insert after the word “courts” the words “within their respective jurisdictions.”
Mr. COOK. I move that the House concur in the amendment.
Mr. WRIGHT. I would ask whether anybody in this House, when he gives his vote on these amendments, knows what he is voting upon? [Laughter]
The SPEAKER.The Gentfrom N. Jersey is not in order. The question is on t motion to concur. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COOK, mtRtv taken; on the table. agreed to. PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES. The next business in order on the Speaker's table was the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to House bill No. 719, to punish certain crimes in relation to the public secu rities and currency, and for other purposes. The amendments were read, being in relation to the terms of imprisonment and the amount of fines.
Mr. MAYNARD. I would suggest whether it would not be better to have these amendments so read that the House may understand. the effect and purport of them. The SPEAKE They relate to the number of years of imprisonment for counterfeiting, reducing it from 15 years to . ten. I do not refer to any particular one, but all of them.
The SPEAKER. They all relate to the same subject.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I do not deem it necessary to give any more extended explanation of the amendments of the Senate than that which the Chair has already given. The are mainly a reduction of the terms for which the party may be imprisoned, and the amount of fine that may be imposed.
Mr. MAYNARD. May they not be so read with the context that we may see what the words are?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I will ask that the Clerk read the 1st amendment of the Sen. ate, in connection with the context of the bill.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I was declared out of order only a few moments ago for. what we were voting upon..There is now a bill before the House providing for the infliction of punishment for certain crimes, and am I out of order for asking in what way the Senate have seen fit to amend it?
The SPEAKER. The gentlemah is not out of order in asking that, and he was not called to order for that, but for stating that the House was voting without knowing what it was voting up O.il. WRIGHT. That is exactly the case, sir. [Lau.]
The Clerk read the 1st amendment of the Senate with the context.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move that all the amendments of the Senate be concurred in, unless some gentleman desires a separate vote upon any amendment. I will state that all these amendments are designed to conform the penalties provided by this bill to those now provided by existing law or the crime of counterfeiting. The amendments of the Senate were concurred in.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, mtRtv the amendments were concurred in; on the table. agreed to. WINE NA AND StPetERS RAILROAD. Bill of the Senate No. 494, for the relief of the Wine na and StPeters Railroad Company, was next taken from the Speaker's table, read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComCommerce. RAILROAD FROM SanFranCISCO TO liu MDOLDT. The SPEAKER stated that the next business in order upon the Speaker's table was the consideration of the bill of the Senate No. 133, granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the waters of the bay of SanFrancisco to Humboldt bay, in the State of California, which bill was post. poned on the last night of the last session, and again postponed on the 18th of December.
Mr. McRUER. I ask for the consideration of that bill at the Present time.
Mr. HALE. I think it is a bill that ought to be referred to some committee.
Mr. McRUER. Let me say that, although it is a Senate bill and is now upon the Speaker's table, it has, nevertheless, been considered by the Committee, on Public Lands, and I am authorized by that committee to Present an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill. It will be recollected by the House that this bill was postponed on the evening before the ast day of the last session of Congress. It has been before the ComPubLands for at least 6 months, and has been carefully considered by them. They have prepared an amendment which is to be submitted as a substitute for the original bill. I would not, sir, Press the bill upon the House for action now, were it not that this is probably the last opportunity that we shall have during the Present session to consider it.
Mr. HALE. Will the Gentfrom California permit me to suggest that it is hardly possible that this bill can be passed tonight without some further consideration than the House can now give iIt? suggest to him therefore that if he is unwilling to have the bill referred to a committee he allow it to retain its place upon the Speaker's table for the Present.
Mr. McRUER. I have no objection to that course.
The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the bill will remain upon the table. The Chair hears no objection. TENURE OF CIVIL OFFICE. The next bill taken from the Speaker's table was bill of the Senate No. 453, regulating the tenure of certain civil offices; which was read a 1st and 2nd time.
Mr. HALE. I desire to put this bill upon its passage as early as reasonably may be. There are several gentlemen, some upon this side of the House and some othe other, who desire to be heard upon it. It is a subject to the discussion of which the House has already devoted some days upon a similar bill reported by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. WILLIAMs] That discussion involved all the questions which are involved in this bill; and I therefore give notice that if it be consistent with the views of the House I should like to bring the House to a vote upon this bill at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, thus affording an opportunity to some gentlemen to be heard upon it. I understand, however, that the chairman of the Committee on Aoi.desires to go into ComWhole on the state of the Union on an appropriation bill, and I have no objection to that course being pursued if this bill will come up tomorrow morning.
The SPEAKER. It will be the unfinished business tomorrow morning. FORTIFICATION BILL.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the ComWhole on the state of the Union on the special order. The motion was agreed to. So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into ComWhole on the state of the Union, [Mr. PoMERoy in the chair, and proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being bill of the House No. 919, making appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1368. By unanimous consent the 1st reading of the bill was dispensed with, and the Clerk proceeded to read it by clauses for amendment.
Mr. BLAINE. i.to amend the bill by inserting at the end of line 18 the following: For commencement of 2 additional forts for the defense purchase of Portland harbor, Maine, including the of sites, $150,000. I desire to state very briefly, if I can get the attention of the committee, that I am instructed to offer this amendment by the ComMilAffrs, and that they propose it at the instance of the SecyWar, who for warded to that committee a communication from the chief of Engineers, General Hum phreys. This item was left out by the ComAppropriat, but he gives substantial reasons why the appropriation should be made at this time. do not desire to debate the matter at any length, and unless some gentleman desires further information I will.with this brief statement leave the question to the committee.
Mr. SPALDING. I think we have thrown away money enough on fortifications already; and unless those items come to us in the regular estimates I think we better vote them all down.
Skip Skip The question was taken; and upon a division, there were ayes 20. Before the noes were counted, Mr. BLAINE said: I desire, if there is no objection, to make a statement to the House.
Mr. BLAINE. I did not know there would be any objection to this item, Ior would have made a further statement when I had the floor.
Mr. SPALDING. I object to any debate after a division upon the question.
Mr. BLAINE. I withdraw my amendment. The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. i. that in resisting this small appropriation o $150,000 at this time he may be putting in peril that which, if once lost, $150,000,000 would fail to regain. I am not seeking to give the imPression that there is now the slightest prospect of war and I trust the day is veryremote when we shall have to encounter su a calamity. But we know the old injunction as to our duty “in time of peace, ” and we know, moreover, that a thorough preparation for war is the surest way to escape it. Impreg nable fortifications are least frequently as saulted These are the views which have governed the engineer dept in urging the erection of additional forts at Portland, and with this brief Presentation of the leading facts of the case F.willing to submit the question to the judgment of the House.
Mr. SPALDING. I object to this appropriation, for the reason that it is for the commencement of a new work. It is not to carry on a fort already commenced there, but it is to commence a new fort there in Portland harbor: an appropriation of $150,000 to commence n.ew.forts. The Gentfrom Maine [Mr. says that it is necessary to have these outer forts constructed for the purpose of strengthening the forts already built there. He may with equal propriety ask for an appropriation to hostill another line of forts outside of those now proposed, in order to strengthen them when they shall have been built. Beside, there are no estimates from the War Dept for this expenditure; none at all.
Mr. BLAINE. This item comes to us in a communication from the War Dept, signed “Edwin M. Stanton, ” who, I believe, is still SecyWar. I hold in my hand his letter transmitting the communication from GenlHumphreys, chief of Engineers, from which I read an extract at the beginning of my remarks.Mr. Stanton, in his own letter, says: Engineers new works recommendedby the chicf of are regarded s very important, and have the approval of the War Dept.” I ask the Gentfrom Ohio if this is not a very distinct and very emphatic recommendation from the proper official quarter?
Mr. SPALDING. I ask that the ComAppropriat, which is formed for the purpose, shall have the poor privilege of in vestigating these matters. The SecyTreasury sent to us his estimates, including those from the War Dept, which did not embrace any for this purpose.
Mr. BLAINE. I have already stated that this is a regular estimate made by the War dept.. It was sent, as such communications usually are, to the Military Committee, of which I am a member; and it is by exPress nstruction from that committee that I have submitted the pending proposition. The Gentfrom Ohio will observe that it comes here through the regular, proper, recognized, and authenticated channel.
Mr. SPALDING. The proposition to make this particular appropriation at this particular period of time is a very extraordinary one. I think we are dealing with the money of the people in a very loose way when we undertake to vote away, at the instance of some one member of this House, $150,000 for a new fortification.
Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman says this is asked at the instance “of one member of this House.” Why, sir, I have this moment detailed the circumstances under which this proposition is now here. It came, I repeat, from the Engineer Bureau, specially indorsed and recommended by the SecyWar, aprowed by the Military Committee of. this and now moved by me in pursuance of instructions from that committee. I hope I need not have to repeat these facts again.
Mr. SPALDING. "Isay further that, during the last year, we have voted $500,000 probably for this very town of Portland
Mr. BLAINE. Oh, no, Mr. SPALDING. And gentlemen should not complain if we require a little time for deliberation before we vote $150,000 more.
Mr. LYNCH. I move to amend the amendment by making the amount $160,000. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say in reply to the Gentfrom Ohio oSPALDING] that there have been estimates for these works from the War Dept; and the gentleman will find them upon page 86 of the book of Deptal Estimates. The estimates sent in by the dept for these very works amount to 150,000. The appropriatiofo for this purpose is not included in. bill reported by the committee; but it is among i. estimates from which the bill was made up.
Mr. KASSON. The gentleman will permit me to say that his statement is correct. A proposed appropriation for this work was included in the estimates; but it is a rule of the ComAppropriat, where an entirely new work is proposed, to wait until the approF. committee of the House has reported in avor of the construction of the work, before acting on such estimates. I understand that the ComMilAffrs have considered this subject and are in favor of the construction of these works. I ask the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] to state whether this proposition comes formally from that committee.
Mr. BLAINE. It does come formally from that committee. I offer this amendment by instruction of the committee, as I have already stated more than once; otherwise the motion would have come from my colleague [Mr. Lynch] who rePresents the district in which Portland is situated.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I had no knowledge that any such amendment would be offered. If my colleague had not Presented it as a member of the Military Committee I should not have offered it, for the reason that I do not consider military works as matters of merely local importance. In my view the fortifications around the harbor of Portland are not for the benefit merely of that city. When, therefore, propositions of this kind come u here I do not feel especially called on to advocate them as local matters. If they are not matters of national importance appropriations for them should not be made by the national Government. With regard to the necessity for these new works let me make a single statement. In October, 1861, the SecyState, in a communication to the Governor of Maine, asked the cooporation of the State and the loan of its credit toward fortifying the harbors of the State. On account of that communication the Governor of Maine appointed a commission, and that commission conferred with the U.S. authorities on the subject. A military commission was sent to examine the coast of Maine. It examined, among other points, the old fortifications around Portland, and made plans and estimates for new fortifi eations. These very works were estimated for at that time, and are upon the plans of the engineer dept submitted in 1861. The Present Fo" is simply to carry out the plans of the engineer dept submitted at that time. I desire the Clerk to read an extract from the reply of the Governor of Maine to the communication of the SecyState, for it sets forth very clearly the facts of the case.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, I should be sorry if this assumed the character of a local and it is well enough to inform the house how this comes before it.
Mr. SCHENCK. I renew the amendment just withdrawn in order to explain how this comes before the House. Among estimates for works deemed to be essentially necessa by the War Dept was included this, with 2 or 3 others not put in this bill by the ComAppropriat. Seeing this, a communication was sent to the ComMilAffrs from the SecyWar, in closing a full report from the Engineer Bureau, together with these same matters for the consideration of the committee, and asking the committee if it approved them to incorporate them in this bill by way of amendment. The committee came to the conclusion to recommend this appropriation for Portland, and every one of them, except one, and that the largest item. This amendment has been moved by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] in pursuance of the consideration of the ComMilAffrs, and it is only asking the House to put in what was estimateed and asked for by the War Dept, and left out by the ComAppropriat, as already stated. It is not a local affair. It lies in the north east, in Maine; but Ohio, as every other part of the country, is interested in keeping up the defenses at every inlet or outlet within our limits. Every part is interested in keeping up these forts. Although lying up in NewEngland the ComMilAffrs do not consider it a local affair, and have therefore instructed the Gentfrom Maine to move this amendment, which will be followed by others. My colleague asks why at this time, when the country is in a condition of embarrassment on account of the public expenses, these heavy works should be undertaken? My answer is twofold: 1st, in time of ". we should prepare for war; and 2nd, these changes are rendered of imperative necessity by the changes in modern artillery. Mr. SPALDING. Is it not questionable whether fortifications, since iron clad ships have been built, are of any use?
