8088 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

amendments numbered 105, 106, 107, 110, 116, 118, 119, 121, 127: 128, 

221, 222, 223, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239, 240, 242,243, 244, 248, 254.255, 

256, and 257 ·to the bill (H. R. 10540) making appropriations for sundry 

civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 

1889, and for other purposes; asked a further conference with the 

House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, anJ. had appointed 

as conferees on the par~ of the Senate M:r . .ALLISON; 1\Ir. HALE, and 

Mr. BECK. 

LEAVE TO PRINT. 

Mr. WHEELER, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to extend 

in the RECORD his remarks on the bill (H. R._ 9623) to provide for printing Government securities in the highest style of art .. Mr. HOLMAN, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to extend in 

the RECORD his remarks of to-day on the Oklahoma bill. 

Mr. BLAND, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to print in the 

RECORD remarks on the silver bill. 

CLAIMS FOR BOUNTIES. 

:Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, asked unanimous -consent that the bill 

(H. R. 3407) to extend the time for :filing claims for additional bounty 

under the act of July 28, 1866, be recommitted to the Committee on War Claims. 

· Mr, O'NEILL, of .Missouri. What is the object? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. There are two bills of the same character now on the Calendar. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Why not let this bill remain on the 

Calendar? This is more complete than the other. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. . Is there objection to the request? 

M.r. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I object. 

1\fr. SPRINGER. I move that the House adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 59 

minutes p.m.) the Honse adjourned. 

P}:tiV ATE BILLS INTRODUCED .AND REFERRED. 

Under the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced 

and referred as indicated below: · . By Mr. FORAN: A bill (H. R. 11302) granting a pension to Diana 

D. Howard-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: A bill {H. R. 11303) for the relief of 

John W. Peek-to the Comm.ittee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11304) for the relief of James A. Cook-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. McCULLOGH: A bill (H. R.11305) granting a pension to 

Ann Ruffner-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. MORROW: A bill (H. R. 11306) granting a pension to Mrs. 

Caroline B. Andrews-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

_ By 1\Ir. MOFFITT: A bill (H. R. 11307) for the relief of Benjamin 

F. Wickham-to the Committee on Claims. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: _ 

By 1\Ir. J. M. ALLEN: Petition of William H. Kelton, of James Conn, 

of heir of Donald Street, and of J. W. Blakney, heir of Fr~derick 

Blakney, of Mississippi, for reference of their claims to the Court of 

Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. C. L. ANDERSON: PetitionofDemariusA. Johnson, administrator of William C. Johnson, of Scott County, Mississippi, for reference 

of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. BLANCHARD: Petition of the Farmers' Union, of Rocky 

Mount, Bgssier Parish, Louisiana, for relief from the bagging trustto the Committee on Ways and 1\IeaDB. 

By Mr. GEST: Evidence in the pension claim of Richard Ashcraft--

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By l\Ir. LEE (by request): Deposition and affidavit in the claim of 

Sallie Hardemond-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. LYNCH: Petition of Lackawanna Valley Council, No. 81, 

nndofWilkesBarre Council, No. 161, JuniorOrderofUnitedAmerican M~cbanics, forthe passage of Senate bill No. 553, to regulate immigra- tion-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By 1\Ir. McCULLOGH: Resolutions of Red Stone Counci1, No. 78, 

Junior Order United American Mechanics, of Brownsville, Pa., for the 

passage of Senate bill No. 553, for regulating and restricting immigration-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

By 1\Ir. O'FERRALL: Petition of William B. Carper, of J. 1\f. Canter, administmtor of Margaret McCauley; of Festus Swartz, administrator of Jame-s Swartz; of Josiah Rinker, of .John Purcell, of Joseph 

Calwalader, and of John Ritter, of Frederick County, Virginia, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. .. 

By ~Ir. WHEELER: Petition of heirs of Samuel Thompson of Madison 

County, Alabama, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claimsto the Committee on War Claims. . By Mr. WHITTHORNE: Petition of :Mary A. Brower, widow or William .A. Brower, of Giles County, Tennessee, for referenceofherclaim 

to the Cour~ of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

SENATE. 

THURSDAY, August 30, 1888. 

Prayer by the Chaplain! Rev. J. G. -BuTLER, D. D. 

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

PETITIONS .AND MEMORIALS. 

Mr. PALMER presented the petUion of Margaret Bolio, of Detroit, 

Mich., praying to be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Com- mittee on Pensions. 

Mr. EDMUNDS presented the petition of William H. Spencer and 

many other citizens of Rutland County, Vermont, praying for the passage of an act of Congress granting an increase of pension to Joseph Osborn, late a private in the Eleventh Michigan Cavalry; which was re- ferred to the Committee on Pensions. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. COCKRELL. The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2244) to amend the act of Congress approved 

March 3. 1887, giving pay to volunteer Army offic~rs for services before they were mustered in, have instructed me to submit an adverse 

report thereon and recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed. The law already gives all the relief tbat is contemplated by the bill, 

and all to which the parties are entitled. 

The report was agreed to; and the bill was postponed inde:finitely. 

