1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4477 

bounties, &c.-to the Select Committee on the Payment of Pensions, 

Bounty, and Back Pay. 

By Mr. HAMMOND: Papers relating to the claim of Stephen G. 

Dorsey-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, petition of Stephen G. Dorsey, to have his claim referred to the 

Court of Claims-to the same committee. 

By Mr. HANCOCK: Memorial of Concho County Wool-Growers' Ai3-

sociation-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. IDTT: Remonstrance of G. A. Sarford and 16 others, bank- ers and business men of Rockford, ill., against Government monopoly 

of telegraph-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. HOPKINS: Petition of 500 citizens, in favor of a law to prohibit the importation of labor under contract-to the Committee on 

Labor. 

Also, two petitions from mechanics and builders of the Dis~ct of 

Columbia, in .favor of an amendment to the mechanics' lien law-to the 

Committee on the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. KEIFER: Petition of Charles H. Parker and 21 others, citi- zens of Beloit, Wis., praying for the passage of a. bill to organize the 

Patent Office into a separate and independent Department-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. KELLEY: Petition of citizens of Pulaski, Pa., in favor of 

extending the privilege of voting irrespective of sex-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. LACEY: Petition of Post No. 125, Grand Army of the Republic, Hastings, Mich., infavorofthepassageofH. R. 6463, giving a pension 

to each Union soldier and sailor who served sixty days in the war of 

there hellion-to the Select Committee on Payment of Pensions, Bounty, 

and Back Pay. 

By Mr. LOVERING: Memorial of Persis M. Thompson, of Chelsea, 

Mass., charging the United States district attorney and United States 

commissioner for the district of New Hampshire with misconduct in 

the suppression of evidence, &c., and praying for an investigation-to 

the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: Petitionofthepresidentandfacultyofthe Ohio 

State University, for an.appropriation for Indian schools-to the Committee on Appropriations. 

By Mr. MORSE: Petition of Thomas Drew, jr., and 28 others, em- ployes, and ofT. A. Lewis and 28 others, employes, of the Boston postoffice, praying for a readjustment of the salaries and classification of 

clerks in all the first-class post-offices-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. NICHOLLS: Memorial of William Cantwell and others, em- ployes of the post-office at Savannah, Ga., asking for an equalization 

of salaries-to the same committee. 

By Mr. PETERS: Resolutions of Pollock Post, Grand Army of the 

Republic, No. 42, Department of Kansas, favoring the granting of a pension to B. F. Brocket-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. W. E. ROBINSON: Petition of New York Stationers' Board 

of Trade, in favor of the penny postage bill-to the Committee on the 

Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. W. F. ROGERS: Petitions of citizens of Buffalo, N. Y., for 

increasing the appropriations for the education of Indian children-to 

the Committee on Appropriations. 

By Mr. STOCKSLAGER: Petition of citizens of Jeffersonville and 

New Albany, Ind., for the improvement of the roadway between the 

New Albany National Cemetery and the turnpike from the Jeffersonville 

depot of the Quartermaster's Department-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

SATURDAY, May 24, 1884. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I rise to make a privileged report. I 

send up to the Clerk's desk the report of a committee of conference. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3967) for the establishment of a bure~u of animal industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle and to provtde mea!ls for ~he suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumo~ia and 

other contagtous diseases among domestic animals, having met, after full and 

r~~e &~~~e~~ot~~s~greed to recommend and do recommend to their respectThat the House recede from its disagreement t{) the amendments of the Sen- ate numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, :>, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and agree to the same. . 

W. H. HATCH, 

G. G. DIBRELL, 

JAMES WILSON, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

WARNER MILLER, P. B. PLUMB, JNO. S. WILLI.AltfS, 

Managers on the pa·rt of the Senare. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I ask for the reading of the statement 

under the rules. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

To the House of Repre8entati:r;es: 

The conferees appointed by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate t{) the bill of the House (H. R. 3967) 

entitled "An act for the establishment of a bureau of animal industry, to pre- vent the exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the suppres- sion and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases among domestic animals," respectfully submit the following report: 

The conferees on the part of the House are unanimous in recommending con- currence in the Senate amendments. 

.Amendment No.1, which is to strike out" number, value, and," in line 7 of 

section 1, will not, in the opinion of your confereest impair the efficiency or value 

of the work contemplated by this section, as reliable statistical information upon these subjects from various sources are now collected, tabulated, and published 

by another bureau of the Department of Agriculture, and will be contmued. 

Amendments numbered 2 and 3 to section 2 are simply explanatory and intensive in their character, and are unobjectionable. 

Amendments numbered 4,5, 6J 7, and 8 are to be coll.Sidered together, as they relate to one subject-matter of tne bill. 

The amendments limit the jurisdiction of the Commiesioner of Agriculture to such "investigations and to such disinfection and quarantine measures as may be necessary to prevent th~ spread of dangerous, contagious, infectious, 

and communicable diseases from one State or Territory into another;" and 

prohibit him from applying any portion of the money appropriated by this act toward paying any part of the value of animals it is deemed necessary to slaughter to extirpate the diseuse, leaving this responsibility to the States re- spectively, or to the individual owners, and confining the efforts of the Federal 

authority solely to preventing the spread of such diseases from one State or Territory into another. 

Section 3, a.s it passed the House, provided "that one-half the expense of the 

valuation of the animals it is deemed necessary to slaughter, and one-half the cost of disinfection and necessary police regulations in the quarantine and care of infected herds of cattle, should be borne by the authorities of the State or Territory in which the disease existed, and the expenditure was made. 

The section as amended defines the jurisdiction of the States and the Federal 

Government respectively, leavin~ each to provide for the payment of such ex- penses as may be incurred by thet.r respective officials in dealing with such diseases. Your conferees, after mature consideration of these amendments, recommend concurrence therein, believing that they will not seriously, if at all, impair the 

efficiency and completeness of the work contemplated by the organization of a national bureau of animal industry, and the labor of assisting tbe States in 

extirpating the diseases described. Experience will enable Congress, from time to time, to enact such addition&! legislation as may be deemed beneficial and necessary. 

Section 6 of the act as it passed the House prohibited the transportation by any mode of animals affected with contagious, infectious, or communicable 

diseases, and provided penalties for its violation. The Senate amended this 

section so as to provide that splenetic or Texas fever shall not be considered a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease within the meaning of this act, as to cattle being transported by rail to market for slaughter, when the same are unloaded only to be fed and watered in lots on the way thereto. 

This proviso is not considered by your conferees as inimical to the original 

intent of the act, but in harmony with the interpretation put upon this section 

by the members of the Committee on Agriculture, who reported and supported 

the bill in the House, and, as we believe, so understood by the House. Amendment numbered 10, to section 10, reduces the appropriation from $250,000, 

to $150; 000. In-v1ew of the amendments to section 3, which have been fully explained, your conferees promptly agreed to and recommend concurrence in this amend- ment. 

Respectfully submitted. 

W.H.HATCH, 

G. G. DffiRELL, 

JAMES WILSON, Conferee~~ on the part of the House. 

:Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I demand the previous question. 

The" previous question was ordered; and under the operation thereof 

the conference report was adopted. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 

conference report was adopted; and also moved that the motion to .re- consider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Mr. TALBOTT, by unanimous consent, was granted leave of absence 

from to-morrow until June 3. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, an- nounced the passage of a bill (H. R. 1340) to establish and maintain a 

bureau of labor statistics with amendments, in which concurrence was 

requested. 

NAVAL BUSINESS. 

M:r. COX, of New York. This day has been set apart for the con- sideration ofthe businessofthe Naval Committee. Once beforeitwas 

postponed for the John Marshall ceremonies. I move to dispense with 

the morning hour. 

The SPEAKER. That requires a vote of two-thirds. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I wish to get to the business of the Committee on NaTal Affairs. 

Mr. COBB. I wish to get to the unfinished business, which is lhe 

Oregon Central bill. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. State it. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. Would it be in order to move that the Houge 

resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 

the Union for the consideration of bills for the erection of public buildings under the special order? 
, 

4478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 24, 

The SPEAKER. Not during the motion to dispense with the morn- ing hour. 

The morning hour was dispensed with (two-thirds votiog in favor 

thereof). 

Mr. COX, of New York. I call for the regular order. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will cause the order of the House to be 

read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolfltd, That the session of Saturday, 1\Ia.y 24, after the morning hour, be devot-ed to the consideration of bills and resolutions reportedfrom the Committee on Naval Affairs, and bills and resolutions on the Speaker's table over which 

said committee has jurisdiction, except bills providing for the construction of 

additional war vessels; the bills and resolutions to be considered in the order 

agreed upon by the committee. 

MI. STEELE. I wish to ask unanimous consent to take from the 

Speaker's table the bill H. R. 355, returned from the Senate with an amendment. 

The SPEAKER The regular order is called for and insisted on. Mr. COBB. I raise the question of consideration. I desire to take 

up the Oregon Central bill. · The SPEAKER. The question of consideration can not be raised 

against the order of the House itself; but the Chair has always decided 

the question of consideration can be raised against each particular bill as it is taken up. If the House refuses to consider it, then it can be 

passed over. 

Mr. KASSO~. That would waste half the day. 

ENSIGN REYNOLDS. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I am directed by theCommitteeonNaval 

Affairs to call up for action the joint resolution (S. 26) grruiting permission to Ensign L. K. Reynolds, United States Navy, to aecept the 

decoration of the Royal and Imperial Order of Francis Joseph from the 

Government of Austria. 

Mr. COBB. I raise the question of consideration. 

Mr. RANDALL. There are some here who favor the Oregon Central 

bill, and who yet feel it is essential to give to the Naval Committee the 

day it has under the special order. I make this statement so it shall 

not be held that those who vote to take up the naval business are hos- . tile to the legislation to which the gentleman from Indiana refers. 

Mr. COBB. I have raised the question of consideration. If the 

House determines to consider the Naval Committee business, I shall 

not object. . Mr. RANDALL. Why, the House on yesterday, I believe, or the 

day before, by a very decided vote, if I recollect correctly, determined 

to go on with that Oregon land-grant-forfeiture bill. It is not therefore a fair inference to draw from the action of the House to-day in determining to give the Committee on Naval Affairs precedence for its 

business instead of going on with the land-grant bill, that therefore 

there is hostility on the part oftheHouse to the Oregon bill. I make 

this statement, for, as I have said, therearegentlemenhere who think 

it only proper that the Committeeon NavalA:ffairsshouldhavetheday 

which baa been assigned to them. 

Mr. COBB. I do not raise that question simply, but for the purpose 

of raising the question of consideration the allusion was incidentally 

made to it. I do not think that any such construction can be put upon 

the action of the House in voting one way or the other; that is, whether 

it will take up the Oregon bill or proceed with the reports from the 

Committee onNavalAffairs. Both areimportantpublicmeasures--

Mr. KASSON. I would like to make an inquiry, sir . . As I understand, if the gentleman from Indiana should carry his objection to this 

bill to the point of raising the question of consideration, still it remains 

the order of the House, and the same point would have to be made on each successive bill reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs. The 

result would then be the waste of at least half the day without the ac- complishment of anything. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I now call up the Senate joint resolution 

No. 26, granting permission to Ensign L. K. Reynolds, United States 

Navy, to accept the decoration of the Royal and Imperial Order of 

Francis Joseph from the GQvernment of Austria. 

The joint resolution was read, as follows: 

Resolved bv the Senate and Home of Representatives of the United Btaks of Amer- ica in Congresa assembled, That Ensign L. K. Reynolds, United States Navy be, and he is hereby, granted permission to aecept the decora.aon of the Royal and Imperial Order of Francis Joseph awarded him by the Austrian Govern- ment in recognition of heroic conduct in saving the liTes of the crew of the Austrian bark Olivo, November U, 1879. 

.Mr. COX, of New York. I move the previous question npon the 

third reading of the joint resolution. 

Mr. COBB addressed the Chair. 

The SPEAKER. The order of business is not debatable. The Chair 

has simply allowed suggestions to be made. Does the gentleman desire 

tp raise the question of consideration? 

Mr. COBB. While the bill I have referred to, the Oregon bill, has 

been pending for some time and is the unfinished business, I find that .there is a decided disposition on the part of many gentlemen to take up 

the special order to-day, and as I have no desire to antagonize the wishes 

of gentlemen, although the imp6rtance of the bill which I have named 

in my judgment warrants such a course, still I am willing to let the 

special order be proceeded with to-day without interruption with the 

hope that the Naval Committee will get through with its business and 

will afterward assist us in getting up the unfinished business and con- clude it. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previous question on the third reading of the Senate joint resolution. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Is this not open to debate? 

The SPEAKER. The previous question has been demanded. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I trust it will not be ordered, as I 

want to discuss this question for a few moments. 

The previous question was ordered; and under the operation thereof 

the joint resolution was read the third time. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I demand the previous question upon the 

passage of the resolution. 

The previous question was ordered. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Before the announcement is made 

I wish to ask, as I did not hear the statement of the gentleman from 

New York, whether, the previous question having been ordered on the 

third reading of the bill, fifteen minut~ on each side arc not allowed 

under the rule for discussion? If so, I claim that privilege. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will st.1.te to the gentleman from New 

York that the previous question has been ordered. The question now 

is, Shall the bill pass? Upon this question, by the rules of the Honse, 

after the previous question has been ordered thirty minutes are allowed 

for debate-fifteen minutes to those in su'pport of, and .fifteen minutes 

against the proposition. 

Mr. KEIFER. Has not thisjoint resolution been already debated? 

The SPEAKER. This is a Senate joint resolution. The gentleman 

from New York will be recognized for fifteen minutes in opposition to 

the bill. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I wonder, Mr. Speaker; what it is 

that prompts this pertinacity on the part of a leading committee of this 

House to prostrate the people-the American people-into the degradation which is intended by this resolution. I have no time, sir, in 

the fifteen minutes allotted to me to go over this subject, but I will 

say here that since the Fifth Congress, in 1798, there never has been 

an attempt until recently, until after the advent of the monarchical 

ideas engendered by our late war-there never has been an attempt 

made to degrade the American people in the way it is now attempted 

to be done. 

Sir, in 1798-and I claim the attention of the House for a few mo- ments upon this subject-a resolution was introduced into the Senate of 

the United States, and also offered in this House, to grant a present of a snuff-box or some royal tri1le to Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, for 

having negotiated an important treaty on account of our Government 

with Spain, which wasthenanimportantpower. That was discussed, 

sir, and every Democrat and every Republican in the House of Representatives denounced it as a degradation of the American people; and 

that if it was ever attempted again the man who wanted the decoration and the man who introduced the resolution intothisHouseshould 

meet the execration of the patriots of this country. 

I want both sides of this House to look into the history of America 

and see what has been done upon this subject. I refer particularly to 

two or three illustrious statesmen of that age. I have no time in the 

short space allotted to me to send for papers and have their speeches 

read in this connection, but I should like to read some of the speeches 

of Albert Gallatin, who did more for the formation of this Government 

than perhaps any other man of the time. Albert Gallatin took the 

floor and denounced the idea that the illustrious statesman, Mr. Pinckney, who was at the time a member of this House, should be allowed 

to accept such a recognition of his services for negotiating this treaty 

with Spain. He denounced the idea as not in harmony with our idea 

of government and opposed to the sentiment of the American people. 

The illustrious Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, took the same position. All the illustrious men of that age who were democrat-republican denounced it, and some of them went so far as to say that they 

wanted to settle it so far that hereafter for aU time no man should be 

bold enough to introduce a proposition to confer these pretended honors 

upon any one of our citizens. 

I implore these gentlemen around me on both sides, if they donbt 

my word, to send for the proceedings of the Fifth Congress and read 

over the speeches of Nathaniel Macon, Albert Gallatin, Tazewell of 

Virginia, and all the illustrious men of that age, all the prominent Democrats and Republicans, denouncing it as a degradation to the Ameri- can people and appealing to the House of Representatives that by their 

vote it should declare that any man who would dress our officers to go 

around the world like decorated dudes should be execrated by posterity, 

and especially by the American Congress. And that resolution to allow the acceptance of these presents was voted down on a solemn vote 

of yeas and nays. And the illustrious Bayard of Delaware afterward 

introduced a resolution, and in his speech introducing it he declared 

the vote of this Honse which had been given solemnly against even allowing that illustrioru; statesman Pinckney to receive a present would 

govern for all time, and that no man who attempted to appeal to the 

American people for support for such a thing hereafter should be allowed 

to go without its denunciation and execration. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4479 

I ask my illustrious friend from New York [Mr. Cox], does he believe his constituents in New York are in favor of sending decorated 

dt1-des about the world to represent the American people? Will he go 

before his constituents and justify this idea? What has instigated this 

idea that this man should be decorated above all others ? I mentioned on a former occasion that a member of this Committee on Naval Affairs 

had dared to come into this House and say that my constituency in 

Brooklyn should receive no favors because I would not consent that 

this thing should be unanimously considered. .And yet, sir, what is 

this that is proposed now? Not a present of a snuff-box, but an order 

of nobility. Aye, my friend here from Ohio (:Ur. KEIFER] shakes his 

head. I will prove it. What is an order of nobility? I hold in my 

hand the report of this committee in favor of giving this honor. I 

read from it. 

Mr. Schaeffer, the Austrian minister, writes to Hon. Frederick T. 

Frelinghuysen and says that Hon. Mr. Hunt had declared that permission would undoubtedly be givenAnd that the Department saw no objection to Lieutenant Reynolds being made a knightA noblemana knight of the Imperial and Royal Order of Francis Joseph. 

There it appears on the very face of it. What is knighthood? Sir, 

it is an order of nobility. This decoration which it is proposed to give 

is the decoration of an order of nobility. It is not only that, but it is 

the beginning of a series of orders of nobility to be conferred. We have 

fourteen, fifteen, or twenty applications here to-day from the officers of our Navy asking these decorations to be conferred upon them outside 

the authority of the United States and above the honors which we can ~& . 

This man has declared that he is willing to accept this title of nobility. The Constitution of the United States does not give Congress 

the power to confer it. And Albert Gallatin and Nathaniel Macon 

and the illustrious Tazewell of Virginia, all the statesmen of that 

day, opposed this thing, and said Congress should not allow an order 

of nobility to be conferred. You may allow this young lieutenant to 

take a snuff-box or anything of that kind; but you can not allow him 

to be decorated with the Imperial and Royal Order of Francis Joseph of 

Austria unless you become perjurers and render yourself liable to indictment as such. As members of this House, yon and I and all of us 

have sworn to support the Constitution of the United States; and the 

Constitution of the United States says, "No title of nobility shall be 

granted by the United States,'' even with the consent of Congress. 

I must hurry along. I am sorry I have not much time. I hold in 

my hand a list of these officers that are waiting at your door to be decorated. Macon and Gallatin and all these illustrious men thought 

they had killed that scorpion, that monarchical idea. But here we have these men coming up by battalions to be decorated with foreign 

ribbons and foreign orders. I hold in my hand a report from the Secretary of the Navy in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives which I introduced. 

We have Rear-Admiral J. W. A. Nicholson, who want:a to receiveA gold medal tendered by the King of Sweden, &c. 

He helped England at the bombardment of Alexandria, and therefore gained the good-will of the monarchical powers. Then, RearAdmiral R. W. Shufeldt is now before Congress a."'king to be permitted 

to receiveA sword, Persian c~pet, and other articles presented by the Sultan of Zanzibar during the cruise of the Ticonderoga; presentation made after the cuatom of oriental princes. 

We have got into a nice position when our officers are to be decorated 

with swords " after the custom of oriental princes." 

Then Rear-Admiral C. H. Baldwin is to haveA gold box with a. port,rait of the Emperor of Russia set in diamondsbecause he went over and looked with a kindly eye on that despot 

"on the occasion of his coronation." where the letters that have been 

published in the papers come to the lovers of liberty throughout the 

world from Siberia and the dungeons of Russian despotism written in 

blood. And he is to ha~e a gold box with the portrait of the Emperor 

of Russia set with diamonds, presented by the Emperor himself! 

Then we have Capt. George E. Belknap with theDecoration of knight commander of the Royal Order of Kamehameha. I [laughter], tendered by the King of the Hawaiian IslandsThe highwaymen have captured our officerstendered by the king of the Hawaiian Islands, in recognition of his services in 

restoring order upon the occasion of the riot at Honolulu. 

It seems he took sides with the king in putting down the people. 

Then we have Captain Henry Wilson and Commander Frederick Pear- son: 

Decorations of knight commander of the Royal Order of Kalakaua. 