Mr. SCHENCK. We Ho only to refer to the instance of Fort Sumter. Although the iron clads battered down the walls and reduced it to a heap of ruins, yet our ships could not get by it. I think they are useful, and may be made more so with the changes rendered necessary by modern offensive warfare on the part of iron clads. It may be eventually our forts will be fully iron clad, but I believe no one has arrived at the conviction, at least of those who are competent to judge, that forts can be done away with altogether. I withdraw my amendment.
Mr. KASSON moved to reduce the appropriation to $150,000.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The committee divided on the amendment, as amended; and there were ayes 51, noes 28; no quorum voting.
Mr. STEVENS moved the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Powe Roy reported that the ComWhole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly House bill No. 919, making appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1868, and had come to no resolution thereon. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. On motion of Mr. COOK, leave of absence was granted to Mr. DEFREEs for the remainder of the week. NATIONAL BURGLARY INSURANCE coxfpANy.
Mr. INGERSOLL, by unanimous consent introduced a bill to incorporate the National Burglary Insurance Company of the DistCol; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, ordered to be printed, and referred to the ComDistCol.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. EVENING SESSION.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move that after today the House take a recess from half past 4 o'clock p. m. till half past 7 p. m.
The SPEAKER. That will require unanimous consent; a majority can order a recess for today. Several MEMBERs objected. GOVERNMENT OF WIRGINLA.
Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, I understand that all questions relating to the general subject of reconstruction must be referred to the JtCom on Reconstruction.
Mr. MAYNARD. I have a memorial from citizens of Virginia, praying that the Present State government be set aside, and that a civil government be organized upon the basis of equality before the law, which I would like to have printed and referred to the JtCom on Reconstruction. No objection being made, it was so ordered. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania, asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. BARKER, for one week. Mr. HOTCHKISS asked and obtained in definite leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. HUBBARD, who had been called home by the death of his father. TAxATION OF PUBLIC LANDS.
Mr. HOTCHKISS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to exempt certain public lands from taxation; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, and referred to the ComAg. PACIFIC MAIL service.
Mr. McRUER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to authorize the establishment of ocean mail steamship service between the U.S and the SandwichIslands; which was read a 1st and 2nd time, referred to the comPostOffice, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, mtRtv the bill was referred; on the table. agreed to. And then, on motion of Mr. STEVENS, (at 4 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m.,) the House adjourned.
@@@IN SENATE SENATE. THURSDAY, January 31, 1867. Prayer%. S. H. ANGIER, D. D., of Rockport, Massachusetts. On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unan imous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
Mr. RAMSEY, from the ComPostOffices, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.527) to amend the postal laws, and for other purposes, reported it with amendments. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.510) declaring a bridge to be built over the Missouri river at the town of StCharles, in the State of missouri, by the North Missouri Railroad Company, a legal structure, reported it with an amendment. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S.No.421) to authorize the construction of a submerged tubular o across the Mississippi river at the city of StLouis, reported it without amendment.
Mr. WILLEY, from the ComPatents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Elisha P. Moulton, praying that his claim as an original inventor of iron clad gunboats may be recognized and rewarded, submitted an adverse report, and moved that the subject be indefinitely postponed; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Charles Grafton Page, praying that a patent issue to him for his invention of a magneto electric apparatus for administering electricity as a remedy for diseases and for purposes of scientific illustration, submitted an adverse report, and moved that the subject be indefinitely postponed; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a petition of citizens of Pennsylvania, rePresenting that they labor under great disadvantages from the frequent violations of trade marks, and praying for relief by extending the law of copyright to trade marks, asked. E? discharged from its further consideration, that it be referred to the Committee on tures; which was agreed to., from the same committee, to whom i the bill (S.No.892) for the relief s of George Faber, reported adsely thereon, and submitted a report; which wasordered to be printed.
Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the ComPensions, to whom was referred the petition of John Carter, praying to be allowed a pension, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S.No.554) granting a pension to John Car ter. The bill was read and passed to a 2nd reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. GRIMES, from the ComPatents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.No. 819) for the relief of Richard A. Wervalen and others, submitted an adverse report, and moved the indefinite postponement of the bill; which was agreed to:
Mr. CRAGIN, from the ComNavAffrs, to whom was referred the JtResolution (H.R.No. 24) for the relief of Lucretia E.widow of the late Nathaniel H. Perry, U.S. Navy, reported adversely thereon.
Mr. HENDRICKS, from the ComJudiciary, to whom was, referred the bill (S.No.58) to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the ComIndAffrs; which woasbagreieLd toL. S INTRODUCED.
Mr. HENDERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.555) granting lands to aid in the construction of the the bo and Neosho railroad and the extension; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPublic out. RSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.556) for the relief of Caroline McGee, of ne county, Tennessee, widow of Lemuel McGee, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComPensions Mr. FOWLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.No.557) for the relief of James Fulton, paymaster U.S. Navy; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComcClaims.o. of oBril. Recoxfwitted. On motion of Mr. WILLEY, the bill (S. 389) for the relief of Stephen R. Parkhurst, was recommitted to the ComPatents and the Patent Office. soldiers' orphans' Home.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate last evening passed the bill (H.R.No. 848) to amend an act entitled “An act to incorporate the National Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home, ” approved tion with that outbreak; the cause of their being July 25, 1866. I merely desire to have the motion to reconsider entered at the Present time.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The motion will be entered.
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.479) to punish illegal voting in the DistCol, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House had passed a bill (H.R.No. 912) making ofor the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message further announced that the House had passed the bill of the Senate (S.No.525) supplementary to an act to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes, approved July 18, 1866, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. he message also announced that the House had receded from its 2nd amendment to the bill of the Senate (S.No.208) o . the of debtors in the District of Colum ia from levy, attachment, or sale on execution. The message further announced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.No. 605) to amend an act to establish the judicial system of the U.S., approved September 29, 1789, and to the bill (. R. No. 719) to punish certain crimes in relation to the public securities and currency, and for other purposes. CONDITION OF INDIAN TRIBES.
Mr. RAMSEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the SecyInterior be, and he is hereby, respectfully requested to report to the Senate the condition of the Indians now located in the vicinity of Lake Traverse and Fort Wads worth, Dakota Territory, at the time of the outbreak in Minnesota in 1862;the part they took in connec permitted to remain so near the Minnesota frontier when the other surrendered Sioux were sent to the Crow Creek reservation in 1863;whether they, haye been uniformly friendly in their relations with the whites since the outbreak or otherwise; whethef they have any reservation allotted them; and whether have been the recipients, from the interior dept since the outbreak of any annuities, cloth;ing, provisions, or agricultural implements; and whether their removal from their Present location to a point more removed from the Minnesota, frontier is contemplated by the interior Dept. Foreign MINISTERS AND PRESIDENT's Policy.
Mr. SUMNER submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the POTUS be requested to communicate to the Senate, if in opinion his not incompatible with the public interest, the Dept of State and any of the foreign ministers of the U.S. with reference to the policy of the President toward the States lately in rebellion, and especially any in uiries by the Dept of State with regard to the conversation or opinions of such foreign minis ers. DEPUTY MARSHALs, ETC., IN THE DISTRICT.
Mr. MORRILL submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the SecyInterior, be directed to communicate to the Senatethe number and names of the 3 marshals, bailiffs, and criers in the District of pensation Columbia who have received comfor the year 1866, therates of compensation and amount paid each. CLAIMS OF LOYAL EAST TENNESSEEANS.
Mr. PATTERSON. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its Present consideration: Resolved.That the ComcClaims be directed to inquire into the3 and expediency of compensating the loyal people of o East Tennesseefor taken from themfor the use, 9f the Army of the U.S., the claims for which property were investigated by a commission appointed by GeneralBurnside, consisting of Messrs. Morrow, ickinson, and Williams, and also the claims investigated by a commission appointed by General Scofield, consisting of Williams; and report Mebsysrbsil.l Dickens, Pearson, and or otherwise.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is there any objection to the Present consideration of the resolution?
Mr. HOWE. I did not hear it, and I should like to have it read again.
Mr. HOWE. I do not think there can be any objection to the reference of that subject to the committee. of There being no objection, the resolution was considered and adopted. IMPORTATION OF GOODS WITHOUT INSPECTION.
Mr. EDMUNDS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to Resolved, That the ComCommercebein structed to inquire into the expediency of repealing the provisions of law ". o. imported from foreign countries to be brought into the interior of the country underseal and without inspection at the usual ports of entry, and to report by bill or wise. other TREATY WITH HAWAHAN. ISLANDS.
Mr. CONNESS. If it be in order, I now move to take up for consideration the resolution I submitted yesterday, calling upon the SecyTreasury for information. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution: Resolved, That the SecyTreasury be requested, to report to the Senate whether, in his opinion, American interests would not be subserved by a treaty of Hawaiian Islands commercial reciprocity with the Ha
Mr. GRIMES. I have no doubt, sir, that the SecyTreasury can furnish the Senate with very valuable information upon this as he could upon almost any other financial or commercial subject; but I am opposed to the adoption of the resolution and cannot vote for it, or at any rate, I am not disposed to allow it to be adopted without entering my protest against it; and for this reason: it carries with it the implication that commercial treaties are within the province of the POTUS, in conjunction with the Senate, and that we have the power to tie up the trade and commerce of the country without the cooperation of the HoRep. e have attempted to do this once, Mr. President, in our history. We established a reciproci treaty with the British Provinces in No America. We got rid of that treaty fortunately, shortly after the civilWar began; but every body can comprehend fully what would have been the condition of this country if there had not been a clause in that treaty by which it could be brought to a conclusion within ten years from the time it began. Why, sir, I ap: prehend that the whole trade and commerce of the country would have been entirely deranged at the Present time if the treaty in relation to trade with the British Provinces had not contained within itself the power to abrogate it at the expiration of ten years. It is for this reason, and for this reason alone; that I oppose this resolution not but what I want to have the most close and intimate relations with the SandwichIslands. With the purpose which the Senfrom California has in view ultimately in regard to those islands, I entirely sympathize; but I do not recognize the power of the Senate of the U.S and the President to control the legislation of the country through a commercial treaty in relation to our trade regulations with other countries; and as I do not apprehend that we have any such power, I do not want to convey the implication E. the adoption of a resolution that we can do any such thing.
Mr. CONNESS. I have listened to a little the strangest argument that has been heard in the Senate, since I have been here at least. A resolution is offered calling upon one of the Depts for information upon a subject of vital interest to a large portion of the Ameri: can people, and the Senator who has just spoken rises in his oand says, “I object to the passage of the resolution; I o: to all commercial treaties for reciprocity; I deny the power of the President and the Senate to tie the hands of the HoRep.” Now, sir, I humbly submit that the honorable Senator has fired off his greatgun too soon, and that he had better wait until there is a treaty Presented to him for consideration, and i., shall be very much interested in hearing his arguments. I rePresent a constit uency that are deeply interested and intimately connected in commercial and other intercourse with the Hawaiian Islands. This resolution points to obtaining from the most legitimate and well informed source of this Government information touching the commercial relations of the 2 countries. Who can object to obtaining that information? I apprehend no body, save the honorable Senator. The resolution was adopted. MINISTER AT VIENNA.
Mr. SUMNER. I now ask the Senate to be good enough to take up the resolution which was objected to yesterday making a call on the President for a letter.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Senfrom Massachusetts moves to take up the following resolution; which will be read for information.