Ur. DOLPH~ from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. 2182) to amend sections 4488 and 4489 of the Revised Statutes, requiring life-saving appliancP.s on steamers, reported 

it with au amendment. 

Mr. BLACKBURN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported an amendment intended to be proposed to the general deficiency ap~ 

propriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. -

Mr. SAWYER, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. 3456) granting a pension to David 0. Sanborn, re- ported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 10245) granting an increase of pension to Hannibal Kimball, 

reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 9341) granting a pension t.o Mrs. Dulceua Noe1, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

!.Ir. MANDERSON, from the Committee on Military Affahs, to whom was referred the bill (R. R. 11045) for the relief of Sam Rice Post, No. 6, Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Iowa, submitted an ad- verse report thereon, which was il.greed to; and the bill was postponed 

indefinitely. -

Mr. DOLPH, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom wag 

referred the bil! (S. 13) restoring to the United States certain of the 

lands granted to the Northern Paei:fic Railroad Company to aid in the 

construction of a .railroad from Lake Superior to Puget Sound, and to 

restore the same to settlement, and for other purposes, 1·eported adversely thereon; and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

He also, from the same committee, reported a bill (S. 3504) restoring 

t.o the United States certain of the lands granted to the Northern Pa~ 

cific Railroad Company to aid in the construction of a railroad from 

Lake Superior to Puget Sound, and io restore the same to settlement, 

and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title. 

LA .A.BR.A. SILVER :li:INING COMPANY. 

1\Ir. JO:NES, of Nevada, from the Committee to Audit and Control 

the Qontingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom were referred the following resolutions, reported them without amendment; and they were considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relatioru! have leave to require tho 

attendance of witnesses before said committee or a subcommittee thereof to give evidence under oath respecting the claim of La Abra Silver Mining Com- pany a~ainst the Government of Mexico; and said committee or subcommittee 

snall have power to administer oaths to such witnesses; and the expenses of 

their attendance and other necessary expenses in the execution of this 01·der 

shall be paid out of the funds appropriated for the contingent expenses of Ute Senate, on certificates issued by the chairman of said committee or said sub· co:-nmittee. 

Resolved, 2. That counsel for or against said claimants' shall be authorized t.o appea r before said committee or subcommittee and examine and cross-ex:uuino _any witn~sses unde1· the authority of this resolution. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

1\Ir. SAWYER introduced a bill (S. 3502) granting a pension to Juliana Roitsch; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. BROWN introduced a bill (S. 3503) for the relief of Bedney F. 

McDonald; which was rea(l twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Al\lENDMENTS TO BILLS. 

1\Ir. DANIEL suhmitted au amendment intended to be proposed 

by him to the general deficiency appropriation bill; which was re· ferred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be-printed. 

l\Ir. GORMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8089 

him to the bill (H. R. 2952) for the allowance of certain claims for 

stores and supplies taken and used by the United States Army, as reft 

ported by the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of 1\farch 

3, 1883, known as the Bowman act; which was referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. VOORHEES submitted an amendment int-ended to be proposed 

by him to the general deficiency appropriation bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

CLAIMS OF POSTMASTERS. 

Mr. COCKllELL. Some days ago I entered a motion to reconsider 

the vote ·by which a resolution offered by the Senator from Kansas 

[M:r. PLUMB] was agreed to. I should like to have the motion called 

up and acted upon now. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be read. 

The Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. PLUMB, August 

16, 1888, and adopted, as follows: 

Reso!t·ed, That the Postmaster-~neral be directed to report to the Sennte at the next session, so fo1r as such claims have already been computed upon applicntions presented under the act of Ma.rch 3, 1883, the amounts due postmas- ters and their representatives in the several States and Territories for services 

rendered the United States between July 1, 1854, MJd July 1, 1874, the gross amount of earnings for each biennial term of service to be stated on the basis of 

the a ct of 1854, and the amount of compensation paid for the same term of serv- ice to be deducted therefrom, showing the actual difference in each case between 

the salary paid a.nd the compensation computed on the basis of the act of 1854 for each biennal term of service; such report to be limited to cases in which the 

compcnsa.tion paid is 10 per cent. or more less than the compensation already 

computed on the basis of the act of1854.,and to be made to the Senate from time to time as the statement covering the claims from each State shall be completed 

1\Ir. COCKRELL. The resolution may involve a great deal of labor 

and it may involve intricate questions of law which have already been 

adjusted. I think it but fair and just that the resolution should be 

reconsidered and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRoads, so that they may examine and determine what course should 

be pursued in regard to it. I therefore move that the vote by which 

the resolution was passed be reconsidered, and t'bat the resolution be 

Tecalled from the Postmaster-General and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri moves to reconsider the vote by which the resolution wa-s adopted. 

Mr. PLUMB. I have no objection to the course suggested by the 

'enator from Missouri. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. If there be no objection, the vote by 

which the resolution was agreed to will be reconsidered, and the reso- lution, having been recalled from the Postmaster-General, will be re· 

fened to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. It is so or- dered. 