Kalakaua, or kill-cow, or however you may pronounce it. · We will 

call it "cow," because yon are making a bull in conferring such an order. [Laughter.] 

Decora.~ons of knight commander of the Royal Order of Ka.laka.ua, tendered 

by the King of the Hawaiian Islands upon the occasion of his coronation now in the custody of the Department of State. ' 

Ha.s Congress given permission for that? By what authority is it in 

the State Department? 

Then come Lieut. Charles A. Foster and Lieut. Jesse U. Roper, all 

trying to rope in these decorations. They want to receive the decorations of knight commander of the Royal Order of the Crown of Hawaii, now in the custody of the Department of State. Then come Commanders Cooper and Strong and Lieutenant W ~~who want to receive 

the decorations of the Order of El Busto del Libertador, tendered by hia 

excellency the. President of Venezuela. And then we have Rear-Admiral Cooper, Captain Bradford, Lieutenant Tilley, Lieutenant.. Cowles, 

and Ensign Milligan for the same decorations of the Order of El Busto 

del Libertador. 

Yon see we are coming down now to the ensigns who want to be made 

princes. .And then we have Ensign Reynolds, this case now before the 

House, 'who wants the decoration of the Royal and Imperial Order of 

·Francis Joseph, tendered by the Emperor of Austria. 

Now, why are we to do all this? Are not these men contented with 

the honors which America. gives them? Why do they want to accept 

these orders from King Kamehameha, or I believe it is the Order of 

KamehamehafromKing Kalakaua? I understand that Claus Spreckels owns the island where Kalakaua resides, and I understand that the 

principal production there is sugar. Now, if this dark prince or Prince 

of Darkness, or Claus Spreckels, his owner, had tendered to ea~h one of 

these men a barrel of sugar or a keg of mola..'!SeS, which Claus Spreckels could give them without much injury to his income in San Francisco, there would be something to sweeten the recollection of this gift 

of royalty. 

I would ask how much time I have left? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SPRINGE.&). The gentleman haa one minute lef\. , 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I think I have three minutes. 

This is the first time I ever contradicted the Chair. · 

The SPEAKER pro tempot:e. The Chair is informed by the Clerk 

that the gentleman has one minute remaining. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. In that one minnteitisimpossible 

for me to pour out the abhorrence ofmy heart for this miserable mon- archical, aristocratical idea. But I call upon both sides of this House 

to mark with their disapprobation this attempt t.o revive this monarchical idea which Albert Gallatin, Nathaniel Macon, and all the illustrious 

men ofthe first generation of this Republic in 1798 were opposed to, 

before this city became the city of our Government. I call upon all 

men here to give us th~ yeas and nays on this proposition and let us 

see once for all whether we are to spend the· remainder of this session 

which we should devote to important American questions in conferring 

these orders on this long list of applicants-and there are more coming; 

the vision of Macbeth is nothing to it-whether we are to continue or 

will stop now. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. TURNER, of Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that the 

time of the gentleman be extended. 

Mr. MORSE. I object. We have had enough of this, and we have 

something else to do. 

Mr. COX, of New York. In the Constitution of the United States our republican fathers said that no title of nobility should be granted 

by the United States. I showed the otherdaythatthiswas not a title 

of nobility, and I proved it by the Austrian minister and my friend · from Germany [.Ur. GUENTHER]; The Constitution also says that ''no 

person holding any office of profit or trust under them (the United 

States) shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, 

emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, 

or fbreign state.'' Now, thi8 is a present; it is not an ·order of nobility. 

It is so explained by the Austrian minister in the letter attached to the 

report. No one doubts it who will examine the facts. It is simply a medal for life-saving. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Now, Mr. Speaker-- · 

Mr. COX, of New York. I will not be interrupted. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I suppose you will not be to hear 

the truth. 

Mr. COX, of New York. The gentleman has argued this matter 

three times out of order, and I will take three minutes to use him up. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. .And then give me one minute to use up what is left of him. [Renewed laughter.] A half a minute 

will do it. 

Mr. COX, of New York. This officer, whom this gentleman so truculently designates as a dude, is now going to the northern seas in search ·of the Greely party. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. He is ordered to go there. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I will not be interrupted, I say. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I know you will not. 

Mr. COX, of New York. The gentleman has undertaken to fix some 

opprobrious epithet on him. He calls him "dude." Now, the evidence shows that this officer saved eleven lives at the Azores. This is 

simply a life-saving medal which was given to him for that heroic 

action. At his death it goes back to the organization, as the Austrian 

minister explains, named for the Emperor Francis Joseph. 
4480 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 24, 

What waa the service for which this officer is so berated in this House? 

It is unexampled in intrepidity. 

On the 24th of November, 1879, the United States steamer Constelta.tion is lying near the Azores. There is a wild gale prevailing at 

the time. A vessel is seen several miles aatern. It flies a signal of 

distress. It is the Austro-Hunga.ria.n bark Olivo. Two boats are or- dered off from our vessel. They go to give assistance. One fails; the ~ther is under comm.arid of Ensign Reynolds. It makes two trips and 

takes off nine of the twelve persons who are on board the Austrian 

vessel. 

Darkness comes. He returns to the sinking bark and takes off the 

remaining men. At every visit he has to leap into the sea to reach the 

imperiled bark. The sea is rough under the tempest. The men are obliged to jump overboard for safety, and be hauled into the small 

boat--

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I rise to a question of order. The 

lasttimethismatter was up the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. Cox] 

spent his time in praising this officer and is doing so now, and is not 

speaking to the question ofwhether weshallconfer the Royal and Imperial Order of Francis Joseph on this man. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 

RoBINSON] is out of order. 

Mr. COX, of New York. Now, if any one believes that the gentle- man was in earnest in this matter in. thus bestowing opprobrious epithets on this man, then they might tolerate him; but! sometimes think 

in charity that he is not in earnest in making such appeals. 

But I was going on to show the service for which this medal is to be 

given to this young officer. He consumed the day and part of the night 

in rescuing these eleven men, two or three at a time, from the bark. 

He rescued them by leaping into the sea every time and swimming to 

the bark until darkness came. Then, on his last trip, he was ordered 

again to the sin1..'i.ng boat. The hurricane was still on. It was after 

dark that this ' ' dude'' took off thelastthrP..emen. He had been ordered 

to fire the vessel in two places, as it was in the track of vessels going 

into the harbor at the Azores. He fires the vessel, and at the very time 

the vessel is burning he misses his own little boat. At last it appears 

1.1pon the crest of the wave. He leaps into the sea and with the last 

three men he reaches safely his own vessel. And for this service, and 

in high appreciation of this gallantry, he is tendered this honor; and 

for this he is insulted by this member from New York as a ''dude." 

The service thus rendered by this hero, for which we propo-.~ simply 

to allow him, in accordance with the Constitution, to accept a medal as 

a present, is worthy of an officer in our gallant Navy, and the objection 

is hardly worthy of the gentleman, my colleague. [Applause.] 

Mr. BRUMM. I wish to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. COX, of New York. The previous question .has been ordered. 

Three times this thing bas been debated already. 

Mr. BRUMM. Then I rise to a question of personal privilege. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. BRUMM. Some time ago when this question waa first brought 

to the attention of the House unanimous consent was asked foritsconsideration. I objected. Some time afterward, in my absence, the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. Cox] called this question up again, stating that be had poken to those gentlemen who had objected before 

and that they had withdrawn their objection; that it was with their 

consent that this matter was brought up. Now the question of personal privilege that I rise to state is, first, that I having been the original objector to the consideration of this resolution--

Mx:. COX, of New York. I never knew it. 

Mr. BRUMM. I never was consulted upon the question of consideration. I never withdrew my objection. I never knew that the gentle- man from New York was going to bring this matter up without my con- sent. 

I spoke to the gentleman afterward and asked him to make an ex- planation of the facts on the floor of the House. He assured me that 

it would be done, but he failed to do it. I have now simply asked him 

the privilege of a question, and be has refused to allow me to put it. 

Now the question of privilege is that I may be placed right on the 

record; and as a matter of information-for that is all I wanted from the 

gentleman when he refused to allow me a question-! wish to know 

whether this is an imperial decoration or not--

Mr. COX, of New York. Oh ! that I answered. 

Mr. BRUMM. Whether this does not--

Mr. COX, of New York. I rise to a point of order. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I make the point of order that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRUMM] has not stated any question 

.of privilege. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I wantasingledefi.nition read from 

Worcester's Dictionary. 

The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair the matter stated by 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. BRmiM] U! not a question of 

personal privilege, but a mere matter of personal explanation, which ~n not proceed except by unanimous consent. • Mr. ROBINSON, ofNew York. Can !not have unanimous consent 

to read from Worcester the meaning of ' ' knight? ' ' 

The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that the matter stated by the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania is not a question of privilege. Nothing 

haa been done or said, so far as the gentleman's statement shows, re- flecting upon him in any way in his representative capacity. His statement is in the nature of a personal explanation, which can only be made 

by unanimous consent. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I have asked unanimous consent 

merely to read the meaning of "knight1

" a title which it is acknowledged this measure confers. [Cries of 'Object!"] If you refuse to 

hear Worcester or Webster you can go to-Heaven! [Great laughter.] 

Mr. COX, of New York. I wish to say one word more in my own time. 

Mr. BRUMM. I rise to a question of privilege again. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. BRUMM. My question of privilege is that I have been misrepresented on the floor of the House. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not understand the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania to state that the gentleman from New York has men- tioned his name at all. 

Mr. BRUMM. But the RECORD mentions my name; it shows that 

I waa one of those who objected. _ 

Mr. COX, of New York. I never knewthatthe gentleman objected. 

to this bill until he told me so. Then I told him I would make an ex- planation to the House. I did not think of it this morning or I would 

have told the House that he is in the same category as my colleague. 

He and my colleague are now contending who shall be the worst man in this business. [Laughter and applause.] 

Mr. BRUMM. That would only be another misrepresentation like 

the first. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I donotcarewhatthegentlemansays--

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York will suspend. 

The House will come to order. 

Mr. COX, ofNewYork. Mr. Speaker, Iwillnottakethetimeallowed me by the rules except to say in response to what fell from the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRUMM] when he says that I misrepresented him. He is rather too flush with his words. I do not take that 

from anybody and never ~ve. I give it back to him. I said before 

in this House what I repeat now. I was not bound to look up the men who objected to this. Is it my duty here to follow gentlemenwho object to measures I propose-from place to place in order to advise them that I am about to call up the measure they object to, or to 

aak their consent about it? How can I follow the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania through the coal-banks of Pennsylvania, or the gentle- man from New York through the mazes of his movements? I con- sulted with men who were here when I brought it up the last time before Ensign Reynolds went to the north. I consulted with two men who objected [Mr. WELLER and Mr. FINERTY], and they agreed to 

withdraw their objection. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Mr. FINERTY did not withdra-w 

his objection. 

Mr. COX, ofNew York. I donotreferto tbegentlemanfromPenn· 

sylvania [Mr. BRUMM], nor the gentleman from New York who has 

not the grace to listen to me. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Mr. FINERTY has not withdrawn 

his objection. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York has the floor. 

Mr. COX; of New York. And I have refused to yield any further 

to the gentleman fromNewYork. I yield nowto the gentleman from 

Iowa. 

The SPEAKER. For how long? 

Mr. COX, of New York. For two minutes. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has only four minutes remaining. 

Mr. KASSON. I only rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that in a former case of a proposition to grant a medal for services involving no gallantry 

and nothing of personal merit, but given as a mere matter of personal 

favor, I voted 11.oaainst it and shall always do it, aa in the case where 

King Kamehameha bestowed a decoration for mere personal attendance 

of an officer. But when a case is presented of personal gallantry that 

does honor to the Navy and to the naval corps to which the officer belonged, when be has imperiled his life to save the lives of oth!'ll'8, when an official and special report is made to the Government of the United 

States in order to commemorate that gallantry and put it on record in 

the service of the Navy itself, a different question is presented. In this 

case, which refers to the rescue of the lives of foreigners on the high 

seas, I desired that a portion of time should be taken up in reading the 

official report of the facts; but there is now no time to do it. This 

young officer repeatedly imperiled his life, and after all the Austrian 

sailors except two or three were saved and dark came on,. he volunteered again and went back to his dangerous and noble work, saving 

the remaining lives. Not being able to accomplish all his duty in his 

boat, be leaped into the sea, remembering the direction of his superior 

officer tba t this bark, if allowed to remain, would endanger other vessels 

in tbat part of the ocean-- Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Will the gentleman permit me to 

ask him a question? 

Mr. KASSON. No; for you have had your time. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Only one question. 
. 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4481 

Mr. KASSON. I can not. This man, Isay, leaped into theseaand 

managed to board the bark in the terrible storm, remembering the direction of his officer, and he set fire to that vessel so that it might not 

endanger other vessels sailing that part of the ocean. It was in the 

direct track of vessels on the sea. Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Would you destroy the Constitution of the United States? 

Mr. KASSON. I repeat that he again leaped into the whirling sea and destroyed that vessel that other vessels and lives might not be 

endangered by the wreck. . Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. But it is muchmoreimportantthe 

Constitution of the United States should not be destroyed. 

Mr. KASSON. I say you are persistent in wrong, my friend; you are dishonoring your own countrymen. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I must deny that. I am not dishonoring my countrymen. I am only keeping my oath to sustain the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. KASSON. In recognition of his heroism in thus saving the lives 

.of these Austrian sailors the Emperor of Austria, on the advice of his 

government, has sent this young naval officer a token of official recognition, which we have every assurance is not in any respect an order of 

.DObility. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I want the words taken down. I 

want those words taken down where I am cha:_rged with having dis-

::honored myself. I fling them back into the teeth of the gentleman 

.from Iowa himself. 

Mr. KASSON. I say, sir--

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I say the man who is violating the 

.Constitution of the United States dishonors himself. I am standing by ·the Constitution. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa is entitled to the floor . and it can not be taken from him without his consent. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Let him withdraw that word. 

Mr. KASSON. I withdraw nothing. I say the man who stigma- ·tizes with the word "dude" a gallant naval officer who has done this ,gallant act in saving the lives of others repeatedly at the peril of his .own, does dishonor the Navy and the officers of the Navy. [Applause.] · I say there is no order of nobility in it. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Does the gentleman know this 

:young man? I have seen his picture. 

Mr. KASSON. Of course the gentleman must understand that I can not allow this to come outofmy time. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I ask you, do yon know the man; 

have yon ever seen him? · 

Mr. KASSON. I think I have repeatedly stated to the gentleman :that I do not know him. I say--

Mr. ROBINSON, ofNew York. And! will tell the gentleman--

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York will not interrupt -the gentleman from Iowa without his consent. The Cb¥r will, of . course, see that the gentleman from Iowa is protected in his right to 

the floor. 

Mr. KASSON. And the idea of this being a decoration of nobility is 

. set aside in the very letter accompanying the medal, for it is stated -there, if the gentleman will take the tmuble to read it. 

I have the honor to forward yoQ. hereby the said decoration, with the diploma and the bond attached to it, requesting you to inform me in due time whether Lieut. L. K. Reynolds has been permitted to accept that decoration. In that , case he will have to sign the annexed bond, &c. 

Now, I ask the gentleman, who ever heard of signing •a bond before 

receiving a patent of nobility? It is simply, as all men must recognize it, a distinctive mark of recognition of the heroism and gallantry . of this young man. 

' Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Read the adjoining lines and you 

will see what it is. 

Mr. KASSON. Under these circumstances I can not refuse to give 

my vote for the passage of this joint resolution. It confers a worthy . distinction upon this gallant young man who has honored the Navy of 

his country by his noble heroism. 

Mr. COX, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I merely wi-,h to allude, in 

the moment or two that remains, to something that has been said as to my . ~trict. Oh,. it is sai~.that I could not go home to my people voting m favor of this proposition. Indeed! In response to that suggestion I 

wish to say thap if there is one thing in the world that my district 

loves better than any other, it is the Life-Saving Service, and those who 

assert otherwise know very little of the heroic services rendered in the cause ofhumanity by many ofmyconstituents. 

There is a man standing now as one of the custodians at Castle Garden 

who has saved thirty-four lives. He wears medals which have been . given to him by h~~ane societies all over the country, from Boston, New 

York, and other Clti~ at home and abroad. There is also a man who. 

is filling the position of policeman. He is, strange to say, no relation of 

mine, although his name is Samuel Sullivan Cox. [Laughter.] He 

has saved seventeen lives and modestly wears the honors and badges. !tis the highest orderofnobility-the nobility ofnature! Thismanis 

located at Grand street ferry, has saved the e lives in the discharge of _his duty and at the peril of his own life. He makes no discrimination. 

XV-281 

I believe that he would save anybody's life-even the life of the gentleman from Pennsylvania himself, or of my friend from New York. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. But he would not accept a decoration from a foreign government for doing it; he is not that kind of a Cox. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COX, of New York. Yes; even the life of my friend from New 

York he would doubtless save, although that gentleman is the licensed 

libertine of debate upon this floor, simply because of his age [laughter], his venerable aspect, or his good old-fashioned Democracy, which 

he is now running to an extreme, and is playing such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep. [Laughter ~nd applause.] 

I demand the previous question. 

The SPEAKER. .The previous question has been ordered. 

Mr. BRUMM. I rise for a matter of information. [Cries of" Vote!" 

"Vote!"] 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. On that I demand the yeas and 

uys. 

:Mr. BRUMM. I wish to obtain information with reference to this 

subject before I vote. [Cries of "Regular order ! "] I would like to 

know either from the gentleman from New York or some other gentle- man whether the fran1..~g of this decoration--

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the time allowed for debate under the rules of the House 

has expired, and the question is upon the passage of the joint resolution. 

Mr. BRUMM. I am simply asking for information, and am perfectly sincere in this. I do not think the gentleman in charge of this 

matter will object if he knows my object. 

Several members demanded the regular order. 

Mr. BRUMM. I might vote with him if I could get information 

upon a point here--

Mr. DUNN and others objected . The SPEAKER. The question is upon the passageofthejoint reso- lution, upon which the gentleman from New York demands the yeas 

and nays: 

The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

The joint resolution was passed. 

Mr. COX, of New York, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 

joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. ' 

RANK OF GRADUATES, NAVAL ACADEMY. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am directed by the Committee on Naval Affairs to call up the bill (H. R. 2265) to equalize the rank of 

graduates of the Naval Academy upon their assignment to various 

corps, and ask that the same be put upon its passage. 

The bill was read. It is as follows: 

Be it enacted by the &nate and Hous1 of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this a ct all graduates of the Naval Academy who are assigned to the line of the Navy, on the successful completion of the six years' course, shall be commissioned en- signs in the Navy. SEC. 2. That the grade o.f junior ensign in the Navy is hereby abolished, and the junior ensigns now on the list shall be commissioned ensigns in the Navy: PrO'IJid~ That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to increase the num- ber of omcers in the Navy now allowed by law. · SEC. 3. That all acts and parts of a{lts inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

Mr THOMAS. I would like to have the attention of the House for a moment to call attention to the report made by the Committee on Naval .Affairs to accompany this bill, in which most of the reasons why 

the bill should pass are set forth. I ask that the report be now read. · The report (by Mr. THOMAS) is as follows: 

This bill in no way increases the number of officers now in the Navy, nor does it change the limit now fixed by law; it simply provides that the junior officers of the line who are debarred from promotion for y ears by the act of August 5, 1882, reducing the p ersonnel of the Navy,shall be allowed to wait for their promotion in a grade of the same rank as that held by the junior officers in the other corps oftheNavy . Those graduates of the Naval Academy who are assigned to the line of the Navy are given a rank and pay much inferior to that given their classmates who are assigned to the Engineer and Marine Corps, and as the reduction in th~ personnel of the Navy made bythea{lt of August5, 1882, has almost put a stop to promotion in the junior grades, it results that the younger line officers have to wait for years in a grade inferior to any in the other corps of the Navy or in the Army, and year after year see themselves passed over by those graduates of suc:ceeding classes who enter the Engineer and 1\larine Corps. The superintendent of the Naval Academy, in his annual report, says: " The duties required of the lowest grade of line officers are fully as impor- tant and arduous as those required of the lowest grade of marine and engineer officers, and frequently involve much more responsibility. It would seem but just that the naval ca~et assigned to the line after the completion of the six years' course should be commissioned as ensigns. * * * E ven this would not put them on an equal footing as regards pay with those assigned to the Ma- rine and Engineer Coq>s, the pay of an ensign being but $1,200 per annum at. sea. * * * It will hardly seem complimentary to the number one of a class who should evince special ability as a line officer, to give him a simple appoin~ ment with a salary of $1,000 per annum, while others who passed below him are given commissions and sala ries of Sl,41k) and $1,700 per a.nnqm. * * * When at sea an ensign (junior grade) receives $1,000 per annum, an assistant engineer 

$1,700 per annum, and a second lieutenant of marines 51,400 per annum. * * * The first assignments of final graduates under the law of August 5, 1882, was made in June last; seve n were assigned as ensigns (junior grade), three as assistant engineers, and te n as second lieutenants in the .l\Iarine Corps. "' * • An examination of the Navy Register will show that at the present rate of pro-
I' 

. 