The Secretary read it, as follows: Resolved, That the POTUS be instructed to communicate to the Senate, if in opinion his not incompatible with the public interest, a copy of the letter on which the Secretary of founded his recent inquiries addressed to Mr. MStoatteley, minister of the U.S. at Vienna, with his reported conversations and opinions, and to furnish the nameof the writer of such letter.
Mr. DAVIS. I hope that resolution will not be taken up. I think it is an attempt on the part of the Senfrom Massachusetts to magnify into some importance one of the merest trifles that ever happened. I trust that no such trifle will be thrown into the Sen. ate to disturb its deliberations and to consume its time.
Mr. SUMNER. I content myself with simply saying that I hope the resolution will be taken up. I think that when a stab is given at an eminent citizen abroad we ought to know who has dealt the blow. I wish to know the authority for this recent letter of inquiry addressed by the SecyState to a distinguished gentleman in our public service. I believe that the country wishes' to know who this spy or eavesdropper is, and on what authority the SecyState has under taken to write such a letter as he has written. I feel a personal interest in it and an interest as a Senator, for I think the letter of the Secretary does great dishonor to our country.
Mr. DAVIS. I Presume that the distinguished minister of the U.S. to Austria does not care a straw in relation to this letter which is thus sought to be brought to light. His fame is national and world wide, and is too solidly founded to be disturbed by any such matter. Motley the historian who has produced to the world, such a picture of the rise of the Dutch republic it is a name too grand, founded upon too solid worth and ability, and the man who could have conceived and executed such a great historical work is too grand in his intellect, in his soul, to be disturbed by such a trifle, such stuff as that which the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts is seeking to make a little political capital.of I trust, sir, that this anonymous letter, like so many of the anonymous letters which that honorable Senator has produced so often before the Senate, will be left to pass into oblivion and to go to the back houses. I hope the Senate will not consume its valuable time nor permit itself to be interested one moment by the matter of this letter. I trust the motion of the honorable Senator will not prevail.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The question is on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The resolution being put; there were, on a division ayes 20, noes 5; no quorum voting.
Mr. SUMNER called for the yeas&nays; and they were ordered.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understood the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts yesterday to state that he had himself received a letter of precisely the import
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Of similar import to the letter which is referred to in the corre spondence which has been furnished to the senate. I should like to inquire from the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts who that letter was from.
Mr. SUMNER. I stated that it was from a person so utterly obscure that it was practi cally an anonymous letter, and I considered it as such. It was from a person utterly unknown; and yet on that letter the SecyState has undertaken to indite the accusations which we have read against an eminent gentleman in the public service.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The honorable Senator fails to answer the precise question I put: who was the author of the letter to the honorable Senator?
Mr. SUMNER. I have already replied that the name was so utterly obscure that it has passed out of my memory.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Although the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts is familiar with the names of a; many men, it is not to be Presumed that he knows all the citizens of the U.S or men abroad who could furnish information of this description; and I ask the honorable Senator if he is to Presume that every man whose name he does not know is of necessity an obscure man, whose statements are to be disregarded. It seems to me it is unnecessary to inquire into this matter. Suppose it should appear that this information was communicated by some person whose name was not known to the Senfrom Massachusetts, or to any of us, what difference would it make? The correspondence already before the Senate states the fact that a letter of that description was received, and inquiry was made of Mr. Motley whether the statements contained in it were true or not. perhaps the SecyState does not choose to treat a letter of an American citizen abroad, though he did not happen to know his name, as coming from a person so absolutely obscure that he would destroy the letter and forget the name.
Mr. SUMNER. Wol the Senator allow me to interrupt him there, just to bring the question down to the point? I raise no question whether he is an eminent person or not. The Senator, I think, will do me the justice to believe that I had no such idea as that. I simply wish to know the writer of the letter, and the actual terms of the letter that we may judge of its value and of its character; that we may know whether or not he is a spy, possibly a paid spy, an leavesdropper, possibly a paid leavesdropper; and.not he is in any respect entitled to credence. That is what I wish to know; and I think that all who are interested in the good name of this Republic, under whatever party flag they may go, whether under that which the Senfrom Indiana honors by his support, or whether under that where I find myself all equally must desire to have satisfaction on this point. We must desire to know on what authority the SecyState has proceeded in this matter; and in making the inquiry, it is of supreme indifference to me whether the person is eminent or not. I do not ask that question. It does not enter into my mind. I only wish to know whether he is entitled to credit, and to that end I wish the see his letter.
The PRESIDENT protempore. Is the senate ready for the question on the motion to take up the resolution, on nays which the yeas and have been ordered?
Mr. SUMNER. Just let the yeas&nays be taken.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The morning hour has expired, and I call for the regular order. e PRESIDENT protempore. The morn o hour has expired, and it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday. TARIFF"BILL. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will state that the last vote disclosed the want of a quorum. Senators have since come in, and the Chair decides by counting that there is now a quorum Present, so that business may proceed. The pending amendment offered by the Senfrom NewJersey [Mr. FRELING HUYsex] will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was on page 30, section7, to strike outlines 127, 128, 120 9, 1 30, 131, and 132, and to insert in lieuthereof the following: On chains, trace chains, halter chains, and fence chains, made of wire, or 8ths rods not less than, 3 of an inch in diameter, 2 and a per pound; half cents less than 3 8ths of an inch in diameter and not less than No. 9 wire gauge, 6 cents per pound; less than No. 9 wire gauge, cight centsper pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have the Senator make an explanation about that.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In reference to this amendment, I desire to say that a number of persons in NewJersey and elsewhere engaged in the manufacture of chains became satisfied that the tariff did not afford them sufficient protection, and the commissioner in looking at the price of the material out of which these chains were made became satisfied that there should be an alteration in the bill, and this amendment was, as I understand, prepared by him. It was handed to me by him, and I think it is in his handwriting. trust the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have sent for the commissioner to inquire as to the fact. He will be here in a moment. If he is the author of it and it meets his approbation I do not know that I shall make any particular objection to the amendment. I ask the Senator to with draw it for a moment, and he can offer it again when the commissioner is in. I believe his colleague has an amendment which he desires to offer, and which can be considered in the mean time.
Mr. CATTELL. My colleague has with drawn his amendment for the Present, and I ask leave to offer an amendment on page 32 of the bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair will inquire of the other Senfrom NewJersey if his amendment is withdrawn?
Mr. CATTELL. I shall not occupy the attention of the Senate more than a moment. The amendment which I wish to offer is on page 32, section7, line 172, to insert the words “one and” after the word “pipe; ” so that the clause will read: On castiron, steam, gas, or water pipe, one and 3/4ths of onecent per pound, These words were stricken out in committee the other day under a misapprehension. The amendment I propose returns the duty upon this article precisely to what it is under the existing tariff, to precisely what the special comrRev recommended, to precisely what the ComFinance reported, and a lower rate than that agreed to by the House.
Mr. FESSENDEN. As the amendment to strike out these words has been adopted, I suppose the object can be reached by a motion to reconsider.
Mr. CATTELL. The motion to strike out was adopted in ComWhole I am told, i. therefore it can be amended in the Senate without a reconsideration.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CRESWELL. The other day I made a motion to amend the bill on page 68, section 9, line 546, by striking out “4” and inserting “five.” On that motion I failed. I. have another now to submit, and that is after the word “4”. in that line to insert the words “and one half;” so that it will read: On chromateand bi chromate of potassfi, 4 and, 1/2 cents per I hope the Senate will not deem me persistent in urging an increase on this article unreasonably. I am satisfied now, as I was when I made the original motion, that 5 cents per pound is as small a duty as should be placed upon this article with a view to a proper protection on the home manufacture.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If nobody else objects to this increase I will not.
Mr. CRESWELL. Then I hope the amendment will be adopted, so as to make that duty 4 and a half cents. It seems to be accept able to the committee. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I now renew the amendment which I withdrew a few moments since.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I shall make no objection to it. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? I want to ask the honorable Senator if he thinks it right, if he thinks it just, to increase the duty on wool, to make it ten or 12 cents a pound and ten%. advalorem, and then cut the duty down on the article into which it is manufactured from 40 to 35%., which this bill does?.
Mr. WILSON. The Senfrom Illinois reminds us that there is a West. He need not have reminded us of that; we discovered it some time ago. The Senator would have us understand that they make Presidents and make tariffs. Well, sir, I want the Senator simply to acknowledge that this tariff is of western origin: that this tariff had its birth there.
Mr. WILSON. In the brains and pockets of the wool growers of the West. They have discovered that there is a West, and they have made the woolen manufactures of the country believe that there was a place of power, and that they had better take what they offered or they would fare worse.
Mr. GRIMES. Permit me to inquire whether the Senator is making this statement from himself or is only attempting to repeat the argument of the Senfrom Illinois? Does he charge that this tariff came from the West and that the West is responsible for it?
Mr. WILSON. No doubt about it. I never supposed anybody doubted it. That was the point and the simple point that I wished to make when I said it was not a Massachusetts tariff.
Mr. GRIMES. I desire right here when the charge is made to emphatically, in the name of the West, of which I am in part a rePresentative, to deny the statement. It did not ema nate from the West.
Mr. GRIMES. The West does not want it, and the West will be restive under it.
Mr. YATES. Allow me to say to the senator that I am not . to any fair protection upon the manufactured article. All Isay is that this wool interest is a new interest, while the manufacturing establishments of NewEng land are stable and firm. I submit to the honorable Senator the question, whether in any large body or to any extent the manufacturers have asked for an increase of duty? Before he answers that I will say, on the other hand, that from every portion of the northwestern States, from Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and elsewhere, have come petitions stating that their interests will be totally ruined unless protection is afforded; and we know from the nature of the case, from the fact that during the war they so largel increased their possessions, their farms, the number of sheep upon those farms, there must be loss to them inevitably. The manufacturers, however, are stable and firm. They have had the benefits of protection for the last 50 years; they have wealth, they have asso ciated capital; they have got together in bodies, and they control the great interests of this country, its railroads, its commerce, its manufactures. Does the honorable Senator say they are to be shaken because these duties are not increased? On the other hand this interest is new and has never had the benefit of a tariff.
Mr. WILSON. The Senator asks me if they are to shaken. I answer unhesitatingly, yes; many of these mills will close immediately on the passage of an act that puts them at this disadvantage. The Senator told us that this was an arrangement between the manufacturers and the wool growers. Instead of the arrangement being 45 cents per pound it was 53. The House reduced it to 50 cents, and the Senate committee has reduced it from 50 to 45.
Mr. YATES. When I spoke of it being an arrangement I did not mean that there was any formal, concerted understanding. I meant that by the production to the comWarious views of men engaged in the growin of wool, flax, hemp, and other agricultu productions, and upon letters and other representations from those engaged in manufactures, they adopted and.; this tariff upon a.basis, protecting all the interests of the country, North and South, East and West.
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, we are dealing, I suppose, with facts in the adjustment of this tariff. The fact is that 25 years ago, under the tariff of 1842, a large% age of our finer woolens was manufactured in the U.S. I was then largely interested in a business which required me to purchase those woolens, and more than half of those goods were manufactured in the U.S. Today they are not manufactured here at all. Our manufacturers have been driven from the production of the finer classes of woolen goods. Broadcloths are hardly manufactured in this country at all, and so with some of the finer cassimeres. It is so in all the finer grades, where the proportion of labor is so much greater as compared with the material whiêh is used in their production. I think that the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts is a reasonable one. I believe it to be for the interest of this Government to have our own people manufacture everything that can be manufactured in this country, and we can manufacture nearly every thing. We produce or ought to produce all the grades of wool. There is a quality of wool raised in South America which is of a lower grade than that we now produce or than perhaps it is for our interest to produce. I should be in favor of the proposition of the Senfrom Illinois if it were practicable; but it is not. It is true, as he says, that great frauds have been and are now being perpe trated in the grading of wools. Fine wools are covered with burrs and films, and are introduced at a low rate of duty and then cleansed. Frauds are perpetrated in that way. I hope that the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts will be adopted, and that we shall return to the manufacture of the finer classes of woolen goods. I believe that this slight increase of duty may bring about that result. I shall certainly support the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts, and I hope it will be adopted.