LAND SUITS AND LAND P .A TENTS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a resolution coming over from yesterO.ay submitted by the Senator from 

Nevada [Mr. STEWART] calling for information in relation to land 

suits and land patents. The question is on the motion of the Senator 

from Alabama. [Mr. MoRGAN] to refer tlie resolution to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. STEW ART. I have no objection to that course. The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. If there be no objection the resoln· 

tion will be reJerred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

CR.A.IG_

1

S IMPROVEMENT IN TELEGRAPHY. 

Mr. BLAIR submitted the following resolution, which was read: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Interstate Commerce be instructed to exam- ine fully the system of mechanical telegraphing which Mr. D. H. Craig has now on exhibition in the Capitol by virtue of resolution of the Senate, and that in 

such investigation said committee secure the aid of competent and disinterested 

experts if they deem it nece88ary, and that any expenses required for prope1· ex- amination into the merits of said system be paid out of the contingent fund of 

the Senate. 

'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempa1·e. The resolution, under the rules, will 

be referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. 

1\fr. BLAIR. I will say with reference to the resolution that I 

should be glad if the committee would act soon, as there can be very 

slight expense incurred any way. The apparatus the Senate is familiar 

with, so tar as any description I can give of it is concerned, from a previous debate on the subject. It is now here in the Capitol on exhibition. Several Senators have examined it, and, as I am told, with con· siderable surprise at what appears to be its perfection and efficiency. 

I observe that it bas been examined, too, by gentlemen connected with 

the press. Recently there appeared in the New York Sun an editorial on the subject, calling special attention to it and saying it was a matter 

which ought to be investigated. The editor of the Sun, as I know, 

has given a great deal of attention to this subject personally. 

I have here matter from the press which I could give at considerable 

length to the Senate from actual investigation, but without troubling 

the Senate to go into that, I think it is a subject which, as it will require but very little time and probably scarcely any money, the Committee on Interstate Commerce, which seems to have jurisdiction collectively, should examine with some care. Mr. HALE. What does it cover? I did not hear the resolution. 

Mr. BLAIR. II; is a system of machine telegraphy. Does the Senator recollect the discussion upon the resolution I offered a short time 

ago with reference to the introduction of the ma-chine for the purpose 

of examination in the Capitol? 

Mr. HALE. No, I do not. I only make the inquiry which I put 

to the Senator, whether it covers anything that is proposed to be in· 

troduced he1·e in the Capitol. 

Mr. BLAIR. Oh, no; unless Congress sees fit to make some arrangement for its public use. Mr. HALE. That is all. 

Mr. BLAIR. It is claimed by the inventore or the improvers of the 

system-for it is no new svstem-tbat they are able to transmit words 

to the amoupt of two tbolisand worde at no greater cost in the actual 

transmission than the postage on a single letter. Hitherto the main 

difficulty attending the use of this system (which is a ma-chine system 

of telegraphy as compared with the hand system or the 1\lorse system) 

bas been in the preparation of the message. Improvements have been 

made so that the message itself is now prepared with great celerity and 

at very slight expense by machinery, somewhat after the fashion of the 

type-writer, and it is claimed, as I say, by Mr. Craig, who is here and 

is a reputable gentleman as I know (he was born in New HampshU:e, 

and I have known his family all my life), tha.ttbecost oftbetransnus· sion of two thousand words does not exceed the cost of the postage upon a single letter; and that the cost of telegraphy may be made for a.U 

business purposes almost as slight as that of ordinary correspondence, 

gaining the advantage of time. The New York Sun of Tuesday last 

says: 

We do not ourselves know what is the va,lue of the syetem of mechanical 

telegraphing which Mr. D. H. C!'jlig is now exhibiting in Washington; but of one thin~ we are certain, and this~ that it ou~ht to be inquired into by com· petent and disinterested experts. This much is due to Mr. Craig's long experi· ence and minute knowledge of the business of telegraphing. When such an investigation has taken place we shall know what the invention is worth. It 

promises great things. 

:Mr. HARRIS. I should like to ask the Senator from New Hamp· 

shire a question, if he will allow me? 

Mr. BLAIR.. Certainly. 

Mr. HARRIS. Is it his proposition that a Senate committee shall 

inveStigate the question of utility of some new patented invention? 

Mr. BLAIR. Yes. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is the obiect of. the resolution? 

Mr. BLAIR. I will state the object of the reaolution, for more ought 

to be stated. Mr. Cra:ip; has been engaged a long time in the effort to 

make these improvements which have now been made, and are claimed 

to be of very great value, so that telegraphy would be practically as 

cheap as ordinary correspondence through the post-office. His patents are assigned to nobody. He is an elderly gentleman and bas the idea, 

which may or may not be a wi-,e one, that here is something of very 

great value to the people, and before it is owned by a private corpora· 

tion OJ: by individuals he would· be glad if Congress would examine 

the subject, with a view, if it considered it worth while, to make this, 

what he claims to be a great invention and improvement, available to 

the people in something of the way that postal telegraphy has been pro• 

posed hitherto. 

It seemed to me that before there were .embarrassments attending 

the ownership of these patents, as long as it is attended with no ex- pense, it would be well for Congress to investigate the subject. The 

great difficulty we have, aa everybody knows, in making available to 

the people at large this great utility in the conveyance of intelligence 

is the fact that here is a gigantic monopoly owning every telegraphic 

invention, owning every telegraphic wire and line, and having by contra-cts practically a. mortgage of the existing system for _the conveyance 

of intelligence by telegraph for all time to come, unless Congress or the country sees fit to bny them out at an extravagant val nation. It 

this be what is claimed for it by responsible parties who have exam· ined it, there is an opportunity--

MI. SHERMAN. Mr. President, is this in order? · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not. 