4482 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

motion it will be at least fifteen years before the senior graduate assigne!i to the 

line can receive the same rate of pay per annum as was at once recetved by those members of his class who were assigned to the Engineer Corps and to the Marine Corps." The Secretary of the Navy, in his last report, says: . "The status of junior ensigns. also calls _for the attentiOn of Con~ess. The 

lowest grade in the Army and m the Ma.rme Corps, that of second lleutenant, 

corresponds to that of ensi~n, and so does the lowest relative rank in the naval 

staff corps. In the line ex1Sts the anomalous grade of junior. ensign ~ whic~ 

officers must pass several Y.ear;'J at the present rate of l?romo.twn. Duri?g th1s 

period therefore, they are J unwr to every other officer m therr own service, and 

'to the iowest commissioned officer in the Army. As graduates of the academy are now appointed to the Engineer Corps and the Marine Corps as well as to the 

line, members of the same .graduating <:lass who enter the more fav<?red corps obtain at once rank and pay above therr comrades who enter the line. The 

Department therefore, recommends the abolition of the rank of ensign of the 

jJinior grad~· that commissions as ensigns be issued to the present officers of 

that rank; a~d that all graduates hereafter appointed to the line shall receive 

such commissions." 

It seems just to your committee that all graduates of the Naval Academy should at Ieast be given equal rank on their assi~ment to the different corps of the Navy and this rank should be that of semor ensign, which corresponds to the rank' of second lieutenant given graduates of the Military Academy. They are of the opinion that the anomalous grade of junior ensign should be 

abolished and that hereafter all graduates of the Naval Academy who are re- tained in the service a.fter successfully completing the six years' course should 

be given the rank of senior ensign; and they therefore unanimously recommend 

that this bill do pass. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it scarcely seems necessary to say a word in behalfofthis bill, for it has been fullyconsidered by the com- mittee, and is unanimously reported favorably by them. 

Under the law as it now stands--

Mr. BUDD. May I ask what will be the effect of this bill upon the 

graduates of 1883? · 

Mr. THOMAS. It will only affect those who went into the service. 

Mr. BUDD. But you desire to change the operation of the act of 

1882. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUDD. Now, the act of 1882 affects the graduates of 1883, and 

I desire to know whether or not this bill will affect the graduates of 

1883 and 1884, and, if so, to what extent? 

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman is talking about an entirelY: different 

bill. 

Mr. BUDD. No, sir; I am talking about this bill. 

Mr. THOMAS. This bill in no way applies to the class of cases men- tioned by the gentleman from California. This is n{)t a bill for the 

benefit of the cadets who were mustered out of the service, but is a bill 

for the benefit of the young officers who entered the service with the 

grade of junior ensign. This bill simply proposes to abolish that grade 

and make them ensigns and to make such other officers as may hereafter enter the line of the Navy ensigns instead of junior ensigns. Members of the same class graduating from the Naval Academy upon entering the line aa the law now stands are made junior ensigns; but they 

may enter the Marine Corps, and in doing so they become full ensigns 

with pay of $1,400, while the man who graduated above them gets only 

$1,000 as a junior ensign. A man may go into the Engineer Corps and 

get $1,700, whereas the man who graduated with honor, perhaps the 

first man in his class, only gets $1,000 a year. It is for th~ purpose of 

abolishing this anomalous, unnecessary, and unjust grade for the first; 

the leading graduates of the academy, that the bill is proposed. · 

:Mr. BUDD. When was this grade established? 

Mr. THOMAS. By the act of 5th August, 1882. 

Mr. BUDD. Then if it was established by the act of Congress of 

August, 1882, the graduates of 1883 are left entirel~ out from the operations of your bill. 

Mr. THOMAS. On the contrary, such as ~e into the service will 

be made full ensigns under the bill. 

Mr. BUDD. Your statement was that this would operate "hereafter." 

Mr. THOMAS. Oh, no. The bill applies to all that heretofore have· entered or may hereafter enter the line of the Navy. It is simply to 

equalize the grades of these graduates in all the different corps and put 

them on the same footing as graduates from the Military Academy. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? . · 1\Ir. THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. There was some confusion at the time, and 

I did not gather from the reading of the bill whether this increa.sed the 

number of the officers of the Navy. 

Mr. THOMAS. It does not increase the number. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Does it provide against that? 

Mr. THOMAS. It expressly provides against that. It is simply to 

equalize the grades of those who enter the Navy and abolish the grade 

of junior ensign . 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. How much will it increase the pay of the 

Navy? 

Mr. THOMAS. Very little; it is but a trifle. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. It is a matter of equalization merely? 

Mr. THOMAS. It is simply a matter of equalization and common j ustice. I move the previous qnes~n. 

The previous question was ordered, and under the operation thereof 

the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. THOMAS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was- passed; and also moved that the motion tO reconsider be ·laid on thetable. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LONGEVITY P.A.Y IN THE NAVY. 

. Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I ask unanimous consent to discharge the 

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the fur-:-

ther consideration ofthe bill (H. R. 1401) to amend section 1556ofthe 

Revised Statutes, giving longevity pay to certain officers-of the Navy,.. and that the same be considered in the House. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That from and after the passage of this act tpe passed as- sistant engineers of the Navy shall receive during the third five years after the 

date from which they take rank as passed {first) assistants, when at sea, $2,450 ; on shore-duty, $2,250; on leave or waiting orders, $1,900. During and after the 

fourth five years from such date, when at sea, $2,700; on shore duty, $2,350; on• leave or waiting orders, $1,950. And section 1556 of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended accordingly. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I call for the reading of the report of the 

committee. 

The report (by Mr. TALBOTT) was read, as follows: 

The purpose of the bill referred to is to give the passed assistant engineers ot: the Navy an increase of pay of S250 per annum after they have received the pay now provided by law for a. period of ten years, and at the expiration of a further 

period of five years to give them another increase of like amount. All officers who would be affected by this bill have the relative rank of lieu- tenants by law but are paid $400 per annum less than they, while they are subject to the same expenses as to uniforms, messes, &c. The next higher grades of' 

the st·aff corps to which these officers belong have five grades of pay, increasing with each period of five years' service in those grades. 

Great iDJustice seems to have been done to this grade of officers. All of the 

forty-five who would be benefited by the bill entered the Navy during the war, in 1861 and 1862, under regulations of the Navy Department which provided for- their promotion to the grade of chief engineer after they had seen seven years' sea service in the junior grade; but, as a matter of fact, all of them have already been passed assistant engineers for from fifteen to eighteen years, and by reason- of the laws now in force they can only be promoted by the deatlu!orretirements 

of chief engineers. Many of them can not be promoted in less than ten or twelve years from the present time, which will give them an approxima te period of · twenty-seven years' service in the same grade. · .A.n examination of the Navy Regi&ters from 1862 to 1882 shows that the officers ofthe line who entered the active service from the Naval Academy in 1861 and' 1862 have long been commanders, and the medical and pay officers of t he same dates of entry are medical and pay inspectors, or have been surgeons or pay-· masters for many years; while those engineer officers who entered at the same time are still passed assistant engineers, receiving from one-half to less than. two-thirds of the pay of their contemporaries of twenty-two years ago. The honorable Secretary of the Navy, in his last annual report, earnestly recommends their case to favorable consideration. 

During the last session of the Forty-sixth Congress the Committee on Navar Affairs reported a bill giving this same increase of vay to the passed assistan t. engineers, which was passed by the Senate but failed to be reached in the House" 

1'he Naval Committees of both Houses of the Forty-seventh Congress (Senate, 

April 4, 1882; House, June 6, 1882) reported favorably upon bills similar to those. now proposed. Also report that the Secretary of the Navy recommended in his annual report to Congress the passage of a bill giving the relief provided for in 

the accompanying bill. Your committee therefore recommend the adoption of 

thie report and the passage of the a-ccompanying bill. · 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Mr. Speaker, if I can get the attention of. 

the House I can make a statement which I believe will secure the concurrence of every member on this floor. This is a bill to give to the passed assistant engineers of the Navy after a service of ten yP.ars in 

the gra-de of passed assistant an increased pay of $250 per annum, and 

after a service·of five years to give them another increase of $250 per 

annum. As the law stands they are entitled t{) but one increase, and 

that i! $200 aftew a service of five years. It is only necessary for me to say that these offi.eers, some forty-five in number, have served from fifteen to eighteen years in their preeent grade without any increase of 

pay. There a.re officers now in the Navy who entered the service in 

the Naval Academy when these officers held their present grade whose 

pay is $400 per annum greater than theirs. It is true that some of· 

these officers received at the Naval Academy as cadets, taught there 

and trained·by him as officers, to-day receive a pay of $400 per annum more than that assistant engineer. 

This is not only the unanim<,ms report of the committee, but it is· recommended by the present Secretary of the Navy, by his predecessor,_ and by a number of the highest officers in the Navy, among them Admiral Porter. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I wish to ask my friend from Virginia what the compensation of these officers is now by law. . 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Two thousand two hundred dollars whenat sea, and the pay for a lieutenant is $2,600 at sea; and they have the relative rank of a lieutenant. 

I may say that the officers in the ·other corps of the Navy who entered service at the same date have now the higher relative rank of · 

commander and receive higher pay-officers both of the Pay Corps and 

of the Medical Corps. This is the only branch of the Navy which has 

received no consideration. I now ask the Clerk to read a letter from . Admiral Porter and also a. letter from Captain Meade. 

The Clerk read as follows: · 

To the honor"able Senate and W ABHINGTON, D. C., January 29, 1884, 

House of Representatives, in Congrusa&Bembled: 

I have carefully examined bill No. 1401, presented in the House of Represent- · a.tives December 11,1883, and am satisfied that what the bill asks for is nothing:: more than long-delayed justice. I 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4483 

There is no grade in the Navy whose services have been so overlooked a.s ~e 

grade of passed assistant engineers, ~ho have been over twenty-one ~ears In the naval service and who have recetved none of the advantages so liberally 

bestowed on other branches of the Navy. 

Many of these officers have served under my immediate command and nearly 

all of them have served through the great civil war. Many are known to me personally, and I do not hesitate to say that the Navy 

does not hold a more gallant or deserving set of officers. It would be committing a great act of injustice to withhold from them longer 

that which they ask. . I am satisfied that if Congress will look into their request carefully it w1ll not hesitate to grant it. • R-espectfully submitt-ed. 

DAVID D. PORTER, Admiral. 

OFFICE OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE YARD, 

Navy-Yard, New York, February 5,1884. 

My attention has been called to the bill (H. R. 1401) for the relief of the passed 

assistant engineers of the United States Navy. Considering all the circumstances, I regard the relief asked for a.s very ~odest 

indeed, since some fifty-sev!in of these <_>ffi~rs ente.red the Navy durmg the 

civil war, many of them servmg through tt With credtt. 

Had promotion been as rapid with them as with their brother officers of the 

line-Medical Corps and Pay Corps-who entered the Navy at the ea.me date, many of them would now be from one to three grades higher, and in the enjoy- ment of much greater emolument than they now receive. 

So far back a.s 1866 one of these officers served with me as senior engineer {that 

is acting chief engineer) of a. gunboat I commanded, and on my last cruise in c~mmand of the V a.ndalia a passed assistant engineer of that vessel antedated 

b¥ original appointment every officer in the ship except myself, the chief en- gmeer and the executive officer, the last named having seen no war service whate~er as he graduated from the Naval Academy in 1865, while the passed 

assistant engineer had completed three ~ea.~ of war service. . . In my judgment, some measure of reliefts demanded by common JUStice for 

this long-suffering and patient body of men, and I heartily welcome House bill 1401 or any other bill that will give them what they are clearly entitled to. RICHARD W. MEADE, Captain U. B. N. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I now call the previous question. 

The previous question was ordered, and under the operation thereof 

the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and it was ac- cordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

JULIUS A. KAISER •. 

Mr. TALBOTT. lam instructed bytheCommitteeon Naval Affairs 

to ask that the Comnnttee of the Whole on the Private Calendar be discharged from the further consideration of House bill No. 1348, for the 

relief of Julius A. Kaiser, and that the same be now considered in the 

House. 

There was no objection. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, 

authorized to nominate and, by and with theadviceand consent of the Senate, to appoint Julius A. Kaiser upon the retired-list of the Navy, with the rank of 

passed assistant engineer, and pay thereof from February, 1868, now an assist- ant engineer on the retired-list of the Navy. · 

The Committee on Naval Affairs recommend that the bill be amended 

by strilring on t all after the words ''and pay thereof from,'' and insert 

in lieu thereof the words "the date of the passage of this act." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. TALBOTT. I now call the previous question on the bill as amended. 

The previous question was ordered, and under the operation thereof 

the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and. it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. TALBOTT moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 

passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed ft>. 

SAMUEL KRAMER. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I ask consent that the Committee of the 

Whole on the Private Calendar be discharged from the further con- sideration of the House joint resolution No. 17, authorizing the appointment and retirement of Samuel Kramer as a chaplain in the Navy of 

the United States, and that the same be now considered in the House. 

There was no objection. 

The joint resolution was read, as follows: 

Resolved by the Senate and HO'USe of .Representatilves, &c., That the President of 

the United States is hereby authorized, by and with the advice and consent of .the Senate, to appoint Samuel Kramer a chaplain in the Navy, and place him on the retired-list. 

The question was upon ordering the joint resolution to.. be engrossed 

and read a third time. 

Mr. GEORGED.WISE. !think I can briefly state thefacts in this case. The beneficiary of this bill is an old man, . now bowed under the 

weight of 76 years. When he was but 14 years of age he entered the 

naval service in Baltimore as a seaman. .After serving before the ma-st 

for eight years he was offered promotion, but preferred to give up that 

course of life in order to study for the ministry, and did so. For the 

last fifty years he has devoted hhnself as a minister, especially to sea- men. 

In 1872 he came from the city of Baltimore to the city of Washington, and there being at that time no chaplain at the navy-yard, this old man has performed service there for the last ten or twelve years without payexcept for two years. Duringthat time he has built up a sea- man's Bethel retreat near the navy-yard gate, and has founded in the 

navy-yard a reading-room and library. 

For fifty years he has devoted himself to the improvement of the 

morals and theconditionoftheseamenofthe UnitedStates Navy. All 

the officers and men who know him love him, and he has their confidence and their respect. We now only ask, after he has thus served· 

for a period of fifty years without pay, that the President shall be au- thorized to appoint him as chaplain and place him on the retired-list 

of the Navy. I now call the previous question. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Before that is done I wish to inquire of the gentleman how many officers ofthis rank are now on the retired-list? 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Only one or two. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Then the tendency of this bill is to establish a rank of this kind, and it is against that I wish to protest. I know it 

is not a pleasant duty to oppose a proposition like this, where you are 

met with a plea of semi-charity in favor of a man whose life has been 

spent in the interest of good morals. 

But I do not believe that it is sound policy or right to place on the 

retired-list those who have not for years been connected with the service of. the United States. It is said that this man has received com- pensation for but two years. Is it proposed to take all the ministers 

who have officiated in any capacity in this city, and who have at different times served in any branch of the service in a ministerial way, and 

place them on the retired-list? It seems to me that would not be 

well. 

I know that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] has in the past 

stood up against an increase of the retired-list. What good can come 

from it? Is it claimed that this man is unable to act actively as chaplain? If such is the fact, the gentleman from Virginia has not disclosed it. If such is not the fact, then appoint him as chaplain and 

keep him as such as long as he _can serve. Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I will state to my friend from Tennessee 

[Mr. McMILLIN] that this m'an is beyond the age when he can be appointed chaplain, or he would have been appointed long ago. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Why was he not appointed when he was within 

the age? , 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. He was not engaged in it then. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Not in the ministrythen? Ithoughtthegentle- man said he had been in the ministry for more than fifty years. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. He was not then in the navy-yard here. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I see constant efforts made to increase the retiredlist in every departmentofthe Government. Those efforts come from 

the Navy, from the Army, from the Supreme Court, and from other 

branches of the judicial service. I think there ought to be a stop put 

to~ . Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 

:Mr. McMILLIN. Certainly. 

Mr. CANNON. Am I correct in understanding the gentleman from 

Virginia [Mr. GEORGE D. WISE] and the gentleman from Tennessee 

[Mr. McMILLIN] as saying that it is proposed to put this man on the 

retired-list of the Navy when he has rendered no service as chaplain 

and was too old to be appointed as chaplain? 

:M:r. TALBOTT. He has rendered gratuitous services as chaplain. 

1\Ir. CANNON. He has not spent his life in the service of his coun- try in the Navy, but it is now proposed to give him this appointment as a gratuity. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Since he became too old to be appointed--

Mr. CANNON. Since he became too old to be appointed chaplain. This is the proposition, is it ? 

Mr. Mc~ULLIN. That is the proposition, stated in plain English. 

Mr. CANNON. Does the gentleman from Virginia understand that 

to be the case? 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Certainly. 

:Mr. CANNON. Then I do not see that we ought to break down the 

retired-list in thi3 way. 

M:.r. McMILLIN. It ought not to be done, and I do hope the gentleman from Virginia will not insist on it. It is not right to do it; it 

is not policy to do it. If this man had spent his life in that service in 

behalf of the Government there might be some plea in behalf of this 

measure; but under the circumstances there is none whatever. 

Mr. CANNON. I suggest to my friend from Tennessee that when 

he gets through he make a motion to strike out the enacting clause. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I will yield to the gentleman for that purpose. 

I think such a motion ought to prevail. 

Mr. CANNON. I will make it if the gentleman from Tennessee 

does not. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I hope the gentleman will allow me a word. 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [l\Ir. 

GEORGE D. WISE] is entitled to the floor. He has not yielded, as the 

Chair understands, except temporarily to the gentleman from Tennessee 

(Mr. l\ICMlLLIN]. 
•. 

. --

4484 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- HOUSE. M.AY 24, 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I wish to repeat what I said before1 that he in the Government employ or under the authority of the Governt}lis old minister came from Baltimore in 1872. At that time there ment, or only attached to some church? was no chaplain at the navy-yard in Washington; and from that time Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. He has been in the service of the Govhe has been, at the earnest request of officers of the Navy, performing ernment, at its request, since 1872 or 1874. 

service there. In 1880 President Hayes put him upon the temporary Mr. DUNHAM. But where was he back of that? 

roll as chaplain, and for two years, from 1880 to 1882, he received pay ~fr. GEORGE D. WISE. Back of that he was preaching, as I un- as such. Since that time, there having been no fund out of which he derstand, in Baltimore. I do not know anything particularly about 

could be paid, he has not-received a dollar. that. 

Now, I do think that when Congress has pla{led upon the retired-list Mr. TALBOTT. He was prea{lhing there in Baltimore among the 

not one man merely but hundreds of men who are wealthy, whose pri- seamen at what is called the Bethel church. 

vate fortunes are sufficient for the maintenance of themselves and their Mr. DUNHAM. Who paid for that? · 

families; when to-day the proposition is :urged to place upon the retired- Mr. TALBOTT. There is a church in Baltimore called the Seamen's 

list a gentleman who has been out of the Army for more than twelve Bethel, and he was attached to that church. 

years, and to give him a yearly allowance of something like $30,000- Mr. DUNHAM. But what time has he been in the service of the- it does seem to me small business to deny to an humble follower of the Government? 

meek and lowly Jesus, after such services as this :man has rendered Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. He has been, as I understand, in theservfor fifty years, the poor privilege of being put upon tbe retired-list as a ice of the Government some fourteen years. 

chaplain in the last days of his life. Mr. McMILLIN. If in order, I should like to have this bill recom- I wish to state another fact which I have not yet mentioned. In the mitted. 

days when you required the services of soldiers at Antietam, this same Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I demand the previous question on the bill. 

old man, when there was a vacancy in the position of major of a regi- Mr. McMILLIN. I should like to have the bill recommitted to the 

ment, belted bis sword to his waist and fought bravely for the -Union Committ-ee on Naval Affairs with instructions to report back what, if 

throughout that fight. He has rendered service to the country on the anything, is due the party named in this bill. 

field of battle. Mr. PETERS. It seems to me it ought rather to be referred to the 

It does seem to me that this House ought not to sustain the motion Committee on Claims. . 

to strike out the enacting clause of this bill. The measure viola res no Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I have demanded the previous question 

principle. You have done this thing a thousand times-- on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Have we put upon the retired-list a thousand The previous question was ordered. 

chaplains of the Navy under circumstances like these? Mr. McMILLIN. Is it in order to recommit at this time? 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I did not say "chaplains." But you The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not now. 

have put thousands of men upon the retired-list as captains, as colonels, The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and be- as major-generals, and in other ranks. Whyshouldyounotretirethis ing engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. man as a chaplain? The SPEAKER-pro tempore. The question recurs on the passage of 

Mr. McMILLIN. We did that in the case of men who had spent the bill. · 

their lives in the service. Mr. McMILLIN. I move to recommit with instructions to report 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Fifty years of this man's life, according to what, if anything, ~ justly due to the party named here for services 

the testimony of officers of the Navy and of seamen, have been spent rendered to the Government. 

in the service oftheGovernment. Heservedbeforethema.stasasailor. Mr. DUNHAM. I wish to ask a question. 