Mr. SHERMAN. I hope no change will be made in the tariff on wools and woolens, because the tariff proposed is the result of a long, complicated, and troublesome negotiation betweenhostile interests, who finally came to a compromise on the subject.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator will recol lect that we varied from that, and the House varied from it. While we adopted one part of the compromise we did not adopt the other.
Mr. WILSON. I propose to modify my amendment slightly, at the suggestion of some Senators to put in this form: Valued at onedollar and lessper pound, 45 cents per pound, and, in%.ad palorem. addition thereto, 35 45%. a That leaves that just as it is in the bill now; and then to add: Valued at over one dollar and lessthan $150 per ound, 50 centsperpound, and, in additionthereto, 'orty%. advalorem: valued at over $150 per pound, 50 cents. and, in addition thereto, valorem. I think the Senate ought to consent to this; and now I wish simply to say a word to the Senfrom Ohio. The gentleman to whom reference has been made is not the only gentleman of large experience who does not believe this bill to be just. Some of the very ablest men in Massachusetts and in NewEng land earnestly believe that this bill, so far as it concerns 2/3rds of the woolen manufactures of the country, is not so good as the Present tariff. The carpet manufacturers and the worsted manufacturers are abundantly satisfied, and I do not propose to touch them.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know what these duties are; I have not computed them, and should not be able to compute them; but these tables are entirely deceptive. While there may be a certain% age of duty, it is not that% age of protection. What the Senfrom Massachusetts said was that this duty was only so much protection. I stated that the 53 cents which the manufac. turers demanded as duty upon woolens was merely repayment of what they had to pay out in duties and other expenses upon the may terials. That, therefore, is thrown out of the computation of the protection. Then of the 35%. advalorem ten% is to be taken off for what they pay in internalrevenue and on account of the difference in the valuation abroad. That leaves the protection 25%. In addition to this the Senate committee reduced the specific duty to 45 cents a pound. I think that the explanations made by the Senfrom Ohio. that that is not so great a reduction as the Senfrom Massachusetts seemed to suppose. Still I fancy the manufacturers at this rate would get less than 25%. protection: how much less I am unable to say, for I have made no calculation.
Mr. GRIMES. I ought to have stated that the Senate has changed the duty on bunting, which is included in the table I sent to the reporter. It has been reduced to some extent; I do not know to what extent, though not a great deal I understand. It was reduced some on the motion of the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. SherMAN.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I do not propose to take up the time of the Senate, but I have examined the proposition suggested by the Senfrom Massachusetts, and I must say that the views he has exPressed to the Senate are correct in every particular. Of course the duty on the high priced article does not interfere with or bear heavily on the poorer classes of our people; but it is absolutely necessary that theoarticle should be put in a different classification from the coarser article. The gentleman who has rePresented this case to me is the son of the original pioneer of cotton manufacturing in the U.S., who established it here before anybody else, and he brings to bear upon this subject more practical knowledge, more experience, more devotion to his business perhaps than any man in that business in the U.S. There is no doubt but that, the business of the pro: duction of the finer broadcloths in the U.S. would go out of existence under the operation of the Present bill as it stands. The throwing off the duties upon dye stuffs which has been referred to is a matter of no consideration whatever; they enter into the cost but very slightly; some logwood and some sumac, and some other things of that kind. Then it must be remembered there are additional taxes on starch and other articles which enter very largely into the production of these goods, which more than compensate for the duties thrown off on the chemicals. I trust the amendment suggested by the Senfrom Massachusetts will prevail.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I said nothing about that, whether it was equal or not. I said that supposing it to be an arrangement made by 2 parties, while it was carried out with regard to one, it regard was not quite carried out with to the other.
Mr. MORRILL. I thought the inference was quite irresistible that I should be borne out in e statement I have made on that consideration. I will read from a statement which I suppose is based on the tables here; it professes to be from the tables, and on them the writer comes to this conclusion: “It will be seenfromthese tablesthat the cheaper Qualities of cloth are to have a joublaid upon them thmanutchhehhigighheerrp proripeoerd: otols. That I understand the committee to Mr. FESSENDEN. agree to. There is no distinction made in their arrangement between one and another.
Mr. FESSENDEN. How is it on woolen shawls and flannels?
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not know; but I have no doubt that 9 10thsof all the goods included in this clause would be worth more than a dollar a pound. The tables furnished by the manufacturers show it, not only as to cassimeres and broadcloths and doeskins, but Fo much all the articles named in this clause. do not see blankets in the table, but my experience is that they are worth more than a dollar a pound. Then all the goods will fall in the latter 2 clauses of the amendment, where the duty is increased 5 cents a pound and from 5 to ten%. advalorem. It is a very marked and radical change. If the 1st clause included the great body of the goods and the latter clauses applied only to a comparatively small amount, like the finer broadcloths, there might be some reason in the argument of the Senfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I am very much in clined to suspect that the honorable Senfrom Ohio has taken a table which is merely applicable to broadcloths and cassimeres
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator can examine it for himself.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There are certainly some articles named in this clause that would come under a dollar a pound, flannels for in stance. The object of the amendment is to put the higher duty on the finer articles.
Mr. SHERMAN. The table applies to broad cloths, cloaks, cassimeres, ladies' cloths, doe skins, and tricots. At any rate it covers all the items here down to “doeskins, ” and I doubt if there is a single article in the clause which is not worth more than a dollar a pound.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There are a considerable number of other articles in the clause be sides those in the table.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes; there are others that may come under the 1st clause of the amendment, but not many.
The PRESIDING icBR, (Mr. HARRIs in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts.
Mr. WILSON called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. GRIMES. I was requested by the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. BRow N,) who is confined to his bed by sickness, to say that if Present he would vote against this, as against all, impositions of higher duties and against the bill. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 19, nays 15; 18. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FESSENDEN.:I wish to move an amendment, not because the provision is not satisfactory to me as it stands, but as the Senate will see if they listen to my explanation because I have some doubt whether I was entitled to move the amendment which I now propose to strike out as an amendment of the committee. I supposed myself to be so authorized, but on consulting the committee one of the members with whom I have spoken tells me that I was authorized to move it, and another that he did not understand that it was to be moved on the part of the committee. There being that misunderstanding, and a member of the committee, the Senfrom Ohio, being opposed to the proposition which was adopted, I have thought it.to move to strike it out, in order that the matter may be Presented to the Senate. Section 22 has reference to a draw back upon iron, copper, cordage, &c., “which shall be wrought into the construction of sailing vessels of the U.S. ” That is the way it originally stood. While going through with the committee's amendments, I moved to insert the words “ or steam.” after “ sailing.” We talked the matter over in committee, and the Senfrom NewYork understood me as having the assent of the committee to offer that amendment; but my friendfrom Ohio did not, and therefore, as I choose to have no question upon that point, I move now to strike out the words “ or steam.”
Mr. CONNESS. Why not strike out the word “sailing?”
Mr. CONNESS. There may be reasons for striking out these words, but I confess I am not acquainted with any good reasons for doing it; if they do exist, and if the amendment be carried, I shall vote against the whole proposition allowing a drawback on the materials used in the construction of ships. At this day, when by the progress of knowledge applied to the arts, the part of ship building in particular, the sailing marine of the world is being replaced by steam, it hardly becomes us to make a direct discrimination against steam, which the world in its great struggle Presents as one of the greatest triumphs of its skill. The steam marine of our country is to a greater extent now driven from foreign commerce than our sailing marine, and by reason especially of the cheapness with which steamships may be built on the Clyde, in GreatBritain. It is an ascertained fact that steamships may be constructed there for from 50 to 100%. less than they can in America.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They do not become national ships of ours.
Mr. CONNESS. I am aware of that. This being the fact, it explains the greatest cause why we are not found controlling the commerce of the Atlantic ocean. English bottoms, cheaply made, well constructed, too, may engage in a profitable trade with our people, while American ships may not, because in their construction they cost nearly twice as much as the English.
Mr. CONNESS. I do understand the Senator perfectly; but I do not understand why, even as a matter of courtesy, or from what he may deem due to the understanding of any of the members of the committee of which he is the distinguished chairman, he should make a motion of this kind, even though he may vote against it himself. I stated why I made I want the Senator to Mr. FESSENDEN. the motion, and I want the Senator to understand me. I did not know but that it might be thought that from my position as chairman of the committee I had taken advantage of the committee and moved an amendment the did not agree to or authorize me to move. therefore chose to move to strike out those words which had been inserted, so as to bring the matter before the Senate and let the senate decide it.
Mr. CONNESS. All I have to say to that is, that it is scarcely possible any Senator could attribute such a motive to the honorable chair man of the ComFinance. But, sir, I do not wish to pursue this subject if there" is no disposition to Press the amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think it due to myself to say that the amendment made to this section was not agreed to by the ComFinance. That is admitted on all hands. The Senfrom Maine proposed it himself, and I did object to the Senator proposing an amendment as coming from the committee to which the committee did not assent. The Senfrom Maine undoubtedly had a right to propose that amendment himself or any other amendment. The only question was, whether it came from the committee. It was adopted by the Senate on the supposition that it was moved on the of the committee. The Senfrom aine is in favor of it, and he is at perfect liberty to offer it at any time as his individual amendment.
Mr. CONNESS. So far as I am concerned, I will let the discussion of the amendment pass by unless it shall be shown by a vote that the Senate is. to adopt it.
Mr. SHERMAN. The section ought to stand as reported by the committee, and then as a matter of course the Senfrom California, or the Senfrom Maine, or any other Senator, can move to amend it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senfrom Maine to strike out the words “ or steam” in the 22nd section.
Mr. CONNESS. The purpose and effect of the amendment is to strike out the words “or steam, ” so that if the amendment be adopted the drawback provided for in that section will not be allowed upon any materials that enter into the construction of steamships.
Mr. SHERMAN. If the Senator wishes to go into the merits of the proposition I think I can show him that those words ought to be stricken out, but I take it we ought 1st to restore the bill to the form the committee desired it to be in, and then any Senator can move to insert the words “or steam.” If, however, it is desired now to discuss the merits of the question, I am prepared to do so.
Mr. CONNESS. I prefer that it should be done at this time, because it will govern my vote on other provisions.
Mr. CONNESS. There is very great force in the Presentation of the question made by the honorable, Senfrom Ohio, but it appears to me that it only illustrates the effect of allowing any drawback at all on the construction of any ships. But it will seem very strange to the country indeed, and cannot help striking any mind as strange, that a discrimination at this time should be made as against steam when a change is being made so generally from vessels propelled by sails to vessels propelled by steam.
Mr. SHERMAN called for the yeas&nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 21, nays 13;–18. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish to move one or 2 amendments; at least to have the judgment of the Senate upon them., I move on page 4, section one, line 70, to strike out “six” and insert “seven.” The clause now reads: On ground cocoa or cocoa, on chocolate, prepared cocoa and 6 centsper pound. I propose to make it 7 cents; and on that I have a very simple statement to make. By the tariff of “. 14, 1862, and March 3, 1863, chocolate was 7 cents a pound. the tariff of June 30, 1864, and March 3, 1865, it was also 7 cents a pound. It is now proposed by this bill to reduce it to 6 cents a pound. There is no reason assigned for that reduction; and on looking at the report of the commissioner I find ji.to sustain this change. Therefore, in the absence of any reason in favor of the change I object to it. But I am informed by those who are interested in the subject, who have the most knowledge of it of anybody that I know, that this change will be prejudicial to the American chocolate, and that it will in all probability also fail in any effect on the revenue. You will gain."; in the way of revenue from it and you wi interfere with an existing American interest. Now, in the absence of any reason for this change, I submit that you should hesitate to make it. In making the change, putting the duty down, you depart from the prevailing principle of the bill, and as I submit without any adequate reason. I hope, therefore, that my motion will prevail.