Mr. BLAIR. There is an opportunity to introduce a system which 

will supplant the other at comparatively a. very slight expense, and the 

people can have it. I do not know whether there is anything in it or not, but I ask that the resolution be considered and early reported by 

the Committee on Contingent Expenses. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The resolution has been referr~d to 

tbe Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the 

Senate. 

E~ROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by 1\fr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; and they were thereupon signed 

by the President pro tempm·e: · 

.A. bill (H. R. 1661) for the· erection of an appraisers' warehouse in 

the city of New York, and for other purposes; 

A bill (H. R. 5516) for the relief of John H. Weeks; and 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 201) to correct an error in the act mak• 

ing an appropriation for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal 

year ending June 30, 1889, and for other purposes. 
8090 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

FISHING RIG1ITS OF THE UNITED STATES. message in reference to retaliation. Why, sir, when the message was 

Mr. SHERUAN. If the morning business is through, I desire to sent in the usual courtesy allowed executive· communications of being 

submit a motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the read was not extended to this paper. Senators desiring to have an op- President's message in relation to the fishing rights ol the United portnnity to make criticism upon it adjourned the Senate, and after a States. night's sleepless anxiety and a night's examination they came in the 

1\lr. PLUMB. 1\lr. President-- next morning full .of criticism and full of denuncin.tion, not onJy of the 

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senatorfrom Mississippi [:1\fr. GEORGE] has terms of the message, bu.t, it seems to me, of .the very fact that the 

the floor on the message; but if he will yield to the Senator from Kan- President saw proper to send a message at all. 

sas, I have no objection. Early in February the Pre itlent concluded a treaty of peace-not.of 

. Mr. PLUUB. I designed this morning to move that the Senate peace exactly, but of settlement of difficulties intended to pre erve 

proceed-to the consideration of the fortiftcation appropriation bill be- peace and good neighborhood with the British colonies in reference to 

cause of the fact that the disposition of it is very important at this theEe fisheries. .A.fier many ups and don-n , after many turn and 

time on account of the lapse of approprb.tions for .Army purposes, which chang . after Yotes one way-and then votes another way, after a great 

occurs on. the ln.st day of this ·month unless some previous disposition deal of deliberation, after a great deal of consultation, it was finally 

is made of the question. determined, as we all know, that contrary to the universal precedents 

The PRESIDENT pro tem,pore. The ChaiT understands that under upon that subject, contrary to the practice of this Government for a 

the usage of the Senate the Senator from Kansas has a right to move hundred years, it was finally determined that this treaty was to be 

the consideration of the appropriation bill. It is practically a question made the suhject of n parti~an debate in open session. 

of privilege. It was debated for weeks. In that debate charges were made agninst 

Mr. SHER~fA.N. I think the ~nator from Kansas had better let the .A.dminish·ation that.ithad failed to discharge its duty to the country 

the Senator from Mississippi first conclude his speech. in the negotiation of the treaty. Wrongs, outrageous wrongs, alleged 

1\Ir. PLUMB. I was only going to make an inquiry. Of course I to have been perpetrated by the Canadian authorities upon our inner 

do not want to cut off the Senator from Mississippi, and I wish to sub- cent and unoft'ending fishermen were debated and dwelt upon with the 

..mit myself to his convenience ::18 much_ as possible, b"Qt this is a m...'ltter fervid eloquence of men who seemed to be in earnest, who seemed to be 

which ought to be disposed of to-d::~.y, at all events, whether now or a anxious to have one more opportunity of punishin~ the insolence, the 

<'Onple of hours later perhaps is not material, and I wished to inquire pride, and the injustice of Great Britain. Those of us who favored the 

how much time the Senator from Mississippi desires to occupy. rati1ication of the treaty did not deny these wrongs. We admitted ·Mr. GEORGE. I do not think I shall consume over an hour. that wrongs had been perpetrated; we admitted that they ought to be 

Mr. PLUMB. Then I shall not move the consideration of the appro- corrected; but we contended that that correction ought to be made by 

priation bill until the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from negoti11tion and not by retaliation which might lead to war. We were Mississippi. defeated by a solid vote; without a single exception on the other side 

The PRESIDENT pro tem,pore. The Senator from Ohio moves that of the Chamber. The treaty was rejected, and that, too, under cirthe Senate proceed to the consideration of the President's message of cumstances which meant that no treaty which might be negotiated by August 23. the present Administration upon these questions would be rati1ied. 