Yet you would deny him what you grant to captains and colonels and Mr. MciDLLIN. ·ram willing if the gentleman prefers, with leave . generals-to men of higher rank. For myself I take more pleasure in to report at any time, for if we owe anything to this man I would not 

voting for this act for the benefit of this poor old minister than I would stand in the way of his payment. , I 9-o not wish, however, to see a in voting pensions to men of higher grade. I call the previous ques- bad precedent set. 

tion. Mr. COX, of New York. I think the Committee on Naval Affairs 

lli. McMILLIN. If the gentleman will yield to me a moment I b.we eliminated all bills which ought not to pass. There can be no obwill make a suggestion that may afford a. way out of this difficulty. jection to this one, as it is a unanimous report. · The gentleman says that this man has served the Government in the The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending question is on t.he motion 

capadty of chaplain and for such service has received-no compe~ation. to recommit with instructions. 

Then, if the enacting clause of the bill be not stricken out, which I 1\Ir. COX, of New York. The Committee on Naval Affairs might 

think ought to be done, why not recommit the bill, so that there may . report ba{lk $1,500 or $2,000 as due to this man for services already· be reported a bill to pay this man for what he b.'lS done, thereby giving rendered and for which he received no pay. The mode proposed by the 

him a competency, while avoiding the establishment of a precedent committee, however, is easier, cheaper, kinder, and a better way of prothat may work injuriously hereafter? viding for him. It will take less money out of the Treasury. 

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. This is the only way to provide for him. Mr. DUNHAM. Is this a unanimous report from the Committee 

Mr. McMILLIN. This is not the only way. If the Government on Naval Affairs? owes him anything for services, a. bill can be reported to pay him what 1\fr. COX, of New York. It is. 

is due him; and there is not a man here who would object to such a Mr. McMILLIN. I wish only to prevent the establishment of a bad 

bill, if the Government really owes him anything. precedent. 

lli. PETERS. I wish to ask a question for-information. Did this Tbe_SPE.A.KERpro tempore. The Chair can not entertain the roo- minister receive pay from any denomination prior to 1882 for his service tion to recommit with instructions for the reason the instructions must 

as a preacher which has been spoken of? be such as would be in order as an amendment to the bill, and it would 

Mr. TALBOTT. I will state the case. This old man was at the not be in order to move to amend the bill, which provides for putting 

navy-yard here, and was allowed $75 a month by Secretary Thompson on the retired-list, by allowing a private claim, which is an entirely 

for two years. This payment would have been continued but for the different subject. . faet that the appropriation bills failed to provide a fund from which Mr. McMILLIN. Then I move to recommit the bill in order when 

payment could be made. Since that time he has kept on performing the committee again report it they may be enabled to present somehis duties at the request of officers of ~he Government, but has not been thing of the kind I have suggested. 

paid by anybody. . Mr. COX, of New York. That is equivalent to killing it. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Then pay him for what he has done. Mr. McMILLIN. It is not my purpose to kill it. 

Mr. TALBOTT. The only thing we can do for him-at least this Mr. DUNHAM. Let us vote it down. was the opinion of the Coiil..mittee on Naval Affairs, and th~ me..'lSure The House divided; and there were-ayes 34, noes 83. 

was recommended by many officers of the Navy-is to put him on the Mr. McMILLIN. No quorum bas voted. 

retired-list. Theoldgentleman will then have a competency, and will The SPEAKER pro tempore appointed as tellers Mr. McMILLIN and 

still discharge the duties of chaplain as he has been doing. He is spe- Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. 

ciallyqnalifiedfordntyaschaplainintheNavy, becausehehasservedin The House again ~vided; and the tellers reported-ayes 60, noes this capacity for a long time, and, as I am informed, has more influence 103. 

with the seamen with whom he comes in contaet than any other man So the motion to recommit was disagreed to. 

who has ever served in this locality. The bill was passed. 

Possibly the Committee on Naval Affairs may have stretched a point Mr. GEORGE D. WISE moved to reconsider the vote by which the 

as a matter of policy in proposing topla{le this man on the retired-list; bill wa.s passed; and also moved tb.'tt the motion to reconsider be laid 

but we believe it to be an act not only of charity but of substantial on the table. 

justice. The latter motion was agreed to. 

1\Ir. DUNHAJ>f. The gentleman from Virginia has said this man was employed for some fifty years preaching among seamen. A~FRED HOPKINS. 

·Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Thirty years. 1\Ir. BUCHANAN. I call up the bill (H. R. 2552) for the relief of 

Mr. DUNHAM. I wish to know whether he was engaged by the Alfred Hopkins. 

Government of the United States during the whole of that time. Was The SPEAKER pro tempore. That bill is on the Private Calendar . 

. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4485 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I move the Committee of the Whole Honse on 

the Private Calendar be discharged from its further consideration and 

it be taken up for action in the House. 

Mr. CANNON. Let the bill and report be read, subject to objection. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That Alfred Hopkins be, and he is hereby, restored to the . rank of captain in the Navy of the United States. 

Mr. CANNON. I object todischargingthe CommitteeoftheWhole 

House on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I move the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar for the purpose of taking 

up that bill. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the Private Calendar, Mr. ToWNSHEND in th_e chair. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I call up the bill (H. R. 2552) for the relief of 

Alfred Hopkins. · 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill has been read, and the Clerk will now 

read the report. 

The Clerk read the report (by Mr. BUCHA...~.AN) as follows: 

The Committee on Naval.Afi'airs, to '\\'hom was referred the bill H. R. 2552, 

beg leave to make the following report: Capt. Alfred Hopkins entered the Naval Academy October 1,1851,and graduated No.5 in his class on .June 9, 1855, and received a warrant as midshipman 

from that date. 

On June25 of the same year he joined the -United States frigate Congress, and 

remained on board her cruising, in the Mediterranean squadron, until January 

14, 1858, when the ship returned home and was putout of commission. In March 

of the 'same year his class received their final examination, when be passed No. 2, and received his warrant as passed midshipman April15, 1858. On .April19, 

1858, he was ordered to the United States brig Bainbridge as acting master. The Bainbridge sailed for the coast of Africa, where she cruised for several 

months and then joined the expedition to Paraguay under Commodore Perry. 

The Bainbridge was one of the vessels selected to form one of the Brazil squad- ron, and be remained on that station in her until she returned home and was put out of commission, November 13, 1860. November 4, 1858, be was warranted as master, and May 31,1860, commissioned as lieutenant. On .July Hi, 1861, he was ordered to the United States steamer Louisiana as executive officer; and was engaged in all the operations of the squadron in Burnside's expedition to the 

sounds of North Carolina. A day or two before the capture of New Berne he was ordered to command the United States steamer Underwriter. He was pres- ent at the battle of New Berne, in command of the Underwriter, and remained 

in command of her until October 30, 1862, when he was ordered to the ironclad 

Weehawken.' On December 2, 1862, he was ordered to the ironclad Lehigh and 

remained attached to her until April 6, 18S3. On July 16, 1863, he was promot-ed to be a lieutenant-commander. On September 13, 1863, be was ordered to duty in the South Atlantic blockading squadron. He was on duty there first as execu- tive of the Wabash, then of the Lehigh, and finally in command of the United 

States steamer Seneca until February 16, 1864. · On September 24,1864, he was ordered to the Naval .Academy, where he re- mained until May 3,1865, when he was ordered to the United States steamer .Agamenticus, as executive, where he remained on duty until she was put out of com- mission, September 18 1865. On November 17,1865, be was ordered as executive to the United States school-ship Savannah, but was detached on the 29th of the same month, the ship going out of commission. On .April 21,1875, he was ex- ruhined for promotion to the rank of commander and received his commission as such to date from March 2,1871. From December 21,1875, until .July 15,1876, 

be commanded the ironclad 'Vyandotte. From .August 7, 1877. he commanded 

the Wyoming until February 11,1878. From November 20,1878, until May 6, 

1879, he was on duty at the navy-yard at Norfolk, when be joined the class at the torpedo station, where he was stationed until August, 1879. On .June 10, 

1881, be reported for duty at the navy-yard at Pensacola. On 1\Iay 10,1882, he was examined for' promotion to captain, and received a captains commission, 

dated l\Iay 11,1882. On September 6,1882, he was detached from the Pensacola 

yard. 

On November 21,1882, he was dismissed by sentence of a court-martial on the 

charge ofleaving his station before being regularly relieved, and conduct unbecoming an officer and prejudicial to discipline. He has seen thirteen years and 

nine months' service at sea, and six years and eight months' duty on shore. 

The committee refer to the certified copy of the entire proceedings of the 

court-martial appointed by the Secretary of the Navy to try said Captain Hopkins, which accompanies this report, and is made a. part of the same. Captain 

Hopkins was put on trial the 8th day of November, 1882, and the court-martial, on the 20th day of November of the sa\ne year, found him guilty of the charges 

and sentenced him to be dismissed from the naval service of the United States. 

The last session of the court-the one in which the defendant was found guilty, and in which he read his defense and was replied to by the judge-advocatecontinued only one hour and fifty minutes. The next day, November 21, 1882, 

the Judge-Advocate-General of the Navy Departmentsubmitted to the Secretary 

of the Navy the proceedings, findings, and sent-ence of the gen.eral court-martial 

in the case of Capt. Alfred Hopkins, with the recommendation that the same be approved. 

On the same day the foregoing proceedings, fin din~, and sentence in the case of said Capt . .Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, were approved by William E. Chandler, Secretary of the Navy, and submitted to the President of the 

United States for his action. On the same day, November 21,1882, the sentence in the foregoing case of Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, was con- firmed by Chester A. Arthur, President. It appears from the record of the 

court-martial that Captain Hopkins had no counsel. The fact of not having one may have been his own fault; nevertheless the fact remains that he con- ducted his defense without the aid and advice of counsel. 

The committee believe the court erred in refusing to allow Dr. Owen to an- swer the fourteenth question propounded to him by the accused, in the words 

following: · . "Do you or not believe that I left only temporarily, and with the intention 

of returning in case the sick-leave recommended by you was not granted?" To the above question the judge-advocate objected as an opinion upon which no facts had been stated on which to ground it., and one which does not require an expert. The objection of the judge-advocate was sustained. Is it true as claimed by the judge-advocate, and decided by the court, that no facts had been 

stated in evidence on which to ground the opinion of the witness? The witness, Dr. Owen, states, in answer to the tenth quest.ion , t.hat the principal objection of 

the defendant to going from the navy-yard was the fear that the Department would not approve ..:>f his leaving his station. The witness, in answer to the 

eleventh question , states that be suggested to t.he defendant that if the Depart-

. I 

ment did not approve his leaving he could return. It ap~ars to the committee 

that these facts which were in evidence were amply sufficient upon which to found the opinion asked of the witness in the fourteenth question, and that the· answer, if in the affirmative, was important and material in the defense of Cap- tain Hopkins, and under the ruling of the court he was deprived of a clear legal 

right. 

The fifth question propounded to Lieutenant Welch, a witness for the ac- cused : "What was your understanding of the length of time I was to be 

gone?'' The judge-advocate state4 to the witness that " if there was anything of his own knowledge and not his thoughts," he could answer the question . Answer, "I only know from conversation." The judge-advocate objects to the 

question, as the witness states" that he only knows the facts from converl"ation." The court directed that the witness will reply to this question directly 

and without preamble. Accused and witness re-ente.red the court, and were informed of the decision of the court. The witness.answered, "My understanding of the length of time he was to be gone would depend upon--" The wit- ness was here again directed to confine himself to the question. He then an- swered as follows._ " I do not know." 

The objection of the judge-advocate is·thatthe witness must know, of his own knowledge, the length of time the defendant was to be gone from the navy-yard, 

and this objection was sustained by the court. The committee think the court committed a great error in thus ruling. Intention on the part of others in the 

commission of an a-ct could rarely be arrived at if witnesses in testifying are to be restricted to absolute knowledge of the fact of intention. The rule of evidence 

admits the sayings and conversations of a person in the performance of an act in explanation thereof to be given in evidence; as if a person departing on a journey declares that he is going to a certain place on certain business and to be absent a certain length of time, these statements are clearly admissible as explanatory of the act of performance and the intention connected therewith. 

Indeed, it is difficult to fully explain the acts in any other way. In this instance 

the witness had a knowledge from conversation, and was not allowed to tell 

with whom or under what circumstances the conversation was held. It is evident the witness bad knowledge from conversation, and yet the court refused to ascertain what his knowledge was. It is not a strained presumption that if the witness bad been allowed to have 

stated what he knew from conversation that he might have stated that when 

Captain Hopkins turned the command of the navy-yard over to him in the act of departure told witness that if leave of absence was not granted to him he 

would return within a week. Who will say that such would not have been the 

evidence? And if so, the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the ruling of 

the court in thus excluding evidence material and important to the defendant. In the Regulations for the Government of the Navy, page 126, edition 1876, we find the following: "A commander-in-chief of a squadron, and a commandant of a yard or station 

in the United States, will nob leave the limitsoftheircomma.nd longer than one week in any successive two months, without P-ermission of the Secretary of the 

Navy." 

The defendant was a commandant of a yard in the United States, and under 

the regulations had a limited discretion conferred on him to leave the limits of 

his command not longer than one week in any successive two months. To make the defendant guilty of charges 1 and 2, he must have violated the terms of this regulation. Does the evidence show that the defendant did violate 

them? The committee deny that it does. Captain Hopkins was the command- ant of the navy-yard at Pensacola on the 1st day of September, 1882. On that 

day be left the limits of his command. On the 6th day of that month, while at Morristown, Tenn., by orderoftheSecretaryofthe Navy he was detached from 

the navy-yard and put on waiting orders. Under the rule it is not competent to count the first and last days of a definite period of time. Captain Hopkins was therefore absent from the navy-yard only five days, under the regulation, when 

he was put on waiting orders. He had the right, as we have seen, to be absent seven days. He therefore violated no law or regulation. As a general rule, no ~ 

person can be tried, convicted, and punished for a crime unless he has violated some l~w. in the operation of which there is a joint union of act and intention or criminal negligence. Tried by this rule, the committee do not believe that the finding of the court- martial can be sustained by the evidence in the record. We do not believe the 

evidence warrants the finding of the court, but the same is wholly without evidence to support it. . It is not sufficient to warrant a conviction that the defendant intended to violate a law; he must not only intend, but must violate the law. The judge-advocate, in his argument, seemed to think that intention without act of violation 

of law is sufficien,t, for he says: ·• The accused seems to have attempted to establish three theories as to his 

right to leave the station: First, that he intended to take a week's leave under 

the regulations. To confute this theory, the prosecution would call the atten- tion of the court to Captain Hopkins's letters of August 30 and 31, and his tele- gram of September I, saying in the one: 'I shall endeavor to get away with my family, and leave the yard in coorge of Lieutenant Collins;' in another: • I pro- pose to return to Cleveland, Ohio, as I need an entire change of air,' &c. .And 

his telegrams of September 4 and 5 and the Department's of the 6th show that 

he had not changed his intention as to the length of his stay until after frost, or until it was safe for a Northerner to return, as he could not return to his 

station within the week.' ' It is clear that the judge-advocate admits the right of the defe~dant to absent 

himself from the yard without permission for one week, but claims that as Captain Hopkins when he left intended to remain longer than a week, he is guilty. We can not so regard it. The defendant was absent only five days, and he 

could have been lawfully absent seven days, and while so lawfully absent he was detached by the lawful order of the Secretary of the Navy, which he was bound to obey, and did obey. The specifications to both charges consist in his 

leaving the navy-y.ard at Pensacola. The reply to these specifications is that he 

had the lawful right to. leave for one week, and before the week ended he was detached from said yard. Even if the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding, the punishment awarded seemed to be more than commensurate with the 

conduct of the accused. The evidence shows that the accused was broken in 

health; that the measures he took to prevent the ingress of the yellow fever to the navy-yard were efficient, and that no injury accrued to the property of the 

United States n~r to any person in the service of the United States, nor to any other person or property by reason of the conduct of the defendant. 

It appears from the record, in the judgment of the committee, that the latter 

part of the proceedings were unduly accelt'rated, as t.he defendant read his defense and the judge-advocate replied thereto and the court made its finding in 

the short space of one hour and fifty minutes, inflicting a sentence of great severity, there being only one other more severe, the sentence of death : thus 

turning an officer, after long service; which rendered him unfit for any other 

avocation whereby to make a support for himself and family, out of the pro- fession of his choice and pride. 

This sentence, on the next day after the finding, was approved by the JudgeAdvocate-General, the Secretary of the Navy, and the President. A very short 

time for three separat-e examinations and considerations of the record of the 

court-martial. This was rapid work for a short November day. l\Iany other reasons why this bill should pass will be suggestf"d to any one who reads the record oftbe court-martial. The committee report the bill favorably with the recommendation that it pas!' . 
4486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 24, 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Captain Hopkins in the year 1882 was the com- mandant of the navy-yard at Pensaeola. In August, 1882, the yellow 

fever made its appearance at that station. Captain Hopkins took efficient means to prevent its ingress to the navy -yard, ·and under the means that he adopted on that occasion no yellow fever appeared on the United 

States reservation at that point. 

Captain Hopkins himself, as the evidence of Dr. Owen and Dr. Per- sons shows, was broken in health. He had been in Pensacola for two 

years, that being his second summer there, and he had been advised by 

Dr. Owen to leave the yard in consequence of his health. The record 

shows that Dr. Owen insisted upon his leaving the navy-yard and going 

to some other point. · Dr. Owen insisted that an order should be issued that all of the offi- cers and men at the navy-yard should have the liberty of leaving in 

consequence ofthe threatened danger. Thatorderwasgrauted, and it 

included officers and men, sailors and mariD.es, who were sent to a healthy part of the country and remained out of Pensacola during the · whole period that the yellow fever was there, or until after the frost 

came. Dr. Owen insisted that Captain Hopkins, on account of the state of 

his own health, as I have said, ought to leave, and he recommended 

that he should have a leave of absence from the Navy Department. 

On the 1st of September, he having sent two days before this application and this recommendation of the surgeon, he left the yard in 

charge of an efficient man, a man that in 1883, the next year after this 

occurrence, yielded up his life a victim to the yellow fever. In 1883 

the commandant of that yard that succeeded Captain Hopkins-I do 

not know who he was-was not as fortunate as Captain Hopkins was in 

keeping the yellow fever out of the United States navy-yard, and it 

went there and there was a considerable number of deaths on account 

of it. On September 1 Captain Hopkins left the yard and went to Morristown, Tenn. . On the 4th he asked again by· telegram for the leave of absence to be 

granted, but received no reply. Cn the 5th he again asked that the 

leave be granted, but received no reply. He rsceived no response until 

the 6th, and the reply that he then received was an order detaching 

him from the command of the navy-yard and putting him on waiting 

orders. 

Now, there are two points first before we come to the main point in 

this case. One point is that important and material evidence was ruled 

out bythe court-martial. Thefollowingquestion was asked Dr. Owen: 

Do you, or not, believe that I left only temporarily, and with the intention of 

returning in case the sick-leave recommended by you was not granted? 

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very ~aterial question on the trial as to the question of guilt, and applies to the intention of Captain Hop-

'kins. But what was the result? The result is that to this question 

the judge-advocate objected as an opinion upon which no facts had been 

<Stated on which to ground it. 