Mr. FESSENDEN. All the articles in that list pretty much are matters that do not come into competition with anything we do in this country until we get down to this very article. The original production is not touched; it is in the list of spices. Now, with regard to the article itself, it comes in at a duty of 3 cents per pound before it is prepared, and if an addition of 3 cents more is not enough to prepare a pound of chocolate, cocoa as it is called, I should think it is a mere question of how much you will charge the people who consume it. As to the protection, it is ample. There is no trouble about that at all. The committee thought and the commissioner thought, on an examination of the subject, that 6 cents a pound was ample for that purpose, and is all the tax that ought to be im osed on those who choose to drink so refreshing and at the same time so cheap and useful an article. This is a mere matter of opinion, a matter in which I take no sort of interest, but at the same time I think 6 cents is ample protection. '
Mr. SUMNER. I should like to ask the Senator if there is any reason for the change, which did not exist during those years when it was 7 cents?
Mr. FESSENDEN. In the 1st place we put a very high duty on all the original articles from which these things are made. The duty on those is high; it is not increased; we leave it under the old tariff just as it was. We have not reduced that, because it is a tax very easily collected and is necessary to the revenue; ai when the commissioner came to this article he thought, on examination, that 6 cents, adding 3 more for the preparation of the chocolate, was ample in the way of revenue and would afford all the revenue we ought to get from the article, and that as the Present duty is perhaps more than people would like to pay, although they yield to it very readily, on this very cheap and useful ar. ticle, as I said before, comparatively speaking, it was well enough to strike off a cent and leave it at 6 cents. There is no doubt about the protection.
Mr. SUMNER. Do I understand that there was any evidence on the subject?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The commissioner took evidence from gentlemen in NewYork on the subject.
Mr. SUMNER. I had the imPression that on this subject there was no evidence.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The matter was not examined before the committee, because no body appeared before us in regard to it. We took the commissioner's statement.
Mr. SUMNER. I had the imPression that even before the commissioner there was no evidence on this subject. That is my understanding.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The commissioner says he had.
Mr. SUMNER. His statement is ample; but I do not understand that there was any complaint from any quarter showing that this duty was too high. . the contrary, I am instructed by those who are most familiar with it that the proposed change will be injurious. I make that known to the Senate, and it will be for them to adopt such a conclusion as they see fit. Authority which I recognize as valu able teaches me that. Then I see myself on the face of the bill that here is a departure from the prevailing principle of the bill, so far as it has any principle.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In this list generally there is no question of protection involved.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It is simply a question of revenue.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator says it is simply a question of revenue. I submit that by this change we shall not increase the revenue.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We thought we would make it a cheaper drink without injuring anybody. SUMNER. It will not make it a cheaper rink.
Mr. FESSENDEN. In 1861 under that tariff it was fixed at 3 cents and 6 cents a pound. During the war we passed another tariff by which it was up to 7 cents, and we thought, on the whole, we might as well go back to the old rate.
Mr. SUMNER. Very well. I have made my statement to the Senate. It will be for them to act. I hope the change will not be made. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FESSENDEN. All this is a matter of opinion. I will simply state the views that were entertained by the committee on the subject, and the grounds on which they came to that conclusion. We had before us a Gentfrom Philadelphia, a gentleman known to one member of the committee, I believe, of established reputation as a painter, and who rePresented the association both in NewYork and in Philadelphia. We had a memorial before us I think that was from Boston
Mr. JOHNSON. How much is it proposed to reduce it?
Mr. FESSENDEN. It now stands at 30 dollars on all not costing over $100. The Senator moves to amend by making the val uation $2reducing the duty to 20 dollars, which makes a very material change.
Mr. b. Tiffi. The chairman of the com: mittee has covered the whole ground on this subject with one single exception I think if I am in error he will correct me and that is, that one of the very largest importers of pictures in NewYork addressed a letter to us assenting to this duty of 30 dollars as being just about the right gif
Mr. FESSENDEN. I remember that now. It escaped my attention at the moment.
Mr. CATTELL. So that the artists themselves and those who import the pictures are agreed upon this. The duty as proposed by the committee is a very large reduction on what was asked by the rePresentative of the artists; but I think it is just about right.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What does he say will keep those out?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The duty on the bill is 30 dollars on all valued at $1less; and the works of those artists whom he mentions, if they are eminent in their profession, will not come within that class. They will come much higher. He has made a mistake.
Mr. SUMNEIR. I think he has made no mistake, because his comment is on the text of o: bill with that before him. He proceeds: “It will admit only, and but a ture, Tissot, Meissonnier, Achenfebwacohf, those, of Conand the like. It will checkthe growth of the tastefor the fine arts. It will nearly destroy the revenue from this source. It will be a mostunpopular measure, for the proposition to increasethe tariffon works of art has already pmreetssw.ith the nearly unanimous condemnation of the “Feeling a deep and entirely unselfishinterest in their matter, for one, I trust that you will use your influence.” “ which, againstany measure like that proposed, is certain to injure it.” I have introduced this letter because it is a clear statement and from a gentleman in whom I place entire confidence.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senator, if he has no objection, in what business this person is so engaged, as he is said to have extraordinary opportunities to form a poor judgment on this question?
Mr. SUMNER. He has for some time been engaged in writing on art as an art critic, a student of art therefore, he, as he says himself, having no selfish interest in the value of pictures, but having a peculiar interest in the growth of taste in our country and in the atronage of good pictures. I have had another etter from still another person situated in the same way; that is, a writer on art, one who has written much, and whose writings for several years I have always read with very great interest whenever he touched artistic questions, and he has written to me in the same vein.
Skip Skip The question being put, there were ayes 2
Mr. FESSENDEN. That will render a call of the yeas&nays necessary. Let us have the yeas,&nays in order to get a quorum.
Mr. SUMNER. Very well; I give it up. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the honorable Senator if he is quite sure that no Latin and Greek books, as he supposes, are published in the U.S.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Would not books published in those languages in foreign countries compete with the publishing houses of the U.S. if there was no tariffo
Mr. SUMNER. I think not. I think that the Latin and Greek books that are published in the U.S. are entirely for school books.
Mr. FESSENDEN. They could send them abroad and have them printed there and them. –
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator says they could send them abroad, print them there, and then import them; but the Senator forgets that these Latin and Greek books are prepared by our own scholars, the professors in our own colleges. Some of the professors in his own State of Maine have done much at that. There are several of the editions of the Greek writers that have been edited at the colleges in Maine; and they would be published here on the spot where the professors reside, where they could examine the proof sheets. I do not think that there would be any competition that would trouble them, while, on the other hand, all of those people would be delighted to receive their books free of duty. I submit that it is hard on the professor or the schoolmaster, who has his insignificant salary, and who you may say is troubled with the ambition of scholarship, to compel him to pay your high duties.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope the amendment will not be adopted. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I desire to offer an amendment, on page 89, section 15, at the end of line 9, to insert: Prorided, That all animals imported from Europe for breedingpurposesonly shall be admitted free. Does the Senfrom Maine assent to this amendment?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senator what he proposes to do with race horses? They will come in under that head.. If you say “for breeding purposes only, ” how are you going to distinguish 2
Mr. SPRAGUE. I do not desire to take up the time of the Senate on this proposition. I believe every Senator will appreciate the importance of it. If we can raise the value of the stock of this country by importing ani mals from abroad that have received the atten tention for ages of the ablest and best practical experience of the time and of the world, the advantage to this country will be incalculable. I cannot conceive of anything that would be more to the advantage, to the wealth, and to the prosperity of this country, of its agricult ural, its manufacturing, its commercial, and other interests than the adoption, as a general principle, of the introduction free of. superior of animals. By so doing you will enhance the value of your live stock incalcu lably. The importation of superior stock has done wonders in certain sections of this country; and if we can extend it throughout the country the wealth that will be created will be astonishing. I would apply it to any kind of stock. I think that the emulation created by the introduction of the race horse would far more than compensate for the amount lost to the revenue by his introduction free of duty.
Skip Skip The question being put on the amendment, there were ayes 5, noes 6; no quorum voting. Mr. TRUMBULL. Let us have the yeas&nays. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I should like to inquire. the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN] suppose he is familiar with the subject what amount of revenue during the past year has been realized from the importation of live stock. I should like to know how far this proposition will affect the revenue of the country. I suppose not very seriously. The object of the amendment, as I understand it, is to encourage the importation of blooded stock. Certainly that is of very great importance, and if the Government can contribute anything toward that I think it would be very well to do so. I cannot see how Senators who vote annually very large appropriations for the agricultural Dept can question this proposition.
Mr. SHERMAN. The duty on the blooded stock imported during the last year amounted to $24,000.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then it is a very trifling question to the revenue; very trifling, indeed. sIwas going on to say, I cannot see why a Senator who votes appropriations for the support of the Agricultural Dept, and who voted in former years for the appropriation of land to agricultural colleges in the States, should oppose this proposition. It is a proposition in favor of o agricultural interest, to encourage the cultivation and the raising of fine stock in this country. There is no reason why we should not have stock in this count equal to that found in any country. I thin the amendment ought to be adopted. It seems to me it ought not to be questioned.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I can only say in reference to this subject that the expense of importing blooded stock is so great that it requires the combination, as a general thing, of companies before they can bring any superior stock from Europe here. The insurance companies refuse to insure animals of that character, or indeed any animals from that considerable distance, and the importers are obliged to take the whole risk. In the locations in this country where companies have been formed and where this superior blooded stock has been introduced it has increased the value of the stock many 100%., and my desire is that it should not be confined to localities, but that it should extend throughout the whole country. There is a great loss in this importation. Not more than a year or 2 ago the value of 32 horses imported in this way of from $100,000 to $150,000 was lost. Of course all this discourages the importation, discourages the enterprise; and we are obliged to depend upon our natural stock which does not improve upon itself. It needs the introduction of stock that has been brought up by experience, by the application of money and of attention in those countries that have devoted so much time to it. I should not think it would require the attention of the Senate a moment to accede to this W.”. Stock is free everywhere else. hey invite its introduction by all sorts of inducements in every other country, and consider it a matter of vast importance that the stock of one country that has become superior in that country should go into another, and in that way improve the stock of the country into which it is introduced.
Mr. SUMNER. I shall vote for this proposition, because I believe that the introduction of good stock will add to the public resources. I vote for it on precisely the ground on which I have made my various propositions for cheap books. The Senfrom RhdIsland voted against the introduction of cheap books.
Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon; he voted against introducing cheap books into the country, through which I hoped to cle vate the education of the land.
Mr. FESSENDEN. What is the connection between the 2 2
Mr. SPRAGUE. I beg the Senator's pardon; I voted for it.
Mr. SUMNER. I stated the connection. The argument in favor of the proposition of the Senfrom RhdIsland is, that the introduction of this stock will add to the public resources and the public wealth and will raise the standard of the cattle and of horses. The introduction of good books will raise the standard of something higher than cattle or horses, of men. The Senfrom RhdIsland, however, voted against that. I listened to his argument in favor of his own proposition. I simply apply it to mine. He did not say one word in favor of introducing his stock free of duty that is not completely applicable to the introduction of books free of duty. I shall vote with him, however. rTohe lqu"est.ion being taken by yeas&nays, 20, nays 11; 21. So the amendment to The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SPRAGUE. On page 35, section7, line 241, I move to strike out “six” and to insert “eight;" so that the clause will read: ‘ On files, file blanks, rasps, and floats of everyde scription, not exceedingten inches in length, 12 centsper pound, and, in addition thereto, 30%. advalorem; over ten inches in, length, 8 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 30%. advalorem. I desire to say that I have conferred with the chairman of the committee, and also the ComrRev, and they make no objection to this amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I make no objection to it. The amendment to the amendment was was agreed to.
Mr. SPRAGUE. On page 31, section7, line 153, I move to strike out “five” and to insert “seven;” so as to read: On horseshoenails, all kinds, 7centsperpound. This has also received the assent of the commissioner.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know that every body in the Senate is bound if the commissioner has agreed with the Senator to raise the price of these articles. We are proceeding I. step by step, and raising the tariff upon all these articles
Mr. SPRAGUE. I will observe that the tariff is the same as the old bill on this article.