The. motion was agreed to. It wns proclaimed, it was annonncedso1ernnJy by that great commitThe PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The President's message is" before tee charged with advising us as to our foreign relations, that the time 

the Senate, and the Senator from ~fississippi [Mr. GEORGE] is entitled for negotiation had passed. That sen tim en twas reiterated in this body, 

to the floor. _ · and atlast, whenthedebatewasover, when upon a most essential point 

Mr. GEORGE. ' Mr. President, the debate on the pending proposition of the treaty, about the mea1,1ing of which there had been debate, a 

has taken so wide a ran~e that I am inclined to participate in it. Re- proposition wa.~ made by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. GRA.Y] toreferring to the statement made yesterday evening by the Senator from move that doubt and to make certain the reading of the treaty so as t o Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], in which he predicted very great financial make it confer upon the American fi hermen most valuable and imtroubles to this country coming from the alleged excess of imports over portant rights, that amendment was voted down strictly by a party vote. 

exports, I desire to say there is an ambigoityin that statement, so that So that when the President received notice of the rejection of the treaty 

we are apt to treat it as if it meant that the Government of the United he had a right to say, as he did say in his message, about which I ani 

States was, as a corporate body, as a business institution of itself, now speaking and which I will read for the purpose of putting it on 

making exportations and importations. The fact is, Ur. President, the record here: 

that all these exports and all these imports are the result of the actions The co-operation necess ry for the adjustment of the long standing national 

f · t · d" "d 1s d · th · · te b · · differences with which we have to deal, by methods of conference and agree- 0 pnva em lVl: na engage m eu pnva usrness. ment, having thus been declined, I am by no means disposed to abandon the 

Therefore, ·when we say importations are made by the United States interests and the 1·ights of our people in the premises or to neglect their griev- we state an error. They are made by various persons engaged m com- ances. 

merce in or with the United States, who, in pursuing their private That was the position which the action of the Senate put the P~esibusiness and endeavoring to build up their own fortunes, make im- dent in. We in effect said, "We will notify you that we will not 

portations according to their own judgment, each man for himself, as negotiate." The President and every member on this side of the 

to whether it will benefit him or not; and on the other hand, the ex- Chamber who supported his policy acknowledged and felt that great 

portation_s from the United States are solely sent from the United States wrong had been perpetmted upon American citizens. That is the way 

by private persons engaged in commerce, who in exporting these goods matters stood upon the rejection of the treaty. Every member of thi.'3 

deem that they. will benefit themselves by selling them in a foreign Senate: the President and the Secretary of State all acknowiedgine;, all 

market. avowing that great wrongs had been perpetrated and were likely to 

So that this comparison of importations to and exportations from this continue to be perpetrated as things now stand, the Senate refused 

country is a mere criticism on the part of the Senator from Ohio upon absolutely to co-operate in providing a modtts vivendi by treaty. Then 

the business-methods of private individuals, some in the United States what was the President to do? If the Senate had rejected tne treaty 

and others in foreign countries, over which we have no power and no upon the ground thattherewasnonecessityforatreaty, that no wrongs 

control. Certainly it would astonish any American statesman if it was were complained of, that all was easy and quiet and nice, everything 

proposed that by direct action of the Government the private individ- running smoothly between the American people and the people of Canna! enterprise and business of our citizens and of foreigners trading ada, then he might have concluded that he had been mistaken about 

with us should be supervised, managed, and controlled. all this, that it was best to sit down and do nothing. But that was Now, M.r. Presidentr what constitutes the financial welfare of this not the notice we served on him. We served on him notice that we · 

country is about thi8: It is the financial welfare of each individual had wrongs, grievous wrongs which needed a remedy, but that we would 

citizen·of this country. He manages his own business. If Mr . .A., in not negotiate for this remedy. We notified him that we deemed any 

New York, imports more into this country than he can pay for, it does treaty which he could make would be insufficient for the purpose of 

not interfere with the prosperity or the financial condition of Mr. B, redress. We would not even consider an amendment to such a treaty. 

in Mississippi, who takes care not to buy any more than he can pay We served notice on him that the time for negotiation had passed, and 

for. So that this scarecrow of excess of importation over exporta- referring to the act of 1887 we notified him that the policy for the 

tion amounts to nothing more than a. criticism by Senators upon the future was to be retaliation. 

private business transactions of individuals, over which Congress have That is the way the President had a right to interpret our rejection 

no control: of the treaty. Now, sir, what was the Pre~ident to do? Looking at 

Mr. President, all UBi on hns also been made in this debate to various the act of 1887 as to the means of retaliation, he found, as I will show 

other topic which are now engaging the public mind. We have b:u:l that the means were insufficient both to accomplish our purposes and 

criticisms of the civil-service policy of the Administration, and then we insufficient as to the grounds upon which retaliation could be made. 

have had that ever-fruitful, and it see~ever-recuning topic of debate, It is supposed sometimes, Mr. President, that the act of 1887 author- th~ fis_herie~ and the rejected treaty. Th~y have also been lugged mto ized the President to make retaliation for any wrong done by any of 

thls' dlScnsSJ o~, and upon them, Mr. President, I desire now to submit the Canadian authorities to us. That is not true. It is supposed that some observations. · his means of retaliation are unlimited. That is not true either. 