By reference to this report, which shows exactly wJ!at occurred, as it 

embodies the language of the official record of the proceedings, it will 

he seen that there were then before the court-martial facts stated upon 

which an opinion could be predicated, and ought to have been predicated, and which ought to have been received by the court. Hence 

important testimony was ruled out. This of course is a material fact, 

because it applies to the question of intention. 

Mr. CANNON. Will you allow me a moment? 

Mr. BUCHANAN . . Certainly. 

Mr. CANNON. Will you allow that the opinion of this party is com- petent testimony, or was it not rather the' duty of the defendant to 

prove what the facts were and let the court judge of the intention from 

the facts, and not take the opinion of this surgeon as to whether the 

accused intended to return as competent testimony? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. By all means; intention is a fact to be proven 

like any other fact. 

Mr. CANNON. Precisely. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And unless it is proved no conviction could be 

had. 

Mr. CANNON. And yet what A may believe as to the intention of 

Bin returningis certainly not as competent testimony as the fact itself. 

I do not think the opinion of A would be material from any standpoint, unless a different rule prevails before a court-martial than that 

which prevails in the civil tribunals of the country. · Mr. BUCHANAN. A party is always allowed to givefLD opinion as to a fact when he has stated the facts upon which the opinion can be 

predicated. 

Mr. CANNON. Only as an expert. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. An expert may give his evidence with or without fa<!ts. He is not required to give facts on which to base an opinion, 

and that is the difference between expert and non-expert testimony. 

But I will proceed with this testimony again. Lieutenant Welch was interrogated, and his testimony is _important. Let us see what was done with it. This is the officer to whom the command was turned over when Captain Hopkins left the navy-yard, and that gentleman was asked, ''What was your understanding of the length of time I was to be gone?" The judge-advocate stated to the witness that "if there 

was anything of his own knowledge, and not his thoughts," he could answer the question. · 

Answer. I only know froJn the conversation. • 

There he was interrupted again and not allowed to testify to anything else upon that subject. The judge-advocate, as will be seen from 

the record, objected to the question on the ground that the witness 

states that he only knows the facts from conversation. The court then 

directed that the witness should reply to this question directly and 

without preamble. The accused and witness re-entered the court and 

were informed ef the decision of the court. The witness then an- swered: \ 

My understanding of the length of time he was to be gone would depend 

upon- · 

Here he was interrupted again and was not allowed to testify or tell 

what he knew. The witness was directed to confine himself to the 

question. He then answered as follows: 

I do not know. 

Now the objection of the judge-advocate was that the witness must 

know of his own knowledge of the length of time the defendant was to be gone from the navy-yard, and this objection was sustained by the - . court. 

Now we say here in this reportahd I say on this floor that the court 

committed a great error in ruling out the evidence: 

Intention on the part of others in the commission of a.n act could rarely be 

ascertained if witnesses in testifying are to be restricted to absolute knowledge of the fact or intention. The rule of evidence admits the sayings and conversa- tions of a person in the performance of a.n act in explanation thereof to be given in evidence; as if a. person departing on a journeyWhich is the fact in this case- declares t-hat he is going to a certain place on certain business and t-o be absent a. certain length of time, these statements are clearly admissible as explanatory of the act of performance and the intention connected therewith. 

They are termed in law the res gestre, and can always be given as matter 

of explatation. How could it be ascertained in any other way? My 

friend fromillinois [Mr. CANNON] departs this night to his home or to 

NewYorkor to Baltimore. And who can tell where he intends to go, 

what he is going for, and how long he is going to remain unless his 

declarations made at the time of starting are allowed to be proved? 

Now, this evidence was ruled out. Why? The presumption is-it 

is not a strained one, at least-that if this witness, Lieutenant Welch, 

had been allowed to go on he 'fOuld have stated that Captain Hopkins, 

in the hour of his departure, had told him be was not to be gone ex- ceeding a week. 

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield to me for a 

question, because I want to get at the facts? On page 3 of the report, 

you set out the following: 

The :fifth question propounded to Lieutenant Welch, a witness for the ac- cused, "What was your understanding of the length of time I was to be gone?" The judge-advocate stated to the witness that "if there was anything of his own knowledge, and not his thoughts," he oould answer the question. 

Now, then, I will grant you if the record shows-but it does not appear from this report-that there was an effort to prove what was said 

at the time he left that would be competent. But the Judge-Advocate-General objecting to the question, I think, puts it upon the proper 

ground that if the witness knew anything of his own knowledge he 

oould state it, but if it was his own thoughts he was seeking to state 

he objected to the question, and therefore it was ruled out. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Lieutenant Welch said he knew from conversa- tion. 

Mr. CANNON. With whom? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. That conversation he was not allowed to state. 

Mr. CANNON. I do not know he was asked whether defendant 

said anything. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. He was stopped right there. 

Mr. CANNON. This report leaves me in the dark. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. The record shows that. 

Mr. CANNON:. What the record shows I do .not know. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Here it is; you can turn to it. 

Mr. CANNON. I do not desire to tum to it. The witness says: 

"I only know from conversation." There was no conversation as to 

who the conversation was with. Was it a conversation with the defendant? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. He was not allowed to show, and that is the 

complaint. 

Mr. CANNON. I do not find with whom the conversation was. 

Mr. PETERS. As a matter of fact, whom was the conversation 

with? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Here it is. I read from the record, page 43: 

Fifth question. What was your understanding of the length of time he was to 

begone? 

[The judge-advocate stated to the witness that "if there was anything of his own knowledge, and not his thoughts," he could answer the question.] Answer. I only know from conversation . . 

The judge-advocate then objects just as soon as he gets to the word 

''conversation.'' . 

The judge-advocate objects to his question, as the witness states that he only knows the facts from coQ.versation. 
• 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4487 

Mr. CANNON. That excludes all conversation. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. 

[Court cleared. The court directed that the witness will reply to this ques- <tion directly and without preamble. Accused and witness re-entered the court. The a.ccused and the witness were informed of the decision of the court.] 

Answer. My understanding ofthe length of time he was to oo gone would de- , pend uponThe witness was here again stopped when he was going on. 

[The witness wa.s here again directed to confine himself to the question. He •then answered a.s follows: j 

Answer. I do not know. 

It was a complete muzzling. And there never was a proposition more .eJear and uncontradicted by the authorities, and one that was material 

iio the defense of this man, than that this question and the answer to 

this question were. illegally ruled out. 

Mr. STEWART, ofVermont. May I ask the gentlemanfromGeor-

:gia a question? . Mr. BUCHANAN. Certainly. 

Mr. STEWART, ofVermont. Was the witness or anybody interro-

-gated as to what Captain Hopkins declared at the time he left? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. He was interrogated as to what was his under-

.standing of the time the accused was to be absent, and he was going on t.o state it. He did have an understanding of the time Captain Hopkins was to be absent. He had that understanding, and he had that 

Wlderstanding from conversation. And then he was not allowed to 

:State it. 

Mr. STEWART, of Vermont. My question is whether the direct 

(JUestion was put to anybody as to what Captain Hopkins declared at 

the time he left? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. The witness was stopped because it was conver- sation. 

Mr. STEWART, of Vermont. They did not ask him that question as to what Captain Hopkins said? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. All that was ruled out because it was a conver- ~tion. 

Mr. STEWART, of Vermont. It was not ruled out if the question was not asked. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. He was asked what his understanding was. He 

,gaid he had an understanding, and it was from conversation, and that 

oonversation was·ruled out. Nothing can be more clear than that. 

Mr. PETERS. Allow me to ask the gentleman a question. If the 

witness had that understanding from a conversation with some other 

;party, then it would be hearsay testimony of course, and the ruling it 

-out could not do Commander Hopkins any wrong. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. But he had therighttoshowthatCaptain Hopkins turned over the yard to Lieutenant Welch, and then he had a right 

to presume what the conversation was with Lieutenant Welch. 

Mr. PETERS. That is what I want to know. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Andin theothercasetheconversation was with Dr. Owen, who ad vised him to go, directed him where to go, how 

long to be gone, and of course knew how long he intended to be gone. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Certainly. 

:Mr. HAMMOND. And the committee believe from the testimony 

that Captain Hopkins did explain, :md the court would not allow the 

.explanation to be given. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. He explained both to Dr. Owen and Lieuten..'IDt 

Welch. 

Mr. HAMMOND. And he had a right under the regulations to be 

absent for a week? · Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. There were two grave errq,rs committed 

by the court, and both against the accused; such errors as a court of 

law would grant a new trial upon. There is not a court on the faoo of . -the earth but what would grant a new trial for either of those errors. But I have something more serious still to state. I say that there was no evidence that warranted a conviction by the court-martial upon 

the charges, and I say that the conviction which was had was without 

.evidence to sustain it. There were two charges, both· of which con- .sisted in leaving the navy-yard without permission from the Secretary 

.of the Navy. Both charges are the same in substance, and that is the ~barge-leaving the navy-yard without permission. I propose to dem-

-onstrate that beyond question. 

Iu the Regulations for the Government of the Navy, page 126, edition 

.of 1876, iii this regulation. I will say that I sent to the Navy Department for a copy; I could find none elsewhere; and there was only one -(:()py of the regulations of 1876 at the Department. I obtained it from 

the Department, but was required to send it back again, which I have 

-done. It is now in the Navy Department here. I have verified the 

regulation which I will now read, and which is in these words: 

A commander-in-chief of a squadron, an'd a commandant of a yard or sta- tion in the United States, will not leave the limit of their command longer than -<>ne week in any successive two months without permission of tbe Secretary of ·the Navy. 

That gives the right to leave for one week without the permission of 

the Secretary of the Navy. The defendant was the commandant of a yard; that is not disputed, and the charges on record so state. Now, 

"Wh.'l.t is the evidence to show that he lefttheyard without permission? .Here it is. 

On the 1st day of September, 1882, Captain Hopkins left the yard, 

having sent a request to the Department that he be granted leave of 

absence. That request was neither granted nor refused. On the 4th 

of September he was at Morristown, Tenn. ; on the 5th of September 

he was at Morristown, and on the 6th of September he was at Morristown,, Tenn., and on that day received a telegram detaehing him from 

the na-vy-yard at Pensaeola and putting him on waiting orders. 

A :MEMBER. · Before his week was out. , Mr. BUCHANAN. He had been gone only five days, for it is the 

rule that the first day of a definite period of time and the last day can not both be counted. In this case you must exclude either the 1st or the 6th of September, so that he had been absent only five days. He 

had the legal right to be absent seven days, and no one had any authority to call him in question for it. Under the regulatio118 of the Navy 

it was his privilege to absent himself for seven days, and he had done· nothing more in the world than he had a right to do under his privileges. . · That is the case. He was detached from that navy-yard by order 

of the Secretary of the Navy when he had been absent only five days. 

The Secretary of the Navy had the right to detach him from the yard 

and put him on waiting orders as he did. From that time until the 

30th of October-that is, from the 6th of September to the 30th of October-he was on waiting orders, as many officers of the Navy are. I do not wish to take up more time than is necessary. I appeal to 

every lawyer in th!s House if there was any evidence to support the 

charge of a violation of law on the part of Captain Hopkins. I say 

there was not one bit. But the court was misled by the argument of 

the judge-advocate. The judge-advocate based his argument on "the 

intention.'' Gentlemen can refer to the record. I will glance at it in 

order to show how the court was misled by the judge-advocate. 

I do not blame the judge-advocate for this. He is not expected to 

be a lawyer, at least not a very brilliant one. I had the honor of meeting him the other day, and I formed a very good opinion of the gentle- man. He has now gone to the Arctic seas. Thlsis a part ofhis argument, and the only part that bears on the question I am now discussing: 

The accused seems to have attempted to establish three theories a.s to his right to leave the station: First, that he mtended to take a week's leave under the 

regulations. To confute this tbeory the prosecution would call the attention 

of the court to Captain Hopkins's letters of August 30 and 31, and his telegram 

of September 1, saying in the one, "I shall endeavor to getaway with my family, 

and leave the yard in charge of Lieutenant Collins;" in another, "I propose to return to Cleveland, Ohio, as I need an entire change of air," &c. And his tele- grams of September 4 and 5 and the Department's of the 6th show that he bad not changed his intention as to the length of his stay until after frost, or until 

it was safe for a Northerner to return, a.s he could not return to his station within 

the week . • 

It was not his intention, he said, when he left to return within the 

week. I do not care whether•it was or not. He had not been absent 

the week when he was detached, and then he could not go back. It is 

not denied that he had the right to be absent a week, but is said that 

he did not intend to return within the week. 

Now, in order to constitute a violation of law it is necessary that 

there should be a union of act and intention. In this case there was no union of act and intention, for the officer was not gone a week before he was detached from the yard. . One word in regard to the action of the authorities in this case. The 

court-martial heard the argument of Captain Hopkins. He had no counsel. This was his own fault, it is true, but I think he committed a grievous error in not having counsel, for if he had had counsel this 

finding of the court, in my judgment, would never have been obtained. 

At the last meeting of the court-martial they heard the arguments 

of the judge-ad vocate and of Captain Hopkins, and made up their finding of conviction, all in the short period of one hour and fifty minutes, 

upon a charge as serious as this. That was on the 20th of November. 

On the next day, the 21st, the record of the proceedings of the court 

went to the Judge-Advocate-General's Office. 

Here is the record. Gentlemen can examine it; they can see how 

much there is in it. It went to the Judge-Advocate-General's Office 

the next day. The presumption is that it was examined by him, for 

he approved it, and sent it to the Secretary of the Navy. On the same day, November 21, the Secretary of the Navy is presumed to have ex- amined it; at any rate he approved it and sent it to the President. 

On the same day, November 21, the President of the United States 

approved the sentence of the court. All these examinations or "revisions '' of that record were concluded in one day, and that the .day 

after the finding of the court. Now, gentlemen, could this matter 

have been carefully and considerately aeted on? In my judgment, 

that is very questionable. 

One further suggestion. As the report and the evidence show, no man lost a cent's worth of property, no injury came to a human being, 

from this absence of Captain Hopkins. Yet under such circumstances, 

the yellow fever having been excluded from the yard, Captain Hopkins 

having taken these precautions beforehand, this court imposes upon him a penalty worse even than death to a man in his position. He had been an officer of the navy for thirty-one years; he had nothing but his pay to 

support himself and his family; yet after this length of service hewas 

turned out to encounter the world without any knowledge of any other 

profession er employm~nt whatever. After these years of service, after 
4488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 24, 

having gone through the late war, in which he commanded vessels, he 

must be dismissed, although no harm from what he had done had a-c- crued to the service. Even if he had been guilty, would not suspension •for one year·or two or three years without pay have been sufficient? 

But I deny that he was guilty; I deny that there is a particle of evidence or justification for the finding of :that court. • Mr. LYMAN. 1\Ir. Chairman, I suggested to my honored friend 

_from Georgia. [Mr. BuCHAN.L~] the propriety of withholding this bill 

because it is a thankless and painful task to speak against any man in 

misfortune. I do so now only because my sense of justice and a regard 

to the good of the service require me to do so. I have been interested 

in thi') case, and have obtained frOm. the Navy Department a portion 

of the official record of this officer, which I ask the Clerk to read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

June,1867,Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, was tried by a naval 

general court-martial upon the following charges: 

CHARGE I.-Drunkenness on duty. CHARGE II.-Bca.ndalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morals. He was found guilty and sentenced to be suspended from rank and duty for 

three years on half his leave-of-absence pay, and to retain his present number 

in the list of lieutenant-commanders. This sentence was approved by the De- partment, but remitted to suspension for one year from rank and duty on half 

of leave-of-absence pay. December, 1867, the unexpired portion of his sentence was remitted. 

November, 1871, ordered to examination for promotion, but the board before 

which he appeared for examination having declined to recommend him for pro- motion, he was in January, 1872, placed on furlough until further orders. 

March, 1874, the order pla.cing him on furlough was rescinded. 

May, 1882, he was ordered to examination for promotion, and commissioned as captain the same month. • September 1,1882, while.in command of the navy-yard, Pensacola, turned over the command to a subordinat.c officer, left his station without leave, and went to Morristown, Tenn., and reported his arrival, by telegraph, at that place to the Department on the 4th of that month, in consequence of which he was detached from the Pensacola yard and placed on waiting orders September 6. October, 1882, he was ordered to appet\r before a naval general court-martial, 

and was t.ried upon the following charges: 

CHARGE I.-Leaving his station without being regularly relieved. CHAR~E II. -conduct unbecoming an officer and prejudicial to good order and 

discipline. . He was found guilty of these ch.."l.rges, and on the 21st of November, 1882, dismissed from the naval service of the United States. 

[General Court-1\Inrtial Orders No. 50.] 

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, NO'Vember 21,1882. 

I. Before a. general court-martial which convened at the navy-yard, Washington, D. C., November 8,1882,and of which R-ear-Admiral Andrew Bryson, 

United States Navy, is president, was arraigned and tried Capt. Alfred Hop- kins, United States Na,vy. · CHARGE I.-" .Leaving his station before being regularly relieved." 

Specification. "In this, that on or about the 1st day of September, 1882, the said 

Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, being in command of the navy- ' yard, n~r Pensacola, Fla., did, without authority, place a subordinate officer in 

command of said navy-yard, and leave his said station before being regularly 

relieved. This at a time when yellow fever was prevailing in the city of Pen- sacola, Fla., and when the officers and others residing at and in the immediate 

vicinity of said navy-yard were apprehensive-of the approach of that disease." 

CHARGE II.-" Conduct unbecoming an officer n.nd prejudicial to good order 

and di cipline." · pecification.-" In this, that on or about the 1st day of September, 1882, the 

said C11.pt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, being in command of the 

navy-yard nea r Pensacola, Fla., did, without authority, place a subordinate 

officer in command of said navy-yard and absent himself from his command 

and duty at a id station, and did without permission from proper authority, 

proceed to Morristown , Tenn., where he remained absent without leave until 

the 6th day of September, in the year aforesaid, on which latter date he was re- lieved from duty as commanding officer of said navy-yard by order of the 

Secretary of the Navy. This, at a time when yellow fever was prevailing in 

the city of Pensacola, Fla., and when the officers and others residing at and in 

the immediate vicinity of said navy-yard were apprehensive of the approach 

of that disease. ' To which charges and specifications the accused, Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United 

States Navy, pleaded" not guilty." 

FINDINGS. 

The court, having maturely considered the evidence adduced, found the nc- cnsed, Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, as follows: 

Specification, '' Proved.'' 

Of the charge, " Gull ty." 

Specification, "Prove4." 

Of the charge, "Guilty." 

Chrtrge I. 

Charge II. 

SE).'TENCE. 

The court thereupon sentenced the said Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States 

Navy," t{) be dismissed from the naval service of the United States." IT. The proceedings, findings, and sentence of the general court-martial in 

the foregoing case of Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy·, having been ap- proved by me, were submitted to the President of the United States for his ac- tion. The following are his orders thereon, viz: 

- EXECUTIVE MANSION, NO'Vember 21, 1882. 

The sentence in the foregoing case of Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States 

Navy, is hereby confirmed. 

CHESTER A. ARTHUR. 

ill. Capt. Alfred Hopkins, United States Navy, accordingly ceases to be an officer of the Navy from the date of this order. 

WILLIAM E. CHANDLER, 

Secretary of the Na1YJJ. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Will the gentleman from :Massachusetts [Mr. LYMAN] yield for a suggestion? . Mr. LYMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. TALBOTT. When Captain Hopkins made application for promotion it was necessary that he should be found fit for it mentally, 

morally, and physically. The finding in that respect by that board 

having been in his favor, and he having been promoted, I think the 

gentleman ought not to go behind the finding of that board. He ought 

to confine himself to this case. 

Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Chairman, the record just read shows, first, that 

this officer was in the year 1867 severely punished for dnmkenness 

while on duty. The House will understand that drunkenness on duty 

is a much more dangerous offense on the part of a naval officer--

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir. 

1\ir. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Does the gentleman think that Captain 

Hopkins was properly punished at that time? 

Mr. LYMAN. I wish to be excused from answering. 

Mr. EZRA :g_ TAYLOR. Well,' you can answer this: Do you think 

he should be punished twice for this offense? 

Mr. LYMAN. I do not. 

1\ir. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Then what relation has that matter with 

this, that you bring it in here now? 

1\Ir. LYMAN. If the gentleman from Ohio had listened to me and 

not interrupted, or if he will listen patiently now a few moments, I 

think he will understand the reason why I do so. 

1\Ir. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I would like to hear the reasons now, be- cause I must confess I am impatient to know what they can possibly 

be to justify it. 