Mr. SPRAGUE. You may import a great many under the increased duties on iron and rails, and I have no doubt there will be.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think these numerous amendments that are made may work great in to persons concerned. To add 2 cents, making the duty on horseshoe nails 7 cents instead of 5, is adding a very considerable tax, as it strikes me, to the article, and will make it much more expensive to the consumer. However, I do not speak particularly about this amendment, but about these numerous amendments. If you put all these little amendments together they entirely change the nature and effect of this bill, and the tariff that is imposed upon these various articles amount to very much more than those who have examined the subject suppose to be necessary; but there seems to be a determination to keep adding, piling one tax upon another here, without any particular reason that I can see. Some senator rises and makes a motion to add 2 cents or 3 cents or any sum to the tax alread fixed, and it seems to go through without. objection. So far as I am concerned I object to it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not care much whether this amendment be adopted or not; but I agree entirely with the honorable Senfrom Oregon as to these continued amendments. No horseshoe nails have been im W. into this country, and none can be. e shall manufacture them all for ourselves, whether the duty is 5 or 7 cents. There is no importation, no competition Mr. CONNESS. They are just as safe from competition as screws.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have them pointed out. There may be one or 2 more. I do not complain of them, but I wish to say to gentlemen we have got to finish this bill some time or other, and I wish to say particularly to the friends of the bill that the only way we can do it is for them to exercise a little forbearance, and tell their friends who call upon them to have amendments made to go to the House, that the bill cannot be kept here any longer. Unless they will do that we cannot pass the bill and make it a law at the Present session.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I do not wish to occupy time on this subject; but I do not mean to receive a reprimand
Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not mean it for the Senator at all, or anybody in particular. He has been as forbearing as anybody.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I have a duty to discharge, and I intend to discharge it to the best of my ability. I have been waiting here for the last 3 or 4 days to get the floor or to retain it on these propositions. Now I know of what I speak. I know all about the making of these horseshoe nails, and I know that the machinery that has been applied to their manufacture has reduced the price of horseshoe nails from 50 cents to 20 cents. It requires a cost of 50 cents to make a pound of horseshoe nails by hand. By the machinery now in operation the consumers of this country are getting their horseshoe nails at 20 cents. The duties are the same as under the Present tariff. You have advanced the iron that they import, and which it is necessary for them to import, as it cannot be made in this country, nearly a cent a pound. The waste to get this article into nails is only equivalent, in my judgment, to the amount that you have raised on the iron. So if you want cheap nails you have got to enable these people to carry on their establishments, and to carry them on with imported iron. If you drive them out and let your nails be made by the cheap labor abroad you will be just where you were before and pay 40 or 50 cents for your nails. This amendment is to enable you to get and keep cheap nails; and I trust that, those who are engaged in s will see it that way.
Mr. HENDERSON. If the Senator will permit me I wish to move that the Senate take a recess until half past 6 o'clock.
Mr. HENDERSON. No; half past 6; that is iust 2 hours.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Say 7. We cannot get back here by half past 6.
Mr. MCDQUGALL. All I want to say I shall say in 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Let us take a recess now and you will have the floor in the evening.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I am not going to detain the Senate. I only want to make a remark.
Mr. HENDERSON. Cannot you make your remarks afterward?.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I prefer doing it now. I shall be through in 5 minutes. I approve of the management of this measureby the chairman of the ComFinance. It did happen that some years ago the SecyWar recommended the introduction of camels into this country, and I being then a member of the ComMilAffrs of the House was assigned to report the bill. I did report the bill; and the 1st thing that was said to me was by a gentleman who designed to do it in jest, “ Refer it to Bar num;” and the thing was lost for the moment. Now, probably the Senator who last addressed the Senate does not know what kind of nails are required to enable a camel to get over the Rocky mountains or the Sierra Nevada. He knows what kind of nails are used in the fac tories of RhdIsland.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the senate take a recess until half past 6 o'clock.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to amend the proposition by saying 7 o'clock. It. No. I accept the amendment.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope the Senate will not take any recess. The Senfrom Maine has spoken the words of truth and soberness when he has told us that we have got to stick to this bill if we expect to pass it. We have found by experience that if we go away and undertake to come back here in the evenin we are very soon without a quorum. Ij hope gentlemen might be able to fast a little while for the sake of getting on with this bill.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will not undertake to exPress an opinion or a wish in regard to this matter; but I hope, however, the Senate will either sit straight along now or take a recess, with the understanding that the vote is to be taken tonight upon the bill. [“Agreed, agreed.”l
Mr. MeedougALL. Let me ask the chair. man of the ComFinance if the gentlemen of the majority will stay here to maintain a quorum.
Mr. FESSENDEN. If we are to take a recess I wish gentlemen to understand that if we come back at 7 o'clock we are to stay until we take a vote upon the bill.
Mr. HENDRICKS." If the Senate will meet at half past 7 o'clock we will accept the proposition.
Mr. FESSENDEN. A recess until 7 o'clock gives, 2 hours and a half, and I should think that is long enough for gentlemen to get their dinnerS.R.HENDRICKS. Some of us cannot get back at 7.
Mr. HENDERSON. I have not offered one amendment to this bill. The Senfrom Maine is aware that I shall put no clogs and I never do !". any in the way of measures. I am opposed to the passage of the bill, and I desire to offer 5 or 6, or perhaps 8 or ten amendments, but I shall not occupy any of the time of the Senate in discussing them.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There will be ample time for that after meeting at 7 o'clock.
Mr. HENDERSON. But suppose I cannot get the floor. Friends of the bill have been offering amendments all the time and I have not been able to get the floor yet to offer a single amendment. I shall submit my amendments without discussion, and I will consent to take the vote on the bill tonight if that does not deprive me of the privilege of offering my amendments.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not think there is any danger of that. The Senator will probably not be interfered with.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I want to suggest again that we meet again at half past 7 o'clock.
Mr. HENDERSON. 7 o'clock is late enough. I insist on the motion that the senate now take a recess until 7 o'clock. The motion was agreed to. EVENING SESSION. The Senate reassembled at 7 o'clock p. m. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The bill (H.R.No. 912) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending June 30, 1868, was read twice by its title, and referred to the ComFinance. The amendments of the HoRep to the bill (S.No.525) supplement ary to an act to. prevent smuggling, and for purposes, approved July 18, 1866, were referred to the ComCommerce. ExECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.
The PRESIDENT protempore laid before the Senate a communication of the SecyWar, transmitting, in response to a resolution of the Senate of January 26, a copy of Major General J. H. Wilson's report on the capture of JeffersonDavis; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. SIOUX RESERVATION SETTLERS.
Mr. RAMSEY. I move to take up for consideration House JtResolution No. 126, which I am sure will occasion no debate. The motion was agreed t;o and the JtResolution (H.R.No. 126) for the relief of certain settlers on the Sioux reservation, in the State of Minnesota, was considered as in ComWhole. It proposes to authorize those persons who settled and made improvements upon lands now included in the Sioux reservation in minnesota, and filed notice of their claims in the proper local land office, before the boundaries of the reservation were definitely surveyed and located, to enter the lands thus settled upon, as in other cases of preemption, upon the payment of $1.25 per acre, under such rules and regulations as may be provided by the SecyInterior. The JtResolution was reported to the senate, ordered to a 3rd reading, read the 3rd time, and passed. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I ask the Senate to dispose of House, bill No. 874, regulating the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep, which was up last evening and was put over at the suggestion of the Senfrom Pennsylvania. I have had a consultation with. him, and I believe he does not design taking any exception to it now. It will take but a few moments I think. I move to take it up. The motion was agreed t;o and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R.No. 874) to regulate the duties of the Clerk of the HoRep in preparing for the organization of the House, and for other ho the question being on the passage of the Dill.
Mr. DAVIS. I call for the yeas&nays on any reading of this bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The bill has had 3 readings and the question is on its passage. On this question the yeas and are demanded. he yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HOWE. I ask that this bill may be laid aside informally for a short time until I can get the action of the Senate on a bill or 2 which I should like to have disposed of.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no objection. I am willing to defer a vote until the Senate shall be fuller, unless the Senfrom Kentucky desires to Press a vote at this moment.
Mr. DAVIS. No, sir, I adopt the suggestion of the Senfrom Illinois.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Let the bill be laid aside for the Present by unanimous consent.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair hears no objection to that course, and the bill is laid aside. DESTRUCTION OF U.S. NOTES.
Mr. HOWE. I move to take up Senate bill No. 302. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S.No.302) for the relief of the American Mutual Insurance Company of NewYork was considered as in ComWhole. It provides for issuing to the American Mutual insurance Company of NewYork 8 U.S. notes of $1,000 each, not bearing interest, lost or destroyed by the foundering of the steamer Quincy at sea on the 13th of Decem ber, 1868; but the company is to execute a bond in the penal sum of $16,000, to be approved by the Solicitor of the Treasury, indem nifying the U.S. against any loss on account of the issue of the notes. Whe bill was reported to the Senate, ordered t o be engrossed for a thi Ward time, and o ird reading, read the WASHINGTON STREETS AND AWENUES.
Skip Skip The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was orderengross for a 3rd reading, read a 3rd time, and passed. The TARIFF BILL.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I now call for consideration on the tariff bill.
The PRESIDENT protempore. The unfinished business which was pending at the time of the recess is now before the Senate, being the bill (H.R.No. 718) to provide for increased revenue from imports, and for other purposes. The pending question is on the amendment of the Senfrom RhdIsland, [Mr. SPRAGUE,) to strike out “five “ and insert “seven, ” in line 153 of section7, on page 31; so as to read: “on horseshoe nails, all kinds, 7 cents per pound.”
Mr. MCDOUGALL. Mr. President, I shall not detain the Senate by any discussion of this subject; but there are some questions that might be considered. I spoke this morning of the nails that were used for a camel. I might say something of the nails that are used in the Alleghanies in Pennsylvania, and of the nails that are used in California. I might say that the camels of which I spoke required more nails than any other animal that travels ever introduced into this country, and the camels require larger nails. The trouble with them is that they have immense humps; they can ascend the mountains, but when they descend, on account of the want of gravity of their hinder parts they are very apt to fall on their heads, and therefore they are not good travel ers, although camels are very fine animals. Then there is the California horse: he does not want any nails at all. But I do not understand exactly why there should be a special tax upon nails for horses for the benefit of any particular section of the country. I think this is too nea begging, and I believe that no one in the U.S. of North America should beg.
Mr. SPRAGUE. The amendment is proposed in consequence of. the increased duties iron. Before the introduction of machinery for the manufacture of horseshoe nails they were made from nail rods by hand, and, as I before stated, it cost to make nails by hand 50 cents a pound. By the introduction of machinery not quite as good nails, but nearly so, can be produced at 20 cents a pound. The parties who have introduced that improvement in this manufacture feel they are in danger of coming in contact with labor at 9 or ten cents a day in Russia, Norway, and elsewhere, from which the iron comes to be introduced into these nails. American iron is as yet unsuitable for this purpose. The feel that their business may be injured, and i their business be injured and they driven out in consequence of the introduction of nails from abroad we shall have to go back again to the old prices. Although the Senfrom Maine thinks there will be no nails introduced from abroad, he cannot tell what may be introduced in consequence of the increased duties upon iron, and they are afraid that their business will be interrupted. If so the consequence will be that you will go back again to the payment of the old price, which was 50 cents a pound instead of 20. If the agricultural districts desire to have this arrangement carried into effect, be it so. That is the fact of the case. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPRAGUE. The next proposition I desire to submit is one that has been placed in my hands by my colleague, [Mr ANTHoNY] who is confined to. house. It is not a subject of very great magnitude in the number of men employed, but it is just as much entitled to consideration as if it employed 1000men and $1,000,000 of capital. It is in relation to eyelets. I move in line 46 of section ten, on page 72, to strike out “ 50 ” and insert “ 65;” so as to read: On eyeletsof every description 65%. advalorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope that will not be agreed to. The duty is now 35%., and we have raised it to 50.