It ~ee!US to me that complnint and criticism, n ot to say unjmt de- l Before I go into that, however, I desire to call attention to one o f n unc1ation, have been made against the President for sending in his the serious objections that have been ma':le to the rejected treaty, mado 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8091 

in the very debate occurring on the morning afteT the President sent 

in his message. I did not hear in that debate, participated in by the 

ablest Senators on this fioor, any criticism as towhatwas in the treaty 

itself. The complaint was as to things that were not in the treaty. It 

was eaid that this treaty ought to have been rejected because it did not 

contain enough, because it did not settle all the disputes and difficulties existing between this country and Great Britain. 

That is the burden of the complaint made by all the speakers, and 

by the Senator from Maine [M"r.HALE] especially. The Senator from 

Maine called especial aUention to the fact that months ago he had 

called the attention of the Sena~e to an omission in the treaty in relation to our complaints in reference to the Canafuns charaing us higher 

tolls than we were charging them, one of the topics embraced in the 

me3sage. That was the great ground of his complaint. Did the Senator from .Maine know th~t in the very matter in which he ma.de the 

complaint of omission it was beyond the power of being settled by negotiation? We already had a treaty upon that subject which was. not 

violated by Great Britain, and which was as strong as the constitution 

of the British Empire could give us. I m.a,ke the distinct statement 

that it was not within the power of the British Government to give us 

more secu-rity, more guaranties, better provisions in relation .to the 

tolls than we already bad. We will see what they were. 

In the twenty-seventh article of the treaty of 1871 we find this provision: · 

The Government of Her Britannic Majesty engagesTo do what? That our vessels should have equal privileges on the 

canals of Canada? No; Great Britain had no power to make such a treaty. By the local autonomy and constitution of the Dominion Government that was a power existing exclusively in the Dominion of 

Canada. Here was the engagement that was made by the negotiators 

and accepted by Uf): · 

The Government of Her Britannic Majesty engages to urge- • 

"Engages to urge"-

upon the Government of the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens of 

the United States the u e of the Weiland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the 

Dominion on terms of e<t_unlity with the inhabitants of the Dominion. 

That is what they engaged to do, and the British Government performed that engagement. I have heard no complaint against the British 

Government for its failure to urge as it agreed to do. Now let us see 

what we engaged to do on that subject: 

And the Government of the United States engages that the !!objects of Her BritannicMajestyshallenjo the u eoftheSt. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equal- ity with the inhabitants of the United States. 

We, the United States, own that particular canal, and we accepted 

from the British Government an engagement to urge upon the Dominion 

of Canada that they should allow us equal privileges on their canals 

as a consideration for our promise to give them equal rights and priv- ileges on our canaL 

But there were other canals to which the Government of the United 

States stood in the same relation that the British Government did to the 

Wel)and and other canals, and therefore we made a further stipulation. 

Aml further engagesThe United Siates further engages...:...... 

to urge upon the State governments to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic 

:Majesty the use of the several State canals connected with the navigation of the 

lake or rivers traversed by or contiguous to the- boundary line between the pos essions of the high contracting parties on terms of equality with tlle inhabitants of the. United States. 

· So here was a treaty in the twenty-seventh article of which the high 

contracting parties acknowledge that they have no power with reference 

to certain canals. The British Government only engages to urge upon 

the Dominion of Canada to grant us certain rights and we, having one 

canal, granted them free rights on that and engaged to urge upon the 

States of this Union to grant the British subjects equal privileges on 

the others. That is the way this thing stood on that point. There has 

not been a single complaint made that Great Britain did not comply 

faithfully with her treaty engagements to urge, and that was all it was 

bound to do. We knew that; that was the way we made the bargain. 

Ill the thirtieth article we took pains to secure redress in case the Dominion of Canada did not accede to this UJ:gent request of the BrWsh 

GGvernment. Let us see what that was. There were various rio-hts 

granted in the thirtieth article to which I shall allude before l' get 

throu"'h, but at the conclusion of that article there is the following 

stipulation: · 

The Govenunent of the United St~s may suspend the right of carryin<>-

granted in fowor of the snbjects of Her Brit-annic Majesty under this article i~ case the Dominion of Canada. should at any time deprive the c itizens of the 

United States of Lheuse of the canals in tile sai<l Dominion on terms of equality 

with the in.ha.bitants of the Dominion, as provided in Article XXVII. 

We made that bargain with England with our eyes open, the treaty 

containing a stipulation not that we should haveeq~'l.lity on Dominion. 

canals, but that Great Britain should urge upon the Dominion of 

Canada to grant us those pri-vileges, and iu case the urgency of Great 

Britain should prove unavailing we re...~rved to ourselves in the thirtieth 

article of the ~reaty the means of redress as I have read them. 

Mr. President, we have no diplomatic arrangements with Canada; 

we send no minister there; she sends none here. Great Britain is the 

_treating party. What we get in the way of treaty right in relation to 

Canada. we get from Great Britain, and. we got a promise to urge, about 

which we make no complaint. · 

But whilst we can not complain of Great Britain for a breach of 

Article XXVTI, as we grant equal tolls and equal privileges to theCanadian vessels if they refuse the right which Great Britain wished us to 

have, we have a right to retaliate on Canada. So that it would have 

been the utmost folly for further negotiations to have been carried on 

between the Government of the United States and Great Britain with 

reference to these tollB. We already had a treaty on that subject as 

strong and as binding as Great Britain could make it, and the engagement bad been performed by Great Brit.ain. The trouble was that Canada had not performed it. So there was no necessity, as is urged by 

the Senator from Maine, to have put this m..'l.tteroffree tolls and equality in the canals in the treaty which we have rejected. We could ha\e 

got but a repetition of the promise which we already had. 