Mr. THOMAS. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts permit me to answer for a moment in his time? · 1\Ir. LYMAN. Certainly. . 

Mr. THOMAS. I think I can give the gentleman from Ohio the 

reasons. This is a bill proposing to restore this gentleman to the Navy. 

It is proper for the House, therefore, to consider the character of the man, 

and to take cognizance of every part of his record before determining 

whether it will again make him an officer of the Navy or not. 

Ur. LYMAN. I was about to say so in the natural course of my 

remarks when I was interrupted. But I will begin again. 

In 1867 or 1868 this officer was punished for drunkenness on duty, 

which is an offense, as we all know, in a naval officer of a peculiarly 

perilous character; because when a man is on his ship and is in that condition he may sink her to the bottom with all on board, a case of which 

kind has recently occurred. 

Second. In 1871 he was examined for promotion, and the board re- ported him unfit for promotion. The committee will understand that 

this means that he had not in the intervening time so attended to his 

studies and the duties of his position as to fit him to pass an 'examination for a higher grade, which examination, as I am informed by gentlemen who are familiar with the subject, is not of a very difficult 

character. · 

Third. To come to the present matter before the committee. This 

officer was dismissed the service for leaving his post at the navy-yard 

at Pensacola without leave on account of the approMh of the yellow 

fever. 

Now, let it be distinctly understood why the evidence was conSidered 

to be of such an aggravated character. · It was because he left his post 

when the yellow fever was approaching; in other words, he left in an 

emergency. l\Iy friend from Georgia LMr. BUCHANAN], whom I am glad to recognize as one of the most able lawyers in this House, has 

explained to us in a very lucid manner the law points involved in the case. I am not a lawyer, and I should come to sit at his feet for such 

information. But perhaps I may give my friend a hint or two on the 

military view of the case when I tell him that in a moment of c~is 

or a moment of peril the common rules of the Army and the Navy 

which permit an officer to take a vacation even of a week are known to 

be suspended., 1\Ir. BUCHANAN. Show me the authority for the statement. 

Mr. LYMAN. It is well known as a custom of the service. 

1\Ir. BUCHANAN. I want to see the L'tw for it. 

1\Ir. LYl\fAN. There is no law, but it is a well-known fMt, and I 

will illustrate it in a way that will convince my friend from Georgia. 

Mr. McADOO. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts permit me to make a suggestion in this connection? · Mr. LYM.AJ.~. If the gentleman from New Jersey will excuse me for a moment _I will finish my remarks, which will be very brief, and 

will then yield such time as he may desire. · I was going on to say that in an emergency it is perfectly well known 

that no officer is allowedorexpected to leave his post. Iwillillustrate 

that by citing an example. General Griffin, the commander of the 

Fifth Corps, a gallant soldier, was stationed after the war in Texas. The 

yellow fever approached and threatened the post, and be was advi ed 

by the surgeon and officers of his command that he could leave the post 

if he chose, because the yellow fever was coming. He said in reply, 

"Do you take me for a coward-a man who would leave his subordinates in a place of danger and run away to shield himself?" 111r. 

Chairman, General Griffin was not a man of that character. He staid' 

at his post, for he knew that his duty required him to stay there, and 

he died of yellow fever, and his only child also died of yellow fever at 

that point. Thn,t is what he thought of his duty. 

Now, sir, in conclusion, I wish to say that I think it a doubtful 

policy for any committee of this House to revise or to sit in judgment 

upon, as a superior court sitting upon an inferior court, the proceed-

• 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-HOUSE. 

ings of any court-martial unless there be peculiar reasons for doing so. I think it a dangerous thing, although I do not pronounce upon it. All 

I say here is that this officer. by his record which I have caused to be 

read appears not to be efficient; appears to be one against whom 

charges have been made, and which charges have been substantiatedcharges against an officer which would dishonor him in any other serv- ice; and considering that the service is already overcharged, over- burdened with good officers against whom no charges lie, I think it to 

be a dangerous policy in this way to undertake to restore this gentle- man to the service. And I wish to give notice here, for there are two or three other bills ofthis charaeter from the Naval Committee now on the 

calendars, that against each of them I shall make objections similar 

to the objections I have made against this. I have the record of these men at hand, and if these bills are put forward I will have the records 

read, as I have caused this one to be read. 

Now, if in order, I shall move to strike out the enacting clause of the 

bill. 

Mr. BUCHANAN and Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR rose. The CHAIRMAN. The motion to strike out the enacting clause is 

in order, and is not debatable. 

Mr. LYMAN. If gentlemen wish to speak I have no desire to cut 

off debate. I withdraw the motion for the present, intending to renew 

it hereafter. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I have only this to say to the gentleman from 

Massachusetts [Mr. LYMAN]. l have found him an unusually fair man. But it does seem very strange to me that he brings as an argument why this man is not restored to the Navy that we have too many 

officers in the Navy now. If he was an innocent man he should be re- stored. If he was tried for drunkenness in 1867 he has paid the penalty for that. And if he failed in examination for lieutenant or some- thing else, he did stand it creditably in the very May before he was tried by this court-martial; and everything in relation to his charaeter as an officer and a gentleman was then and there tried an~ decided. 

The Government is barred by that judgment, and the:reopeningofjt is 

now estopped evermore. Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR rose. Mr. BUCHANAN. I had promised to yield :five minutes to the 

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. FORAN]. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I desire recognition in my own time. But 

I wish to say Ish~ occupy but a few moments, and will willingly yield 

the remainder of my time to my colleague from Ohio [Mr. FORAN]. 

Mr. BUCHA..l~AN. I reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. ~Ir. Chairman, I myself am inclined always, unless compelled otherwise, when a case has been decided by a tribunal having jurisdiction of it, to allow its decision to remain final. 

I am ordinarily opposed to one department of this Government interfering with another. But I may say in passing, if there is any excuse in the world for the interference of Congress in matters of any kind 

which have been adjudicated by a tribunal it is when they have been 

adjudicated by a tribunal known as a court-martial, administered by a body of men not lawyers, moved more than almost any other class 

of citizens by personal feeling and personal interest. Such judgments 

do not bring to us the sanction that judgments of another kind ordinarily do. Hence in my opposition to interfering with the judgment 

of such a. court in the Fitz-John Porter case I never urged that as a reason in that case, and I do not like to hear men urge that reason now who failed to feel it then. 

Mr. Chairman, a. somewhat peculiar line of argument has been followed here-I do not know but it is right; I confess it must be right or the courtesy of the gentleman from Massachusetts would not have permitted him to indulge in it. He does not base this case that we now have before us upon the merits of itself, but has gone back into the 

character of the man as a make-weight in reference to the propriety of 

this decision. As a lawyer, sir, I protest against it. If we are trying 

this case mainly as a matterofreview, which I thinkwe are, weshould 

confine ourselves to the case itself. If it were a. matter involving promotion, then it might be that such argument might have weight. Let , me, however, refer to these matters for a single moment. 

In 1867 this man was found guilty of intoxication. rn·1882he was tried for another offense. Was he rightly and properly and legally tried 

then? The gentleman from l\Iassachusetts does not and dare not argue · that he was; and no other gentleman will dare to say so. · Mr. LYMAN. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I did argue that he was. Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. The argument was so smallitdidnot rea<~h 

my comprehension. I say in 1882 he was tried again. In 1867 he was suspended. In 1881 or 1882 he was promoted. Presumptively he had 

been right during those years. Presumptively he bad been guiltless of 

that offense. And why bring it up now? 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have as wide a charity as most men. God knows I have needed to have the mantle of charity thrown over 

me, and I do protest against the injustice and the cruelty of this attack. It means nothing else, and may I say it was intended for nothing else but an injury behind which there is no good reason? Take 

this House, sir, in the discharge of its duty, let every man here deny the same charity to this gentleman that they would take for them-

' 

selves, and where would this House sometimes be? No, sir; I protest against any such argument or talk as that. 

I proceed now to consider the present case. In 1882, Capt. Albert. 

Hopkins was in command of the navy-yard at Pensacola. It was not. averred against him except in the public newspapers that he left his; 

position there because ofany yellow fever. !twas not made a ground 

of charge against him in this complaint or in these charges or specifications that there was any· fear on his part. And let me say here that. on the trial of this case before the court-martial the evidence showed. 

that there was no~ one single particle of yellow fever about the navyyard when Captain Hopkins left. 

l\1r. STEWART, ofVermont. Was it in the city? . 

~1r. EZRA B. TAYLOR. The evidence showed the fear about the 

yellow fever was ended. It is not true that this court-martial found 

that to be the motive of his going. There is not a. single particle of" 

evidence that that was the motive. But it was this: He was getting to. 

be old, he bad been for thirty years in the service. He was borne down 

with the burdens of the year preceding taken upon his shoulders, and 

the surgeon of the post and the assistant surgeon of the post said then. was the time he must take care of himself and that he should resort for a few days' absence to the mountains of North Carolina or Tennessee. 

Taking the advice of this Dr. Owen, the surgeon of the post, he telegraphed and wrote the Department here at Washington his situation 

and seeing no danger existing there, and expecting to receive permis~ sion to visit Cleveland, he expressed a desire to go there, for it was therehe lived. · 

. He went away under this direction of the physician, and waited in. 

a. place of easy access from Pensaeola and from Washington. He tele-· graphed from that point to Washington, telegraphing where be was, as he expected to receive an order granting him leave of absence. He· had before that time received a letter saying that if he left on a. certain 

occasion to turn the yard over to the officer next in command. After 

he had been 'lbsent :five days be was met by an order detaching him. 

from the command of that yard. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I would like to ask the gentleman, for information, 

from whom that letter was received? 

1\lr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. What letter? 

Mr. BLOUNT. The gentleman refers to the fact that before Captain.. 

Hopkins left the yard, on this occasion, he had received a letter directing him to turn the yard over to the next in command. 

l\Ir. E_ZRA B: TAYLOR. That was from the Navy Department, 

general rnstruction from the Secretary of the Navy to whom to turn 

over the yard ifhe left. That is my recollection of it; I have not read 

the papers in this case for some time. 

That being the fact, there being no intention to shirk his duty, therebeing no charge of any kind resting against him, this officer having: 

been promoted the year before because he was worthy of it, having had a long period of service, thirty years, in the Navy, he was brought tothis city and trie~ by a court-martial. He employed no lawyer in his· defense. 

I say there was no evidence against him of any kind except the dispatches and papers to which I have referred, and the evidence of thesurgeon and of the officer to whom he turned over the command. When 

he talked with the surgeon, Dr. Owen, as to where he was to go, why 

he was to go, and how long he was to go, Dr. Owen knew exactly from 

that conversation what his intentions were. Yet when he came beforethe court-martial the mouth of Dr. Owen was shut, because Captain 

Hopkins was unaware of the legal way in which to get at that testimony. 

Lieutenant Welch, the second in command, was the one to whom. 

Captain Hopkins turned over the navy-yard. He talked with him in. 

reference to why he was going, where he was going, and how long heintended to stay. When Lieutenant Welch was before the court-martial and the question was put t.o him the court overruled it and ex-· eluded his allSwer. 

Now, I do not doubt but that had Lieutenant Welch been asked this. 

question: ''How long did you understand that Captain Hopkins was tostay away?" he would have answered that it depended upon whether· he got leave from the Department to go to Cleveland; if he did not get. that leave he would be back within a week. That was the conversa- tion. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Does that appear of record? 

1\lr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Not expressly and distinctly of record, but. it appears from the circumstances of the case. LieutenantWelch.was the second in command. When Hopkins was going · away he had a.- conversation with Welch, told him where he was going, and left him 

in command. How long was he to be gone? That depends. 

Now a word or two in reference to the main matter. This courtmartial found as a matter of fact-and there is no evidence against thefinding; there is no evidence except the two or three pages of this record, and that consists mostly of the letters and telegrams in the case--· 

the court-martial found that he had been absent for :five days. Now 

the regulations of the Department contain this provision: A commander-in-chief of a squadron, and a co=andant of a yard or station in the United States, will not leave the limits of their command longer than one- week, in any successive two months, without permission of the Secretary of the NaYy. · 
I 

4490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. M.A_y 24, 

Captain Hopkins left it for but five days without that permission, 

and was in momentary expectation of receiVing that permission, according to a previous understanding. The whole crime of which .this man. 

was convicted consists simply in the fact that he had been away five 

days, when by law he had a right to be away for seven days. There was nothing attributed to him in the way of motive or intent, but he 

was convicted when he had been in the exa~t line of his duty. I assert 

to this committee, and to every member of it, that it is the absolute fact 

that there was no crime committed by this man under any circumstances, noviolationofthe law, no violationofthe regulations, but that 

he was actually, ~xactly, and all the time within the limitofthelaw. 

Nowwhat is the answer given to the complaint that this great wrong was 'committed against this man? It is that in 1867 he was found 

guilty of drunkermess while on duty. It pains me exceedingly to say 

this, but I must say it as a matter of duty to myself. It is not said 

and can not be said that this court-martial did not violate every principle of law and find this man guilty of an offense that he could not 

have been guilty of, that there was no sort of suspicion that he was guilty of. He had been· away less time than he had aright to be away. 

Yet that finding is defended upon the ~ound that at some other time, 

twenty yea.rs.·ago nearly, he had committed an indiscretion which is 

regarded as pardonable in others and sometimes pardonable in many. 

I said that I would yield my time to my colleague from Ohio [Mr. 

FoRAN], but my friend from West Virginia [Mr. GoFF] wishes a few 

minutes. I will ask him how much time he wants? 

:Mr. GOFF. Say five minutes. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I will yield five minutes to the gentleman 

from West Virginia and then yield the rest of my time to my colleague. 

Mr. GOFF. As a member of the Committee on Naval Affairs, I have 

examined the case under consideration, and have given it a patient investigation while it was before the committee. I must say that when 

I commenced that investigation, and even some time after I had begun 

it and had heard the facts presented by the friends of this man and by 

officers, I was in some doubt as to the propriety of relieving this officer; but after I had studied the record, after I had considered the 

situation in which this officer was at the time when this dereliction was charged to have been committed, I changed my opinion, if I had 

formed one, and I have come to the conclusion that this bill should 

~~w, it seems to me my usually justfriend fromMassachusetts [Mr. 

LYMAN] is, I have no doubt unintentionally, unfair in this particular 

instance. Whatever may have been the demerits of this particular officer previous to ''the late unpleasantness,'' I say that in view of his 

record as shown bytheRegister oftheNavyDepartment it is not afair 

thing to arraign him in this way. 

If his official character has been such as to warrant this Congress in 

reinstating him, we can ascertain that from the register of the Navy Department better than from the isolated record of a court-martial. And, 

Mr. Chairman, going back to the year 1857, when this officer was appointed, and coming down to the present time, you find only this blemish 

of1867and this supposed blemish of1882. Subsequently to the blemish 

of 1867, for which, as bas been well stated, he has been fully punished, 

he was called before a board of bis superiors, examined, and certified 

to be worthy of promotion. 

This officer, who was thus examined and certified to be worthy of 

promotion, has had eighteen years of continuous service at sea since lie 

has been an officer of the Government. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Is not that an unusual amount of sea-service? 

Mr. GOFF. It is. He was a gallant officer. Up to the time in .question he discharged every duty that was laid upon him with fidelity and honor. 

Now, it has been said that he was at one time drunk while on duty. 

We can not go back of the record upon that matter; there ~no effort 

to do so. But Captain Hopkins has atoned for that offense. He has 

been punished for it. He has ·performed admirable service since that 

time. If all the men who have been guilty of this offense--soldiers, 

sailors, or statesmen-are to be arraigned and disgraced, and if it is 

left to this House to determine upon these cases, our time from now till the end of our term will be taken up in the consideration of such 

charges. 

One other point. It is demonstrated beyond all question by the rec- oOrd of this court-martial that this officer, who is held up before us as having escaped from duty, as having fled from the position which the 

Government confided to him, was not at the time in a condition to as- -sume the responsibility that my friend from Massachusetts says was devalved upon him. · 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. GOFF. I would like to occupy a few moments more. 

Mr. FORAN. I yield the gentleman five minutes. . Mr. GOFF. I ask the attentionoftheHousetopage38oftheprinted 

!l'ecord of this court-martial. Snrg. A. M. Owen, United States Navy, 

the surgeon who was in charge at the Pensacola navy-yard, was ex- amined before this court-martial, and I read from his testimony: 

Question. Do you recognize the accused? 

.Answer. I do. Capt. Alfred Hopkins. 

First question by accused. Where were you on duty during July and August last? 

Answer. Navy-yard, Pensacola, Fla. 

Second question. Where was!-

These questions are by Captain Hopkins, who was acting as his own counselWhere was I on duty during the same ~ime? 

Answer. Navy-yard, Pensacola, Fla. 

Third question. What was the state of my health during July and August last? 

Answer. 1\lliserable. 

Fourth question. Was I or was I not utterly unfit for duty when I lefU 

Now here is the answer: 

Answer. Totally unfit for duty. Fifth question. Did you or not ad vise me to go North at least six week sbefore 

I left and several times subsequently? 

Answer. I did. 

Sixth question. Did you or not consider it necessary for me to leave at once at the time I left? 

Answer. I did. 

Seventh question. Was or was not the boat on which I left supposed to be the 

last opportunity that would occur? 

Answer. It was. Eighth question. Was or was it not exceedingly doubtful, until late on the 

evening of the 31st, whether the boat would come back a.t all? 

Answer. Very doubtful. 

Mr. STEELE. Why was it doubtful whether the boat would come back again? 

Mr. GOF.F'. It was understood it would not be permitted to come back under the order, on account of the yellow fever. 

Ninth question. Did you have any difficulty in persuading me to go? Answer. I did. 

Tenth question. Do you remember my principal objection to going at the 

timei did? If so, please state it. 

Answer. His principal objection to going was fearing that the Department would not approve of his leaving the station. 

Eleventh question. What did you suggest as against that reason 't 

Answer. I suggested that if the Department did not approve he could return. Twelfth question. Do you say that my principal reason for not going was the 

fear that the Depattment would not approve my going at all, or that it would not approve the recommendation for sick-leave sent? 

Answer. That it would not approve of his going at all. 

Now, I have read this for the purpose of showing that for six weeks 

this officer had been in such a condition that he could not discharge in 

that exigency the duties which my friend from Massachusetts alludes to. 

The surgeon in charge had advised him to leave the yard; told him 

that it was best that he should go. They did not think at that time, 

and owing to the circumstances they anticipated wouldoccur, thatthis 

officer was in a proper condition to assume the responsibility of con- tinuing in charge of the yard. 

Mr. BRUMM. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him if the 

yellow fever had existed or was threatening six weeks previous? 

Mr. GOFF. It had been threatening some time before. 

Mr. BRUMM. As I understand, it only threatened a short time before he left. 

?tir. GOFF. It had threatened sufficient time for the navy-yard 

there to be gotten into proper shape for it, and the Department here to 

communicate with it upon the subject. 1 

Mr. BRUMM. How long had it threatened before this gentleman 

left his post? 

Mr. GOFF. I do not remember the exacl time. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Let me ask the gentleman from West Virginia if it 

does not appear from the testimony that the object of this officer in 

leaving before getting a reply from the Secretary of the Navy in re- sponse to his application for leave, and requesting that it be sent to him 

at another point than the navy-yard, did not grow out of the fact that 

this was the only opportunity which he would have had for leaving, be- cause the vessel would not be allowed to return? 

Mr. GOFF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the merits of this bill at all. That has been sufficiently done 

by the gentlemen who preceded me. I suppose nearly all of the gentlemen here present have read the record, the memorial, and the proofS 

in this case. No gentleman who has read itcancometoanyother con- clusion than.that great· injustice and wrong has been done to Captain 

Hopkins and that the wrong should now be remedied. The gentlemen on the other side really concede that the trial of Captain Hopkins was manifestly unfair. 

My predecessor in this House, 1\Ir. Townsend, of Cleveland, introduced a bill for the relief of Captain Hopkins during the second sP.ssion 

of the Forty-seventh Congress. That bill was never reported from the 

committee,. owing, perhaps, to the appropriation bills being in the way 

and also the tariff discussion, which occupied so much time last winter. 