Mr. SPRAGUE. In many instances an increase of duty beyond what has been suggested by the Senfrom Maine has been asked and has been granted by the Senate. This is not a mammoth interest that comes here and requests an increase that it may go on but it is an infant interest out of the brain o aningenious and practical head. A machine has been introduced and is now in operation, which, if permitted to go on, will bring these little things that enter so widely into the consumption of the people to 1/2 the price they have heretofore had them. Give this incipient interest a place to stand on now wheen all interests are so much in danger, and you will find that in a little while it will not need the protection thus accorded; the provision will soon be a dead letter, for the reason that under this protection our people will be able to go on and produce these articles cheaper than they can be produced abroad where labor and capital are at reduced rates. It is as important that this interest should be cared for as that the largest interest should be; and I trust that the Senate will accord this advance as they have accorded a similar advance in other instances where the question has been discussed.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will simply say that the gentleman who is engaged in this business was before the committee and exhibited his eyelets and explained his business to the committee; and after hearing that gentleman and not hearing anything in opposition from any other source, the committee came to the conclusion on his own rePresentations that 50%. was an adequate tariff to impose. should think that 50%. advalorem ought to be a sufficient protection to a business of this kind. That was the judgment of the committee after hearing this gentleman, who stated his case fully, and I believe his is the only manufacturing establishment of the kind that has been established in the U.S.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I fear, Mr. President, that there may be this evil in the Present condition of things: persons who are elected to fill high office and handle the affairs of great States and nations take care of themselves.
Mr. SPRAGUE. The gentleman to whom the Senfrom Oregon refers writes thus: o."Infearathse compmetiitttoeresodfidfonroetigfnullmyaunnudfearcsttuarnedrsooufr eyelets. 35 or peeigrn eyelet as now imported under the cent.ad valoremdutycoststhe importers an average of about 14 cents. “The 15%. additional, making, the advaloremduty on eyelets 50%., will make them cost 2 and one 10th%., additional, making the costto the importer under the proposed law 16 and one10th cents per 1,000. “The average costof the eyelets manufacturedby the American Eyelet Company, paying 35%. More for stock than its foreign competitors s about 18, and one, half cents per 1,000, requiring an additional duty of more than 15 errei cent.omtoppeltaitcoersu.s on an even footing with our “I feel warrantedin taking the ground that we as new beginnersin anew businessin thiscountry, ought to receive encouragement from the Government by at least being placed on an equal footing with the fboergeiingnne manufacture nrt.inIgt would seemthat as new with new machinerynever before used, tested, and perfected, we ought to be pmraortgeicnted to a degree that, would give us a small in our favor, in order that we may not be forced by a combined foreign competition to leave the field for the benefit of European laborers and capitalists that you know enough of the prominent men in our companyto beable to satisfy the members of the committeethat it is the purpose of this company to manufacture eyelets as a legitimate. o. iwseperoapnonsoetddboywthitehocoumt fmuritttheeerunpdroetretchteiopnrethseanntwstia.atet of the market, and with our Presentfacilities.” This is the gentleman who appeared before the committee, and I trust. Senate will accord to him what is asked.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will only say that we took the gentleman's own statements, took his own figures, and made our calculations upon them. I cannot remember the details now, but I know that we came to the conclusion that 50%. would be enough, and we raised the duty from 35%. to 50%.
Mr. SPRAGUE. He says here in a post script, which I did not notice before: “I referparticularly in the aboveto small eyelets. The 50%. may be sufficient for the large sizesof Government eyelets;but the small sizesused itnecstihoone, sw, choicrshetIs, hhaovoep nsokirdtosu, b&tc.t, hneeceodmfumrtihtteerepwrioll: seewhen their attention is called to it.” f There can be no doubt as to this being the act. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Doolittle in the chair.) The Senfrom RhdIsland is entitled to the floor: does he yield to the Senfrom California?.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. I rise to a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senfrom California will state his point of order.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. It is that it is not the privilege of a Senator to read manuscript here unless he quotes it as authority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is of opinion that the Senfrom RhdIsland is in order.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. Mr. President, I am very ignorant, about many things, and can be informed undoubtedly by the Senfrom RhdIsland. Perhaps he can interpret to me what “spindles” mean.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I refer the gentleman to the dictionary.
Mr. SPRAGUE. Webster or Worcester: take your choice.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. Ah! Then you adjourn the question to the dictionaries'
Mr. SPRAGUE called for the yeas&nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted yea 1, nays 28;–23. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I regret, Mr. President, to occupy any of the time of the Senate, and I have occupied as little as possible of it during this investigation, but I desire now very briefly to submit 2 or 3 amendments without discussing them. On page 83, line 17 of section 12, I move to strike out “ten' and insert “ 15” so as to make the clause read: On skiyers and roans, pickled or salted, 15%. advalorem. On these skivers here spoken of as salted 1/2 the work is done before they are brought here. In these sheepskins the whole country is interested. Immense quantities of them, I am informed, are now imported.
Mr. FESSENDEN. All I can say is that the committee examined this question very carefully and came to the conclusion that they had fixed the duties about right. If the Sen. ate choose to change them on the statements of interested parties, be it so.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I suppose they were fixed on rePresentations. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On the same page, in line 28 of section 12, I move to strike out “ 40 ” and insert “fifty;” so as to read: Onmorocco, enameled, glazed, japanned, varnished, and patent leather, 50%. advalorem.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope not. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On page 73, iine 85 of section ten, I move after “fur” to insert “and silk;” so as to read, “on furand silk hats, ” &c., “ 50%. adralorem.” The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. STEWART. On page 28, line 70 of section7, I move to strike out the words “not including tagger's iron, ” and also to strike out lines 72 and 73, which read: On tagger'siron, not exceeding 14 inches in width by 20 inches in length, 30%. advalorem. The object of this amendment is to place tagger's iron with the other sheet iron. It is claimed with a good deal of plausibility, and I am convinced that there is something in it, that the bill as it now stands is liable to abuse. It is said that the thickness of tagger's iron not being determined in the bill, the result will be that iron 14 inches by 20 may be sent here of sufficient size for stove pipes, and may come into competition with the other species of sheet iron, tagger's iron being taxed only 30%. advalorem, much lower than the others. It seems to me the bill as it now stands is liable to abuse. I am informed that there is very little tag ger's iron used in the country, not enough to make it an exception to ordinary iron; there is only a small quantity of it used for umbrel las; and placing in the bill this exception in favor of tagger's iron will render it liable to great abuse. The whole tariff upon sheet iron, medium uality, appears to be lower in comparison than that placed on sheet lead and sheet copper. It appears to be low in comparison even with wire. After having given this subject some investigation I am satisfied that this amendment ought to prevail. Parties are very desirous that the duty on sheet iron should be increased, but I do not propose to offer that amendment. I think striking out “tagger's iron” here and leaving it in the same situation as the other iron is very reasonable, and ought to be done.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will make a very short explanation about this matter. We put it precisely at what it was before. Tagger's iron is not made in this country at all. It is imported in boxes, and is principally used for making buttons and things of that sort. A considerable quantity is imported for that purpose. The question was before the committee, and we examined it very carefully on the state.ment of a gentleman that there might be some danger of fraud, but on inquiry we found that “tagger's iron” was well understood, and that by specifying the size there would be no danger of its being imported under another name. We decided, therefore, to adhere to the rate the House fixed on it. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. Coffee can be made out of rye or wheat. I have used it many a time. I do not think that there is going to be any great privation to the people of any part of this country by reason of the duty on coffee. I have lived in a community that could not afford to pay high prices for coffee, and they roasted wheat and roasted rye and made those substitutes answer the purpose. This tax does not amount to the magnitude of those nails we heard spoken of recently.
Mr. FOWLER. I should like to have the yeas&nays on my amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move to amend the amendment by inserting “two and a half” in stead of “three.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not in order. The proposition of the Senfrom Tennessee being an amendment to an amond ment, is not amendable.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will simply state in regard to this question that I suppose every Senator understands the arguments proand con. with reference to the duties on tea and coffee. The duties are more easily and surely collected on these articles, than any others; and I do not know that there has been any complaint on account of them. The importation has been largely increasing for the last 2 years. Now, the importation of coffee is about 160 million pounds, and the estimated duties accruing for this year will be about 8 million dollars. This amendment will strike off about 4 million dollars. It is quite uncertain how this tariff is fo to operate, and it is hardly worth while for us to give up these duties that are certain, and may surely be relied on for reve nue. I hope the amendment will not be adopted.
Mr. CONNESS. I wish to say that I shall vote for this amendment because I believe the revenues can afford the reduction, and I am inclined to think that the consumption would increase so that the reduction in the revenue would not be very great. The question being taken by yeas&nays, resulted yeas 17, nays 17; 15. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FOWLER. I would like to move an amendment to the amendment if it is in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the opinion of the Chair that an amendment to the amendment is not now in order, this being an amendment to the original amendment.
Mr. FOWLER. I shall vote for the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Missouri. I believe it is just and equal to the district of country I rePresent; at any rate, not only the southern but the entire western country. They have little or no interest in the duties that have been incorporated into this bill, and pay them as they would pay a direct taxoon them for the support of the Government. Here is a reduction proposed to be made on a certain article that comes in competition with no interest of ours, that injures no branch of industry, that are prime necessaries of life; and it is proposed simply to reduce the duty on tea from 100%. to 60%. This will diminish the revenue about 1,800,000 dollars according to the Treasury report of 1865. We have a margin, according to the Secretary's calculations, as I said before, of about ten million dollars to go on this year, and certainly we can afford to diminish that by $1, 800,000. I take this subject wholly upon its own merits, and do not propose to contrast it with any other duties that have been assessed, because many of my votes for increasing duties were given cheerfully; but when the article of tea is proposed to be taxed as high as 60%. I think that is sufficient. I regret very much that the amendment I moved before was lost. I hope still to get it up in some other form, and have coffee reduced to somewhere within the bounds of reason.
Mr. MORGAN. I shall be as ready as any other Senator to reduce the duty on both the articles mentioned tea and coffee; and if it were safe to do Iso would be ready to vote for it at the Present time; but all the arguments that have been Presented in favor of the reduction were considered by the ComFinance, because the bill as it came from the HoRep came with a reduction, and that point was of course considered. I do not, however, think it is safe at the Present time. There is to be a very large falling off in the revenue very large indeed; much greater than is calculated upon; and I think it is much safer to adhere to the bill as reported by the ComFinance. I hope the amendment will not prevail.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the honorable chair man of the ComFinance inform me what is the duty under the existing law, and whether it is the same as you propose to make it now?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The same as in the bill. We have made no change.
Mr. HENDERSON. The chairman of the ComFinance says the committee pro pose the Present rate. That is so; but that rate was adopted in the midst of war, at a time when we were necessarily compelled to get money from any source whatever.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We are in the same condition now.
Mr. HENDERSON. Why, sir, the tariff yielded $179,000,000 last year, and has yielded enough to justify an expectation of $200,000,000this year so far as the year has elapsed; and there is $90,000,000 in the Treasury now in gold.
Mr. WILLIAMS, I will state one reason that influenced my mind in assenting to the Presentduty upon tea. Every body admits that a very large amount of revenue must be raised in the U.S. to meet the demands of the Government. It appears to me that the mostdirect and economical way of raising that revenueis to impose it upon tea and coffee and articlesof that description. Teas are not necessariesof life, although they are very commonlyused; and an impost tax upon tea will be paid more readily and with less complaint than almost any other tax. The course that should be pursued, as it seems to me, in referenceto taxation, is to raise as much as possible by a revenue upon imports and, if practicable, to reduce the amount of internal taxes. Now, if thistariff is left in the condition that it was reported by the committee, when it becomes necessaryto consider the tax upon the internal resourcesof the country that can be so arranged as to accommodate itself to this tariff, and it will be much more satisfactory to the people, in myjudgment, to remove the i.o.as far as possible, and continue the Present tax upon tea and coffee, because they can pay this tax without feeling the burdea as much as they do when they are required to pay the direct taxesthat are imposed upon the business of the country. I think it is better, therefore, to retain this duty, and if it is necessary to relieve the people, relieve them by removing internalrevenue taxes.