But there are \arions other questions complained of as not having 

been embraced in the treaty. The Senator from Ohio [Mr..SHEIDIAN] 

said a. great deal about that and so did other Senators, as if it was in 

American politics a just ground for the rejection of a treaty that it did 

not contain a settlement of questions which are not embraced in it. 

There have been twenty-seven tren.ties made between the United States 

and Great Britain, and every single one of them except one left important questions and disputes between the two governments unsettled. 

Some of them expressly left them unsettled, other merely omitted 

them. I make the statement without qualification that up to therecent treaty, of the twenty-seven treaties made and ratified between 

Great Britain and the United Sta,tes it never has been urged as a ground 

of obj ection to the ratification of any treaty that it did not embrace 

questions not in the treaty. I propose to review every treaty ever 

made between the United States and Great Britain and prove this as- sertion to be true. 

First, there was our treaty of independence, the first treaty we ever 

made with Great Britain. It was made in 1783 and left all commercial 

matters unsettled between the United States and Great Britain-every 

one of them- and by the law of nations there was no right except by a 

treaty for one of our vessels to enter a British port. Everything was 

left unsettled, although our commissioners were authorized to conclude 

a commercial treaty as well as a treaty of peace. Yet such men as 

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and .John Jay, who were of the commissioners, concluded the treaty of 1783 without a single word in it 

upon our <;ommercial relations. · 

The next treaty was made under Washington in 1794. In that 

treaty the commissioners did undertake to settle some of our commercial relations with Great Britain. Let us see how many they left out. 

The treaty expressly stipulated in Article XII, that the parties would 

make new negotiations about the following matters, leaving them all 

unsettled by that treaty: first, about neutral vessels, covering enemies' 

property, whether they were to be protected or not in war; and next, 

about what was contraband. That was in .Article XII. In Article 

XV there was a stipulation that they were to treat further about the 

more exact equalization of duties as respected their mutual navigation. 

In Article XXVIII they also agreed to negotiate further, generally, 

without mentioning the subjects-matter. 

That was a treaty made by Washington. It was not urged ~aainst 

the ratification of that treaty that there were these four distinct matters about which thera was dispute between Great Britain and the 

United States which were not settled. Butthetreatywas ratified, the 

idea being as it always has been in this country and in all other civilized countries when a. treaty is made to get all the good possible out of 

it, settle a.ll 'the questions of dispute that can be settled, and leave the 

rest for future negotiation. 

_In 1~96, in 1~ than two years after the treaty of 1794, Washington 

still bemg Pres1dent, a treaty was made leaving all these questions still un. ettled-it merely explaining a provision of the treaty of 1794. 

In 1798 another treaty was made explaining the fifth article of the 

treaty of 1794, leaving all the questions which I have enumerated unsettled, unmentioned , liable to arise at any time to disturb the I>eace 

and harmony of the two countries. 

In 1802 Thomas .T efferson negotiated a treaty with England, and that wru: confined merely to explanations of the treaty of 1794, annulling one article of it a.nd confirming another, leavin~ all the questions to which 

I have alluded still unsettled, the questions of commerce, contraband, equalization of clutie etc. 

• The next treaty was in 1 14. We bad war. The warwasended by 

this treaty. Our negotiators were Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, Albert Gallatin, John_Quincy Adams, and .J. A. Hayard-fiveotthemost 

distinguished American statesmen. 

Tbe.v left out of that treaty everything a. bout commerce. The commercial treaty of 1794. had been_ abrogated by the war. The visitation of our ships and the impressment of our seamen by the British, 

·which were the very causes for which we went to war were wholly 

uuuot_iced by the treaty. The navigation of the Mississippi was discussed between the corr..missioners· and omitted from the treaty. 'l'he 
8092 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SEN.A.TE. AUGUST 30~ 

fisheries were discussed between the commissjoners and omitted from 

the treaty. · Then there was left unsettled one of the root momentous 

qu,e tions that ever entered into a negotiation as to the effect of the war on all former treaties, England contending that it abolished all 

former treaties and the United States contending that it did not. That 

question was left unsettled. 

Now, we come to 1815, the very next year. In six months after the 

treaty of 1814 we had another treaty. It was a treaty of commerce. It left out by express stipulation all regulations about commerce between the United States and the British possessions north of us and 

the West Indies. AJl those disturbing questions were thus shoved out 

of the treaty. The commissioners said, "We can not agree about these 

things, and they shall be left uut. '' 

That was in 1815. Madison was President then. John Quincy 

Adams, Henry Clay, and .!..lbert Gallatin were the commissioners on the part of the United States. · 

In 1817 we had another treaty with Great Britain, when the :fishery 

questionwasup4t angrydispute, and therightofimpressmentwas still 

in dispute and th'e commercial relations between the United States and 

the British provinces north of us and the West Indies were all unset- tled. That treaty related solely to the naval forces to be placed by 

each party on the Great Lakes-on Ontario, Erie, etc. 