Now, Mr. Townsend all of the older members of this House know to be 

a man of honor, of honesty, and strict integrity. He introduced the 

bill after thoroughly and carefully looking the subject over. I was also asked to introduce a bill for the same purpose at the opening of 

this session. I read the testimony, record, and brief in the case, and 

became satisfied in my own mind that Captain Hopkins had been un- justly dismissed and that he should be restored and that such restoration was warranted by all the facts in the case, and would be but a simple 

act of justice to a good officer and a much-injured man. Thereupo:a I 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4491 

introduced the bill. Captain Hopkins lives in Cleveland, the district 

I have the honor to represent in this House. I have not the pleasure 

of Iris personal acquaintance, for he has been since his dismissal con- fined to his house by sickness; but I have taken special pains to inquire .among his acquaintances and neighbors as to his character andsUl.nding 

in that city. , Sir, from all of the information I have been able to obtain upon these 

inquiries I can come to no other conclusion than that he is a man of ·exceptionally high character and of exemplary ~abits, and all those 

who know him speak of him in the highest terms, and his immediate 

friends, those who know him in association and outside of associations, 

have sent me dozens upon dozens of letters testifying to his uniform 

good character and habits. 

I have but a word to say in reference to the remarks of the gentle- ·man from Massacpu.setts [Mr. LYMAN], a gentleman who hasbeenalways characterized here by his fairness and his courtesy, in his refer- ence to the fact that Captain Hopkins was examined for promotion in 

1871 and failed. He makes the statement that his application forpromotion was then rejected. That perh~;tps was true. But the gentle- man from Massachusetts ought to have had the candor to state also 

that when Captain Hopkins again applied for prOPlOtion in 187-5, and 

passed the examination for promotion at that time, his examination was -dated back to 1871, when he had first made application for promotion, 

showing conclusively that the board which examined him in 1875 rec- • ognized that he ought to have been promoted in 1871. I repeat, I 

-think the gentleman ought to have made that statement. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts also said that there are a great ·many good officers in the service now, that the service is overcrowded 

with good officers, and that Captain Hopkins ought not to be restored 

upon that account, because perhaps thereby there will be another ad-

·dition to the corps. I submit to the candor and sincerity of the gen- .tleman from Massachusetts that even if that statement were true it 

furnishes no conclusive reason why an injustice that has been done to a man should not be undone. I think the statement was not calculated of course to appear in that light, but that is the impression it 

made upon me. I trust the committee will come to a vote on this 

question at once, .as I do not care to trespass further upon its time, 

'Jmowing that the Naval Committee have many other matters they desire -to call up. I am satisfied this matter can be safely left to the judgment of those who l}ave investigated the case. Mr. BUCHANAN. I move that the bill be laid aside to be reported 

favorably to the House. 

Mr. LYMAN. I yield ten minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania 

IMr.BRUMM]. . The CHAIRMAN (MT. TOWNSHEND in the chair). The chair un- derstood the gentleman from Massachusetts to have surrendered the -floor without reserving his time. 

Mr. LYMAN. It was my desire to reserve the remainder of my time, 

and I presumed that I was entitled to it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The present occupant of the chair was not pres- ·ent at that time~ If, however, the gentleman states that he reserved 

the time, the chair will of course recognize him. 

Mr. COX, of New York. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

,[Mr. BRUMM] consent that debate be limited for ten minutes without 

-the committee rising? 

Mr. BRUMM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TALBOTT. I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 

1Jill be limited to ten minutes. 

Mr. LYMAN. I have no objection to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection that order will be 

-made. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. BRUMM. It seems to me that the main point in this question 

.has escaped the attention of gentlemen on both sides of this House. 

The statement is made that the innocent will suffer, that the family of 

<Captain Hopkins are wronged or at least will suffer great punishment 'by Teason of this sentence. Unfortunately in our human affairs no man d1as ever yet been punished that the innocent do not suffer more than -the guilty. When a man is punished his family always suffer. That 

in itself is no argument. 

The next proposition is that no harm will be done by restoring him. 

I submit there may be great harm done. This court-martial was regularly convened. It was composed· of the men who were the peers or •the superiop3 of the party at the bar. These men, being a regularly and · legally organized court, have rendered their decision; and for us to set .-aside that decision, especially if there is no new evidence upon which we should do so, is a reflection upon them and is an absolute injustice 

to them. This is in the nature of a court of appeal, and it becomes our -duty before we can take cognizance of a case to traverse the facts that were before the court below, and to insist that some additional testi-

·mony or some facts that were not traversable before the court below 'have been adduced to us before we changed their verdict. 

What is the additional fact? It depends simply upon the testimony ·Of Dr. Owen. And what is that testimony? Simply as to the inten-

-tion of Captain Hopkins as to the time that he should be absent. Now, 

I say we should eliminate the case of all immaterial questions and 

come down to the actual gravamenofthecharge. It was this: that he 

left because yellow fever was approaching. That yellow fever was there right in the immediate vicinity they all admit. So dangerous was it, in fact, that the-boat on which Captain Hopkins left would not 

be j>e:Cmitted to return again. That is the best evidence, in my judgment, that there was great danger and that that was the reason why 

Captain Hopkins left. 

Now, the additional testimony that has been before the committee was only upon the subject of his intention, not as to why he left, but as to how long he was going to stay away. And the question as to the 

time he was going to stay away is not material at all. It does not enter 

into this case. The question is simply as to why he left. If this House 

believes Captain Hopkins left because there was yellow fever, the question how soon he intended to return is not material. And inasmuch as that fact was traversable before the court which tried him, and that 

court found he left because there was yellow fever, and there is no evidence to show he did not leave because there was yellow fever, we have no right, I submit, as a court of appeal to exonerate him on the proposition as to the length of time he intended to stay away. 

Mr. RAY, ofNewYork. DoiunderstandthegentlemanfromPennsylvania to assert that it was a violation of the law of the Navy for 

Captain Hopkins to leave simply because he was afraid of the yellow 

fever? 

Mr. BRUMM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RAY, of New York. Wait a moment. Hear my question out. 

Mr. BRUMM. My time is limited. 

Mr. RAY, of New York. If he had a.right to leave for a week, and was not gone a week, did that make any difference aa long aa he had a right to leave for that time? 

1\fr. BRUMM. As to his having a right to leave for one week, that is a technical matter. It is the very highest military crime for a military man to be a coward. If a man shows cowardice, leaving his post be- cause it is threatened by yellow fever, he is guilty of the highestcrime 

known to military or naval law in this or any other country. 

Mr. GOFF. Will the gentleman allow me a moment? . Mr. BRUMM. If you will give me more time, I will. But let me finish this proposition. The question aa to the technical right to leave 

and stay away six or seven days is nota material question. The grava- men of the charge is the reason why he left. • The q n estion was not a material element in the caae when he left. 

1\Ir. GOFF. None of us will take issue with you in the proposition 

you lay down. Theonlyissueisastowhetheror not it is applicable to 

this case. Now, will you tell me where in the evidence of this case there 

is anyproofat all that this man leftonaccount of the prevalence of the 

yellow fever? · · 

Mr. BRUMM. The evidence of that is in the :finding of a court of 

competent jurisdiction. 

Mr. GOFF. That is evidence, is it? Does the gentleman call that 

evidence-the :finding of a court. 

Mr. BRUl\IM. The finding of a court is the best evidence, and it is , · the finding of a court of competent jurisdiction. ~r. GOFF. There is the evidence of the surgeon who insisted on this man going away on account of his physical inability to discharge 

the duties of his post. 

Mr. BRUMM. · Yes; he did so, and for six weeks before. But Captain Hopkins did not go·until he found the last boat was about to leave. 

That is the ~uble. When he waa assured he could not go unless he. went by that boat, be went then. 

Mr. GOFF. That is a mere assumption on your part. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I understood that when it was ordered that debate should close in ten minutes the time was to be divided between 

the two sides. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LYMAN] was entitled to the floor and yielded ten minutes to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRUMM].' And then all debate was limited to tep. minutes. Of that time there are now two min~tes remaining. 

Mr. CANNON. Two minutes is all I want. 

The CHAIRM.AN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. 

Mr. CANNON. I objected to the consideration of this bill in the 

House. I kne_w nothing of the case at the time, but in a general way 

I am opposed to Congress setting aside by special acts the judgments 

of courts-martial I knew nothing of this case then, and I do not know a great deal about it now. But since the discussion of it began my attention has been called to the record, and I have given it such exam- ination as I could in a short time. · It does occur to me, and I ought to state it in fairness to this officer, 

that the record shows that under the circumstances it was the duty of 

the judge-advocate, if the defendant had not sufficient knowledge of 

law to be able to put in technical form the questions he desired to have 

answered, to have put them in technical form for him, so as to permit 

him tO prove or attempt to prove that which he set forth in his statement to the courts. That statement is as follows: 

I wish Dr. Owen to prove that the state of my health was such as to render me unfit for duty; that it was only after repeated and urgent requests from him 

that I consented to leave the yard at all, and bhat I only left with the intention 

of being absent one week in case the bureau declined to grant the leave I asked for. 
4492 CONGRESSlONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 24-,. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time :fixed by unanimous consent of the 

committee for debate upon this bill has expired. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I move that the bill be laid asideto bereported 

favorably to the House. 

Mr. LYUAN. I move to strike out the enacting clause of the bill. 

The motion of Mr. LYMAN was not agreed to. 

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. BucHANAN; and 

upon a division there were-ayes 99, noes 13. 

Mr. STEELE. No quorum has voted. 