Mr. FOWLER. One remark in reply to that. I cannot see the difference between paying taxes going to market and paying taxes coming from it. I do not see any advantage.in taking the internalrevenue off and putting the same burdens on to the customhouse. One has to be paid in gold and the other in currency. The customs duty is paid in gold and the Treasury has the opportunity of selling surplus gold and paying somebody for selling gold an ocurrency. We have an enormous amount of gold on hand more than is necessary, and the SecyTreasury is authorized to sell gold and regulate our currency. I prefer reducing the amount of revenue to that which is necessary and no more. I think we shall get much more than is requisite for our purpose. There is no probability there will be such an immense falling off as from $200,000,000 to $145,000,000, the amountestimated by the SecyTreasury as necessary.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, one proposition is certainly undeniable, and that is that there might and ought to be a large reduction of taxation either of duties on foreign imports or of internal taxes. If a proposition to reduce internal taxes would operate as extensively and as impartially upon the people of the U.S. as a proposition to reduce taxes upon foreign imports it would be as broad as it was long, and it would be as advan tageous to reduce upon the one class of taxation as upon the other. But the proposition now is, as it was in the preceding amendment, to reducetaxes upon the importation of articles thatare introduced from foreign countries and are not produced by ourselves at all. Is it proper? If we are to begin the system of the reduction of taxes we ought to begin to operate as extensively, as equally, and as impartially upon all the o: as possible. In relation to the proposition, then, of the Senfrom Tennessee, to reduce the tax upon coffee, what reduction of tax could operate so extensively and so impartially on the people of the U.S. as that? What other reduction of taxation upon any subject could operate with anything like approximate generality, oand impartiality as the reduetion of the duty upon teas? These are articles of prime necessity and of universal use, that are not fuxuries, that are not even comforts, but that are the necessaries of life and essential to the comfort of the great mass of the American people. When there is a proposition to reduce taxes upon such articles what can be a better subject of equal, even, and impartial reduction of taxation to all the people? The idea that it is more simple and more easy to collect upon tea and coffee than it is upon the silks or any articles of internal taxation is preposterous. It is just as easy to collect taxes upon any subject of internal taxation as it is upon tea and coffee?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Is it as easy to collect the tax upon whisky?
Mr. DAVIS. Certainly it is, if you reduce that tax to anything like a reasonable amount. Reduce the tax from 2 dollars to one dollar, a gallon upon whisky and you will collect more revenue, and you will not have one tithe of the perjuries, one tithe of the frauds that are now practiced every day. Here are certain essential, stable, necessary articles entering into the consumption of the entire people of the U.S. They are not produced in our country at all. Their production and importation do not come into competition with domestic labor. They are not produced in any degree in our own country; and yet they are articles of such general, absolute use, so necessary to human subsistence and human comfort, and so generally and almost universally used by our people, that a reduction upon no subjects of taxation can operate so impartially, so justly, and so equally as upon these. Then why should the Senate hesitate a moment to reduce the tax upon tea from 25 to 15 cents and on coffee from 5 cents to 2 and a half or 3 cents? Why should there be any hesitation to adopt the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri’ I do hope the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. In the country where I reside we are growing tea now, and we are producing coffee, and it is supposed to be as fine a tea and as fine a coffee land as there is in the world, Java not excepted. Now, we do not ask protection for it..We do not ask protection for the tea and coffee grown in California and Arizona and Son ora, the countries we intend to occupy. rTehe jquoest.ion being taken by yeas&nays 15, nays 24;–13. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope this proposition will not be entertained. W. you come to sugars the argument used as to tea and coffee does not apply. The fact is that the duty on sugar is one of the leading stays of the revenue. We get about 28 millions of revenue, I think, from sugars.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Very nearly. Then there are various considerations connected with the subject. In the 1st place, a duty is laid upon the cheap sugars to protect and encourage the raising and manufacture of sugar in the sugar producing regions of this country, in the South, where at one time it was a very considerable interest and I hope will be again. It has been my wish and other gentlemen have agreed with me that it would be no more than right to take off the internal tax on sugar for the sake of encouraging its production and manufacture at the South; and a duty on low priced foreign sugars is necessary for the same purpose. It is necessary for another purpose. There is a very large amount of capital invested in the manufacture of cheap sugars out of molas ses; and if you change this duty you will have to make changes in many other particulars, and there is o: of destroying that interest. Then, with regard to the duties on the higher grades: they are already so low that we have been applied to very strongly on, the part of the NewYork refiners to raise the duties on those sugars for the reason that they say there is a new process by which these sugars, without being refined, come so near it that they are in danger of being broken up. We did not change the sugar duties. The House ComWays&Means examined the subject with great care, and the House adhered to the duties as they stand. We examined the matter with care, and rejected all applications to raise the duties on sugars and agreed to let them stand as they are. I hope the Senate will not change them, for I assure them they cannot interfere with the duties on sugar with aut seriously endangering the revenue of the country.
Mr. HENDERSON. I have in my hands the report of the ComrIntRev, and the Senfrom Maine will see from that report that if he relies upon the manufacture of sugar from the sugarcane in this country to supply its wants he relies upon a broken stick.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not say we did in this country; except what we propose to raise down South. I know there is very little raised now, but we hope to improve.
Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator is as well aware of the fact as I am that no sugar can be produced in the State of Louisiana next year, and that is really our only sugar producing State. It is as impossible to do it as it was last year. It cannot be done. The levees have not been built. There was a proposition here at the last session, I believe, to levee the Mississippi so as to protect the sugar lands of that country; but it was not done, and the State of Louisiana has not been able to nego tiate her bonds. From the vast amount of snow that has fallen on the upper waters of the Missouri and Mississippi we know that the lower Mississippi will next spring and summer be probably higher than has been known for years. The snows now are from 18 inches to 5 and 6 feet upon the head waters of both these streams, and the most certain fact is that the entire country will be flooded. As to growing any, sugar cane in Louisiana next summer, it is wholly out of the loue.stion; nobody calculates upon any such who knows anything about that country.
Mr. FOWLER. I should like to ask the Senfrom Missouri one question connected with that argument. Supposing that Louisiana shall produce sugar, do you propose to tax the other States from 70 to 85%. to pay the planters of Louisiana for the small amount of sugar they raise there?
Mr. HENDERSON. I was not so arguing. I was answering the Senfrom Maine, who, I understood, contended that it was necessary to protect the home manufacturer of this article.
Mr. HENDERSON. Now, Mr. President, let us look at the internalrevenue figures. On sugar not above No. 12, Dutch standard, produced from the sugar cane, the amount of reve nue paid into the Treasury last year from the State of Louisiana was $205.62928; from the State of Georgia, $85 33; from the State of Massachusetts, $315; from the State of NewJersey, $250; from the State of NewYork, $500; and from the State of Texas, $754. The whole bulk of it comes from Louisiana, and the aggregate was $207,000. On sugar above No. 12 and below No. 18, Dutch standard, the State of Louisiana gave us $215,000, and the other States in about the same proportion as before, little or nothing. Upon sugar above No. 18, Dutch standard, the State of Louisiana Mpaid only $14, 904. Thus it will be seen that the position of the Senfrom Maine, to take off the internalrevenue taxes in order to encourage the production of the article here, does us no good; it does not furnish us any sugar. We got less last year than the year before.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Double from Louisi ana this year over last year 60,000 hogsheads. Nothing in the country has increased so fast comparatively as the production of sugar.
Mr. HENDERSON. The year before last we could not get any from Louisiana because it was utterly impossible to get it through the lines. If anybody brought sugar out of Louisi ana in 1864 he had to run the blockade with it. My proposition is to reduce the tax upon the coarse article of sugar, and I suggest to the Senfrom Maine if it is not an encouragement to the manufacturers. Does he desire to encourage the refining of sugar The sugar refiners in New . paid into the Treasury last year $1, 198, 122 21 internal taxation, more than all the internalrevenue raised from the manufacture of sugar in the same time by 3. What was it that they refined? It was the coarse sugars from other countries; not our native sugars. Then let us encourage their manufacture. There are now a large number of people in this country engaged in refining sugar. A large quantity of it is refined in StLouis, in my State. I am not, however, looking to the protection of the manufacturers in my State. They have not clamored around my ears; they have not written me letters upon the subject. I believe they are satisfied. The sugar refiners there do not ask me to urge the reduction of this tax, nor do any class of manufacturers in my State. The iron manufacturers of that State have said nothing to me about having anything done for their benefit. They do not desire an increase. They are perfectly willing to let the tariff alone as it is; at least they think it is high enough. The Senate will find that in the State of Massachusetts this article of refining sugar gave us over $300,000 last year. The State of Pennsylvania gave us $337,000 on sugar refining.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senator what the tariff on sugar was then?
Mr. HENDERSON. The same as now. I do not think it has been altered. I think it is the same as it was under the previous law. But in answer to that I will simply say to the Senfrom Oregon that I consented to these high duties myself in the midst of a war that absolutely seemed at the time to require that each. every individual should divide his rop.erty with the Government. The Senator that fact. I would have voted at that time to go in upon the farmers of my State and taken part and parcel of their property to put down this rebellion. But now that the rebellion is over is it necessary to continue these high rates of duty upon an indispensable article one of necessity among the people every where? It is a coarse article of sugar that is worth a little over 4 cents a pound. To lessen the duty encourages the sugar refiners, and not only that, it gives cheap sugar to the people. I insist that for the benefit of the people of the western States this reduction should be made, and it can be made without injuring the revenue. I nays ask for the yeas and on the amendment. The yeas&nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted yeas 12, nays 26;–14. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FOSTER. I ask the indulgence of the Senate for a moment while Loffer one amendment. On page 30, section7, at the end of line 261, I propose to add the following: And in addition thereto, on knives and pocket cut lery valued at 2 dollars per dozen and over, 50 cents per dozen. So that the clause will read: 0n pocket knives and pocket cutlery of 55%. adcaloren, and, all kinds, in thereto, addition on knives and pocket cutlery valuedat 2 dollars per dozen and over, 50 centsper dozen. The House bill imposed the following duty on these articles: On pocket knives and pocket cutlery of all kinds, valued at not over 5 dollars per dozen, 75 cents per dozen, and, in addition thereto, 50%. advalorem; valued at over 5 dollars per dozen, twodollars perdozen, and, in 50%. advalorem. addition thereto, This amendment proposes, 50 cents per dozen as a specific duty on all knives costing 2 dollars per dozen and over. The House bill proposed 75 cents per dozen on all knives not costing over 5 dollars, per dozen, and 2 dollars per dozen on all knives costing over 5 dollars per dozen. It is true that by the House bill they imposed but 50%. advalorem, and the amendment reported by the ComFinance proposes 55; but the 5%. advalorem additional would be of course no comparison in amount with the 75 cents specific duty on all knives not costing over 5 dollars per dozen, and 2 dollars on all knives costing over 5 dollars; so that the duty which I propose on this amendment is really very much ess than the House bill. Now, Mr. President, upon all the commod ities which are used by the manufacturers of these knives, so far as there has been alteration made, and there has been considerable, the duties have been, increased very considerably by the Senate bill over the House bill, while the duties on these articles are diminished. I submit that that is not equal and exact justice. It violates the principle on which the bill should rest an increase of duty in proportion to the increase of labor.
Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have the Senfrom Connecticut tell me a single case in which the Senate have proposed higher rates of duty than the House
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator is mistaken in that. The House bill proposed 5 dollars a ton on grindstones, and I believe my col.i. got the Senate to consent to 3 dollars.
Mr. FESSENDEN. No; he failed in that. We put it at 5 dollars on the finished article and ten%. on the unfinished.
Mr. FOSTER. The Senate raised the amountreported by the ComFinance?