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. BucHANAN and Mr. STEELE were ap-

~~~~mmittee again divided; and the ·tellers reported that there 

were-ayes 137, noes 37. . . . So the motion was agreed to; and the bill wasla1das1de to be reported 

favorably to the House. 

' ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. TALBOTT. I am instructed by the Committee on Naval Affairs to call up as the next business .for consideration t?e bill (H. "!1-· 

1408) limiting a portion of an act entitled ".An ru:!t making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, and 

for other purposes.'' · 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that the 

bill which he has indicated is in Committee of the Whole on the state 

of the Union, and can not now be considered except by unanimous consent. · 

Mr. TH0111AS. I object. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Under the order of the House the Committee on 

Naval Affairs have selected this bill as next in order for consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. But the bill is in Committee of the Whole on 

the state of the Union, while the House is now in Comrriittee of the 

Whole on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Then I move that the committee now rise. 

The motion was agreed to, upon a division-ayes 90, noes not 

counted. 

C.APT.AIN .ALFRED HOPKINS. 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. SPRINGER having resumed 

the chair as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Cox, of New York, reported that 

the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar had had 

under consideration the "bill (H. R. 2552) for the relief of Captain Alfred 

Hopkins, and had directed him to report the same to the House with a 

recommendation that it be passed. 

Mr. BUCHAN AN. I call the previous question on the bill. 

The previous question was ordered, and under the operation thereof 

the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third rea.ding; and it was ac- cordingly read the third time, and pas ed. 

Mr. BUCHANAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

was passed; and also moved that. the motion to reconsider be laid OJ?-

the table. · 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

RESTORATION OF N .A V .AL CADETS. 

Mr. TALBOTT. I am instructed by the Committee on Naval Affairs 

to ask consent that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the 

Union be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 

1408) limitingaportionofa.nact entitled " .Anadllk'l>kingnppropriations 

for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1 83, and for 

other purposes.'' 

· Mr. CANNON. I object. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Then I move that the House resolve itself into 

Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration 

of the bill I have indicated. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The House a{XX)rdingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union, Mr. TOWNSHE~-rr> in the chair. 

Mr. TALBOTT. I now call up the bill I have indicated. 

Mr. CANNON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. CANNON. What is the first bill to be now considered? What is 

the first bill on the Calendar? 

The CHAIR~IAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. TALBOTT] 

has been recognized to call up a bill from ~he Committee on Naval Affairs. 

Mr. CANNON. I understand that we are now in Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union. 

The CHAIRMAN. For the purpose of considering bills reported 

from the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

Mr. COX, of New York. The resolution of the House fixing the 

order of business for to-day indicated the order in which that business 

should come up. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will direct the Clerk to read the order 

of the House for to-day. 

The Clerk read a.s follows: 

de~~:Iet; ~!:id:~J~~ ~~ ~iJ1~~~· !:o1u2J~~~~:U!d fu:!g t~~~~~ mittee on Naval .Affairs, and bills and resolutions on the Speaker's table over which said committee has jurisdiction, except bills providing for the construetion of additional war vessels; the bills and resolutions to be considered in the · order agreed npon by the committee. 

Mr. CANNON. What is "the order agreed upon by the committee?" 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that the Committee on' 

Naval Affairs is authorized to call up such bills as they may select. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I am authorized by the Committee on 

Naval Affairs to call up bills. 

1\Ir. CANNON. I should like to see the order of the committee, as. 

evidence of the action of the committee. 

Mr. COX, of New York. This bill is called up according to our· order. 

Mr. CANNON. What is that order? . 

Mr. COX, of New York. I have itp.erein my hand. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair takes it for granted that the gentleman representing the Committee on Naval Affairs is acting by order of· 

that committee. The Clerk will read the bill. 

The bill wa.s read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That that part of the aet approved August 5, 1882, limiting: the number of graduates of the Naval Academy to be retained in the service in . each year shall not apply to those classes who had completed the four years'. course.at the Naval Academy prior to the passage of said act; and those mem-· hers of the class of 1881 who have been honorably discharged under the pro-- visions of the aforesaid act may return to the service and take their plaees on the Naval Register in the same manner a.s if said part of such act had not been• passed. 

The Committee on Naval Affairs recommend that the bill be amended ' 

by adding to it the following: 

SEc. 2. That eaeh cadet re-entering the service under the provisions of this act 

shall be charged with the sum of $950, it being the amount paid each of them 

upon their discharge; that one-third of !!&id sum shall be deduc~~ from. the first 

year's pay, one-third from the second year's pay,and the remammg thu-d from 

the third year's pay. And that hereafter there shall be allowed at the Naval 

Academy five cadets at large and one from the District of Columbia, to be ap- pointed by the President of the .United States, and a number of cadets equal to-· one-half of the number of Representatives in Congre s from tbe States and 

Territories, or as near thereto as may be; that two adjoining Congre. ional 

districts rating numerically shall constitute a cadet di trict, and the ~ngressional district having the first vacancy shall be entitled to the first appomtment, the appointment to alternate thereafter. 

SEC. 3. That the odd district in States, and States having but one Congres-- sional district, the Territories, and the District of Columbia shall be entitled to an appointment once in every twelve years, instead of six years, as now provided. by law; that in case of adjoining Congressional district comprising a cadet district having vacancies at the same time, the district being first numerically shall. have the first appointment, the appointments to alternate thereafter; that in case of a vacancy the said vacancy shall be filled from the Congressional district or Territory from which the original appointment was made. 

SEc. 4. That nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent the 

nomination and appointment of cadets to fill vacancies now existing at the 

academy, or that may occur between now and the 15th day of May, A. D.1884, or to cause the dismissal of any cadet now at the aeademy except for cause. SEc. 5. That all laws inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. • 

Mr. TALBOTT. Mr. Chairman, the act of August 5, 1882, making. appropriations for the naval service--

Mr. THOUAS. I ask that the report of the committee be read. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the report be read it will comeout ofthetime· of the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Then I decline to yield for that purpose now. 

The act of August 5, 1882, making appropriations for the naval service continued in addition to the regular appropriations for that purpose· 

a proviso limiting the number of graduates from the Naval Academy 

to be thereafter retained in the service to the number requisite to fill 

the vacancies in the various grades above; and it also provided that at . 

least ten should be retained in the service. 

At the date of the passage of that act the class of 1881 were at sea;. 

they had not the opportunity to resign from the service; they had not . 

the opportunity to qualify themselves for the final examination, hav-· 

ing already graduated with credit to themselves at the end of four years' 

service. When they came ba.ck a number of them, seventy-one in all, were mustered out, only so many being retained in the service as were · 

necessary to fill vacancies in the various grades above. 

Now, .Mr. Chairman, I hold that the act of 1882 was retroactive. 

Whenever a cadet enters the service of the Government the Revised.1 

Statutes provide what shall become of him upon graduation, that he 

shall be assigned to duty by the Secretary of the Navy. This was thecontract with these young men, that if they behaved themselves properly, if they were competent mentally, morally, and physically to dis-· 

charge the duties of their positions, they should be retained in the· 

service. These gentlemen come now to Congress and ask that this injustice perpetrated upon them be corrected. They admit that Congress had the power but not the right to enact such legislation. 

l\Ir. Chairman, we are told that to dothisactofjusticenowproposed 

is going to cost this Government a ·fabulous sum of money. The Secretary of the Navy has made a statement on this subject, and he undertakes to show, I believe, by calculations something like those the insurance men make, that if these young men be put back in the Navythey will become rear-admirals, commodores, commanders, lieu tenants, 

&c. But, sir, the law regulates the number of these officers that shall 

be in the various grades of theN avy on the active-list, and provides that· when a vacancy occurs in any of these grades it shall be filled by theappointment of an officer from one of the lower grades. That is the· 

law. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4493 

Then the Sec;etary of the Navy goes on with his calculations, and tells 

iUS that this measure will cost the Government nine or ten million dollars before we get through. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that these 

_young men take their grade as junior ensigns in the various corps. of 

the Navy, and will never get above that grade, except when vacanCies 

·OCCur in the higher grades, when promotions are made. But by this 

bill the number of officers allowed to any grade is not increased. All 

-that these young men would gain by this legislation is retention in the 

.service until they are regularly promoted. 

Sir, I submit that this bill is calculated to reduce public expendi-

-tures. It needs this "hue and cry" that the officers of the Navy are 

-too numerous. Let us begin reform in the right direction. If young 

men are to be educated for the Navy and retained in the service, let us 

·educate only the number actually required. In accordance with ~his 

idea the bill provides that hereafter there shall be at the Naval Academy 

only one-half the number of cadets now allowed by law. I am satisfied 

that if this change be made in the law the number of graduates will be 

just about sufficient to fill the vacancies in the various grades. · 

I say this bill is in the interest of economy. It costs over $600 a year 

to educate one of these cadets. Hence there will be a very considerable saving in the expenses of the Naval Academy by the reduction in 

the number ofthese cadets. At the sametimetheGovernment by the 

passage of the bill is enabled to do an act of great justice to these young 

men who have been wronged. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Will thegentlemanansweraqu·estion? 

Mr. TALBOTT. Certainly. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Doiunderstand the gentleman to argue 

that when the Government has spent 600 a year for four years in educating each of these young men--

Mr. THOMAS. For six years . . 1\Ir. WHITE, of Kentucky. That if the Government does not afterward keep them in the service it has broken a contract with them? 

Mr. TALBOTT. Yes, sir; I do take that position, and I mean to 

say that such a contract as this, if it were between individuals, would 

be enforced by any court of equity in this land. 

Mr. TULLY. Does the Government enter into a contract with its 

officers? 

1\Ir. TALBOTT. It does not, butitentersintoacontractwith these 

boys entering that academy from private life. 

lli. TULLY. Then they are to be kept by the Government during 

the remainder of their natural lives, whether needed or not? 

1\Ir. TALBOTT. If they are mentally, physically, and intellectually 

qualified, yes, as long as the Government stands. 

1\Ir. WHITE, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman read the statute to 

which he refers? 

l\Ir.· TALBOTT. If I can lay my finger upon it I will. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Because I do not understand that the 

Government after giving $3,600 to educate each of these young men is 

compelled to keep them in the service until they die or are worn out 

with old age, whether their services be needed or not. Does the gentleman from Maryland mean to hold that the Government is compelled 

to keep them? 

1\Ir. TALBOTT. The Govru:nment accepts their services with the 

distinct understanding that that condition shall be fulfilled; and when 

.a young man enters the service under those conditions there is an implied if not an express contract to that effect. 

The Government tells them that if they are physicallyand mentally 

qualified they shall be officers, after their graduation, of the Navy. 

After they had ent.ered upon their duties, though, and were absent at 

sea, this bill was passed legislating them out of office. 

1\fr. WiqTE, of Kentucky. I hope the gentleman will read the law 

upon that. subject, as I do not want to break any contract as ~ar as I 

am concerned. 

Mr. TALBOTT. I now yield ten minutes to the gentleman from 

New Jersey [Mr. McAnoo]. 

Mr. McADOO. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the best way to 

arrive at a proper understanding of this case will be by taking an individual example -as an illustration. Let us suppose the case of a 

young man who is appointed to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. He 

has to undergo, before he is admitted to that institution, a rigid com- petitive examination as to his mental capacity, as well as an examina- tion of his physical ability. As a general rule throughout the United 

States members of Congress who have these appointments of young 

men to make advertise the fact in their q.istricts and appoint some 

place where this examination is to be held. They call upon young 

men who are within the years prescribed by the Jaw to present themselves at the competitive examination in order to select the party who 

shall fill the vacancy. 

That examination is generally a very severe one, because competition 

is right to secure such a young man as can enter the academy and undergo the examination that is there required. After the young man 

has gone through that examination, after competing with a number of 

rivals for the place, if he ha{') been successful and secured his appointment in that position be has a right to suppose that under the laws of 

the United States, under the statutes go•erning this a-cademy, that he 

is to be given when he graduates a position in the Navy of this Government-to be, in other words, a life officer of the United States Navy. 

There has never been a case up to the time when this amendment 

was put upon an appropriation bill by which these cadets were dismissed where an officer was cashiered from the naval service of the 

United States after he had passed the examination required by the 

academy unless he was dismissed for cause, and there are reasons why 

this should be so. He makes it his life business. He enters thea-cad.-

emy for that purpose. He goes to the academy, and what kind of an 

education does he there acquire? He is especially educated to be a 

naval officer, not for civil life; and, sir, after an examination on my 

part I am thoroughly satisfied that the education there obtained does 

not fit him generally to take part in the ordinary avocations of life, 

but it is to fit him solelyfor·the naval service. He is educated in navigation, in mechanics, in mathematics, but the focal point of his education is that he shall be able to command men and that he shall be 

thoroughly competent to navigate ships. 

Now, in this case, so far as this bill is concerned, if he has undergone 

~he severe mental training of the academy, after passing various other 

examinations, after successfully passing the most severe tests of academic scholarship, a standard probably the most severe of any educational institution in this country, he may become a graduate after a four years' course. This bill presented by the Committee on Naval 

Affairs applies only to naval graduates who were at sea at the time of 

the passage of the act to which I have referred. But I want gentlemen of this committee to recollect that there are really two grad nations. 

The young man is four years at the academy, during which he is compelled to pursue the studies fixed at that institution. He is examined 

severely upon them all,-and after passing the academic test he goes to 

sea for two years for the purpose of studying navigation_ When he 

comes back from that sea service he is again examined. Now, when 

the appropriation bill alluded to was passing this House it had tacked 

on to it a provision discharging not the young men in the academy, but 

the young men who had passed the academic examination and were at 

sea. To my own knowledge one young man who had. passed this severe 

mental ordeal at the Academy, and who was on board of the flag-ship 

Lancaster at the port of Trieste, in Austria, learned for the first time 

at that place of the passage through this House of an appropriation 

bill on which a provision had been tacked whi<fu discharged him from 

the naval service. Is it not, then, a retroactive act? Was it not in 

the nature really of an ex post facto law, and an injustice to those 

young men? But whether it be ex post facto or not, it will not be claimed 

that it was not a retroactive act. 

1\fr. MULDROW. 1\lay I ask the gentleman a question? 

Mr. McADOO. Certainly. 

Mr. MULDROW.· I desire to know why it is not as much an ex post 

facto law in ita application to the young man who had passed the academic examination and had gone to sea, or why it is any more ex post 

facto or retroactive as to them than to those remaining in the academy 

and who had not gone to sea, and who had not passed the academic 

examination? 

Mr. McADOO. The young men who were in the academy were at 

home. They had immediate knowledge of the passage of this law, and 

they might have resigned immediately. The young men who were at 

sea knew they had to come back to pass the examination. The young 

men in the academy had a further advantage. They knew if they 

passed an extraordinarily good examination, if they came out in advance of their fellow-students, they would be retained in the service, 

whereas the young men at sea would not have that advantage. 

I have this further to say: When the honorable Secretary of the 

Navy came'before the Naval Committee and made his statement to 

that committee I myself asked him the question: "Will you make a 

distinction between those who were at sea and those who were at the 

academy?" And he said, "Yes; there is a distinction, and the ad-

•antage is with those at the academy as against those at sea.'' So I 

think I have answered the objection of the gentleman from Mississippi 

[Mr. MULDROW]. ' 

Mr. MULDROW. I do not see how the principle can be applied to 

those at sea without applying the same principle to those then in the 

academy. The principle is the same as regards both. 

Mr. McADOO. Manyoftbosewhowereatthe academyat the time 

of the passage of this bill had ~there for a very short time. 

1\f.r. MULDROW. It is then only a question of degree, not of principle. 

Mr. Mc.A.DOO. I will say the bill is a concession. There was a violent opposition to it on the part of the minority; and there was a 

concession made. The concession, as far as I am personally concerned 

as a member of the committee, was based on the fact that on the equities 

of the case there was a distinction in favor of those who were at sea. I 

.have not yet heard from the able report which will be presented by the 

gentleman from Illinois [l\1r. THO:UAS] who represents the minority, nor have I found any argument in the statement of the honorable Secretary of the Navy, who, with all due deference, gave fallacious figures 

to the committee. I have not heard anything yet why as a simple act 
4494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 24, 

of justice these men should not be reinstated in the service of their 

country. 

Shall we refrain from doing justice to these men because theN avy is 

"flop-heavy? Shall we blight their lives? Shall we break the faith of 

this great Government? Shall we send these men back into the ordinary avocations of life, for which four or five years Of service in the 

academy and on sea. have unfitted them, simply because the Navy is 

top-heavy? It is too late tourgethatproposition now. When the bill was passed, if I had been a member of this House as I am a member of 

it now, and if a bill had been presented to me to cutdown the number of 

graduates, to cut down the number of applicants, to cut down the number 

of students, and by a just measure to decimate the ranks of those who 

overload and make top-heavy the official register of the Navy,_ I would 

have given my vote and voice in favor of it. But I will not give my 

vote and voice in favor of doing injustice even to save the Treasury or · to make less top-heavy the American Navy. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield to me for a 

question? 

Mr. McADOO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. It has been said by the gentleman from 

Maryland thatthisis a matter of good faith, and that we violate a con- tract if we do not restore these gentlemen. Now I ask you if we can 

afford to break faith with half and not with all; if we can afford to 

keep faith with a few and not with all? And if we keep faith with all, 

how many millions of dollars will it cost? 

Mr. McADOO. For myself I have to say this: I would prefer to 

stand upon the bed-rock of principle. But I did not see that this bill 

could pass unless there was a concession made, and when the chief opponent, the honorable Secretary of the Navy, made a concession in favor 

of these young men who were at sea, I said a modicum at least of justice would thereby be obtained to them. 

Mr. THOMAS obtained thefloorandsaid: I yield five minutes, or so much time as he may desire, to the chairman ofthe committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox]. . Mr. COX, of New York. I desire to say that I signed the report of 

the minority along with the intelligent gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

THOMAS]. He will have it read. I did not sign that report because 

I would not give all the stamina, esprit, and strength possible to, and 

needed now for our Navy. As I said here once before in de"Qate, I 

would strengthen the Navy by large guns on shore, and by building 

large iron or steel vessels to meet large ironclads of other nations at 

sea. I have not, do not, and will not favor these dainty cruisers that are intended to run away from fighting vessels and chase after commercial ships. 

I desire in connection with the rehabilitation of the Navy to ask 

permission to printsomeremarkson that subject. They connect these 

ideas just suggested with this bill; and if there is no objection I will 

do so. 

[No objection was made.] 

But as to this special bill my thoughts are expressed by the Secretary of the Navy and in the minority report. They are briefly these: 

We should pursue the reform which we began. On the 5th day of August, 1882, we passed certain amendments on the appropriation bill. 

By those amendments we institated a policy. Let us adhere to that 

policy instead of recklessly and extravagantly adding sixty-two more officers to the already overgrown and plethoric navy-list. Since the 

Government has no use for this ''surplus" I would not restore them 

to the Navy. It is within our power. We have control over it. We 

are not bound by any contract. It is a gratuity we tendered. 

Mr. OATES. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 

Mr. COX, of New York. My friend who wrote the report [Mr. 

THOMAS] will answeryoufully. The examination of the Navy Registers shows that at the date of the pa-ssage of the law to which I have 

referred there were 1,817 officers on the active-list. Their actual pay 

amounted to $3,825,000. The Government had only thirty-one naval 

vessels in commission. There were fifty-nine officers for each ship, or one officer to every five men. This number was annually augmented 

by the addition of forty young officers from the surplus cadets from 

the Naval Academy. This is simply astounding as an extravagance. 

Why are-these unnecessary officers paid for by the hard-earned money 

of a laboring people in the cost of their clothing, food, shelter, and 

what not? 

This state of facts shows the top-heaviness of our Navy. This situation is unpleasant to the officers and ricketty to the Government. The 

Government has had in commission at a vast expense since the war 

many more officers than could be provided with any legitimate duty in 

the line of their profession. Therefore the law of August 5, 1882, was 

passed. It was needed. It may be harsh in its effect and troublesome 

in execution, but we had to cut down somewhere. We cut down the 

officers of the staff140 and of the line 115, leaving1,562officers. This was enough, according to the estimate of the Secretary of the Navy, for 

seventy ships. By this reduction there was an annual saving to the 

Government of over $200,000. Are we to reverse this? 

This question confronted me as chairman of the Committee on Naval · Affairs, and as somewhat responsible for good advice as to frugal and 

economic legislation as well as for good and efficient service in this arm 

1 

of the Government, our committee can not aid by appropriations the 

restoration of the Navy; that is for the Appropriations Committee. 

We can advise as to the efficiency required. We can not reaeh the 

purse. The question which confronted and puzzled me was this: Shall we restore these men who have already been retired by the action of 

Congress? I believe it would be unwise to do so. Because it adds to 

the overweight and inutility it is unwise. 

I do not find fault with those honorable gentlemen here who oppose 

this view. They have nominated young men to the Naval Academy. 

They feel a proper interest and pride in them and their future. They 

feel as if good faith requires that they should be retained to the end of 

their term. I do not complain of those gentlemen, for they are leaning on the side of generosity and kindness to their proteges and constituents. But I speak for the Government, for good service and rigid 

economy. 

[Here the hammer fell]. 

Mr. THOMAS addressed the House. [See Appendix.] 

Mr. BELFORD. I am utterly opposed to this bill. [Many cries 

of "Vote!" "Vote!"] Now, gentlemen, if you undertake that game 

with me I will insist on a quorum; and you have not got it, and you 

have not had a quorum five times in five weeks; and yet you have 

your seventy-six majority in this House. Now, you take your tactics 

and I will take mine. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I rise to a question of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. The point of order that I make is that 

there is no order on this floor. We should have order when we are discussing this bill, which involves ten or twelve ruillion.S of dollars. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has taken notice of the fact that there 

is disorder on the floor and is endeavoring to preserve order. The gentleman from Kentucky needlessly consumes time in stating that fact. 

Mr. WHITE, ·ofKentucky. I have noticed that the Chair was trying to perserve erder, but he does not seem to have been successful. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. BELFORD] 

will proceed. 

Mr. BELFORD. I desire to state to this House a fact that can not 

be controverted. It is, that under the law we ea{)h as members of 

Congress have the right to appoint a cadet to West Point and a cadet 

to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. That, however, is merely a matter of theory. The professors-the snobocracy, the aristocraey-of 

those two institutions absolutely override our right to make such appointments. No man can question that. 

I brought a boy here from Colorado, over2,000 miles, who had been 

examined by the governor of my State, by its chief-justice, and by the 

president of the State University; yet because he failed to parse a particular phrase they rejected him. 

Now, what are these schools for? They are for the purpose of educating boys, are they not? General Sheridan told me the other night 

that the standard in those institutions was so high that nobody could 

get into them who was not a gradua~ of Yale or of Harvard. Now, are we going to make appropriations to support gentlemen who meet 

you in the german here, naval dudes and military dudes? Why should 

werestore these cadets to the Navy for the purpose of continuing such 

practices as we have had in the past? 

Let me call your attention to the great admirals of the world who never saw a naval school, but whose names are imperishably written on the scrolls of glory. 

Sir Francis Drake was a famous admiral in Queen Elizabeth's reign, 

whose splendid victories over the Spaniards were aehieved without his 

having had any naval or military training. 

General Monk, the great captain who was commander-in-chief in the 

time of the civil wars, became an admiral in 1652, although wholly 

without naval education. He defeated the Dutch fleet in the famous 

action in 1653, in which Admiral Van Tromp was killed. 

Admiral De With had no othertrainingthan that of cabin-boy on an East India merchantman. 

The Dutch Admiral Hein ran away to sea when 14 years of age, 

following the fisheries many years, and nothing more is known of him 

until after the age of 44, when he became one of the most distinguished 

of admirals. 

Admiral De Ruyter went to sea when 11 years old, in 1618, as boatswain's boy, and rose, without other education, to be the great master of 

naval science and warfare. 

Themistocles, wholly without nautical training, commanded the Athenian fleet in numerous fights between the Greeks and Persians, and 

covered himself with glory by a series of great and successful actions, 

Xerxes himself giving him the title of the great .Athenian admiral. 

Several MEMBERS. Louder! ' 

Mr. BELFORD. Well, if you will be quiet you will be able to hear 

better. These were worthy men who had commonsense in their heads, 

who could grasp the situation. All the great generals of the world in 

the past have been men who have been guided and directed by common sense. . I stood the other day on the battlefield of Fredericksburg. Yes, for 

six days I walked over the ground there on each side of the Rappahannock. I looked at the sweet, beautiful, paradisiacal gardens ofthatcoun-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4495 

try on eaeh side of the river. I was a civilian. Possibly I might have 

been mistaken, but I thought I would have fought that battle from our 

side somewhat differently from the manner in which . it was fought. 

Men differ in judgment. 

I say you have your schools of snobs and aristocrats, and no one can get in that one at Annapolis unless he is the son of a naval officer. 

That institution down there is as close a corporation as ever existed in 

this country. I say we have appropriated for it all that we ought to. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

l\Ir. THOMAS. I now yield to my colleague [Mr. CANNON]. 

Mr. CANNON. It is Saturday evening and about the time for adjournment. I am quite sure the consideration of this ~ill can no~ be 

eompleted to-njght, and I therefore move that the comnnttee now nse, 

and gjve notice that if that motion shall prevail I will then move that 

the House adjourn. Mr. TALBOTT. I move to amend, so that the committee shall now 

rise for the purpose of closing debate on the peniling bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

CANNON] is in order. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. SPRINGER having resumed 

the chair as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. TOWNSHEND reported that the 

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had had under 

consideration the bill (H. R.1408) limiting a portion of an act entitled 

''An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 1883, and for other purposes,'' and had come to no resolution thereon. . l\Ir. TALBOTT. I move that the House again resolve itself into 

Committee of tihe Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of 

further considering House bill No. 1408. And pending that motion I move that all debate upon the bill and amendments-be limited to onehalf hour. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is in order now only to move to limit 

general debate. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Then I move that general debate be limited to one 

minute. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I move that the House now adjourn. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Before the question is put on the motion to adjourn, is it in order to move to amend the motion tQ limit 

debate? _ 

Mr. NICHOLLS. I move that the House now adjourn. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion is already pending, made 

by the gentleman's colleague [Mr. BLOUNT]. 

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. BLOUNT; and upon 

a ill vision there were-ayes 80,. noes 62. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Before the vote on the motion to adjourn is an- nounced, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the 

answer of the cadets to the letter of the Secretary of the Navy. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from 1\Iaryland asks 

unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a cel"tain paper. 

:M.r. THOMAS. What is it? 

Several MEMBERS. Regular order ! 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is the announcement 

of the vote on.the motion to adjourn. 

The result of the vote was then announced as above stated; and 

accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. BLOUNT: Petition of citizens of Pike County, Georgia, and of 

citizens of Bibb County, Georgia, in favor of the passage of the Senate 

bill to aid the States in popular education-severally to the Committee 

on Education. 

By Mr. CHACE: Two petitions in regard to bills of lading-to the 

Committee on the Juiliciary; 

Also, a petition for the reduction of internal-revenue taxes-to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

By 1\Ir. OONVERSE: Petition of the president and faculty of the 

Ohio State University, for an appropriation for Inman schools-to the 

Committee on Education. 

By Mr. ERMENTROUT: Memorial ofthe employes of the Reading 

(Pa.) post-office, for classification, &c. -to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

By :.Ur. GUENTHER: Memorial of the Milwaukee Association of 

ex-Prisoners of War, asking for the passage of H. R. 1189 and S. 44-

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. PAIGE: Petition of the Ohio ex-Prisoners of War Association, relative to pensions-to the same committee. . 

By Mr. PERKINS: Resolutions of the Board of Trade of the city 

of Lawrence, Kans., and resolutions of the citizens of Chanute, Kans., 

asking that the rjght of way be granted to the Southern Kansas Railway Company through the Indian Territory-severally to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Also, resolutions adopted by the Oklahoma Colony Company looking 

to the opening. of the Oklahoma lands-to the same committee. 

Also, resolutions adopted by the Grand Army of the Republic, Department of New York, relative to pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. PRICE: :Memorial of General H. C. Hobert and others, pray- ing for the passage of H. R. 1189 or S. 44-to the same committee. 

Also, petition of Benjamin Allen Post, No. 127, Grand Army of the 

Republic, in favor of the recommendatio~ of the Grand Army of the 

Republic of the United States-to the same committee. 

By :Mr. REESE: Petition of citizens of Georgia, in favor ofthepassage of the Senate educational bill-to the Committee on Education. 

Also, petition of the gmndjury of Jefferson County, Georgja, on the same subject-to the same committee. 

By Mr. ROWELL: Petition of Post No. 251, Grand Army of the 

Republic, Department of Illinois, and ofR..'tthbnrn Post, No. 359, Grand 

Army of the RepubJic, Department of Illinois, for amendment to pension laws, &c.-severally to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WAIT: Petition of Hon. Lorenzo Blackstone and others, 

citizens of Norwich, Conn., remonstrating against the establishment of a Government telegraph-to the Committee on the Post-Office and 

Post-Roads. · 

By Mr. WEMPLE: Petition of citizens of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., 

against the postal telegraph bill-to the same committee. · By Mr. WILLIS: Resolution of the common council of Louisville, 

Ky., requesting an appropriation for the Falls of the Ohio-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

SENATE. 

MOND.A.Y, May 26, 1884. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. D. HUNTLEY, D. D. 

The J onrnal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and approvedr 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the petition of Daniel Rittenhouse and 26 others, of Washington, D. C., praying that the charter 

of the Metropolitan Passenger Railroad Company may be so amended as to require the company to remove its stables to one end or the other· 

of its road; which was referred to the Committee on the District of 

Columbia. 

Mr. JACKSON. I present the petition of S. L. Terry and other em;.. 

ployes of the post-office at Nashville, Tenn., praying Congress to make 

a classification of the clerks in the distributing department of all firstclass post-offices, suggesting the proper classification, and praying that 

salaries be so adjusted that all clerks doing the same kind of work be 

placed in the same class and receive like salaries. ·This petition is addressed to me in person, but was evidently intended for presentation to. 

the Senate. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Post-Offices 

and Post-Roads. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SEWELL presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of New 

Jersey; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Commercer as follows: 

[Joint resolution No.8.] 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 

Joint resolution requesting Congress to pass a. bill to promote the efficiency or the revenue-marine service. 

Whereas the eminent services rendered by the brave men of the revenue m• rine entitles them to the highest commendation ; and 

Whereas no provision exists in the present laws for the retiring of the meri- torious, aged, or disabled in that service: Therefore, 

1. Be it resolved by the senate and general assembly of the State of New Jersey, 

That the Senators and Representatives from this State are earnestly requested to use their inftuence for the passage of the bill pending in Congress, H. R. No. 4483, "to promote the efficiency of the revenue-marine service," whereby theofficers of the revenue marine who have grown old or who have been seriously 

injured in the performance of their duty, may be retired., in accordance with · provisions similar to those now in force in relation to the naval officers of the 

United States. 

2 . .And be it further resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from New Jersey, by the secre- tary of state. .Approved May 9, 1884. 

Mr. WILS.ON. I present the memorial of G. A. Madison and 22 

other residents of Ottumwa, Iowa, and a memorial of citizens of Keota., 

Rose Hill, and Delta, Iowa, remonstrating against the enactment of 

any measure relating to the telegraph which shall increase the numberof public officials, or establish a governmental monopoly of the telegraph business, or which shall employ the functions of the Government 

to destroy the property ofinilividuals who have embarked in legjtimate 

enterprise to provide ample facilities for the public accommodation. 

As the subject has been reported upon, I move that the mP-morials lieon the table. 

The motion wa~ agreed to. 

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of G. B. Keffer, of Des Moines;, Iowa; praying for certain appropriations for the benefit of State agri- cultural and horticultural associations; which was referred to the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry. 

Mr. PLATT presented two petitions of manufacturers, inventors, andothers, citizens of Rockford, ill., praying for the pas&l.ge of .Senate bill