That treaty was negotiated by Mr. Rush, one of the most eminent 

American diplomatists. .Mr. Monroe was President, and John Quincy 

Adams was Secretary of State. 

In 1818 we made the fisheries treaty about which we have had so much trouble. Let us see how much it settled. It treated of the fish- eries, the northern boundary of the United States, and claims of the 

United States for the payment of slaves, and left out everything else. 

It expressly left ior future negotiations the settlement of the Oregon "dispute. Gallatin and Rush were the negotiators there, and John 

Quincy Adams was Secretary of State. 

In four years from that time another treaty wae made with Great 

Britain, and it related solely to the carrying out of the arbitration of 

the Emperor of Russia about the payment for slaves which bad been 

captured by the British during the war of 1812. There was a disput e then between the United States and Great Britain as to the fisheries, 

for in 1819 the British Parliament bad passed an act which asserted 

the British construction of the treaty of 1818 as to bays. John Quincy 

Adams was Secretary of State, and .Monroe was President. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to have the Senator state to what act 

he refers. 

Mr. GEORGE. I refer to the act of the British Parliament in 1819. 

Mr. TELLER. Concerning what? 

1\Ir. GEORG E. Concerning the jurisdiction of England over the bays 

in the British dominions. 

Mr. TELLER. Claiming their construction of the treaty of1818? 

Mr. GEORGE. Asserting their jurisdiction over those bays. 

.:Mr. TELLER. Who ever denied their jurisdiction? 

Mr. GEORGE. It has been denied all along, !thought. If you give 

up the jurisdictional question. over the bays yon give up the whole 

thing. 

Mr. TELLER. They had jurisdiction over the bays subject to our rjghts. That was all they asserted. 

1\Ir. GEORG E. The question was w betber the rights were conceded 

in those bays. And if they were British bays it was all along conceded 

that they were not admitted by us to be British bays. I shall not go 

into that question now, it has been argued over and over again. 

In 1826 there was another treaty. The fisheries question as to the 

construction of the treaty of 1818 was still-nnsettled. The treaty of 

1826 related solely to the award of the Emperor of Rnssia.abouts!aves. 

There was no commercial treaty up to that time between us and Great 

Britain, so far as relates to the Dominion of Canada. 

In 1827 we bad another treaty. That was about Oregon and nothing else, the treaty expressly stating that other questions were left for 

future adjustment. 

There were three treaties in the year 1827. I have called your attention totbefirsttreaty. Now I willcallyotirattention to the second 

treaty. It continued in force for ten years longer the treaty of 1815, 

and that is all it did, leaving unsettled all the questions I have spe_cified. AJbert Gallatin was the commissioner who negotiated that treaty; 

John Quincy Adams was Presidentoftbe United States and Mr. Clay 

was Secretary of State. 

The third· treaty in the year 1827 between Great Britain and the 

United States related solely to the northeastern boundary; everything 

else was left out. • 

General Jackson does not seem to ha•e made any treaties with Eng-

. land; neither did .Mr. Van Buren; but whoever bas paid any attention 

to the debate on the treaty will remember that in 1836 the Government 

of Nova Scotia passed some very rigid statutes about these fisheries and 

enforced them with great rigor. There was a lieutenant of the Navy 

sent by us up there to see about this, and there was correspondence between Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Stevenson, and an attempt was made to 

settle the difficulty. That occurred from 1836 up to 1842, when we were in this state of trouble and ~rassment in refe-rence tothetreatyrights. 

We bad a treaty with Great Britain in 1842, negotiated by Daniel 

Webster. That treaty related to the northeastern boundary. to the 

extraditjon of criminals, to the navigation ofth,e St. John's Ri>er, the 

Detroit River, the St. Lawrence River, and the slave trane, taldng in a pretty broad field of diplomatic action. Yet with all that dispute, 

because it had grown up then and become flagrant between England 

and the United States in reference to the Canadian fisheries and our fishing rights and the meaning of the treaty of 1818, not one word was said on that subject in the treaty of 1842. No American statesman, no 'member of the United States Senate, got up a!ld opposed the ratification 

orthat treaty because it did not settle the burning questions then ex- isting between the two countries. , It was ratilied. 'l bat was under 

President Tyler, with Mr. Webster as·the Secretary of State and the 

negotiator. Mr. Webster negotiated the treaty himself with Lord Ash- burton, who was here at the time. In 1846 we had another treaty, and that settled the boundary of 

Ore(Ton. All this trouble about the :fisheries was then flagrant. The 

British batl seized the Washington out many milee froru the shore in 

the Bay of Fundy. They were pressing to the extremest extent their 

view that we bad no commercial rights. Nobody objected to that 

treaty. They did not have any debate in open session. There was no Presidential election on band. There was nothing to be made by 

badgering the British lion. There was n,othing to be made by exciting . the pr~judices and the animosities of any portion of our people against 

England. Yet with all these burning questions then existing not one word was said about them. 

In 1846 M:r. Polk was President. The treaty of that year settled 

the boundary of Oregon and left out the fisheries and all the co_mmer- cial arrangements with Canada, about which the country bad been in a fever of excitement for ten ye:us, at least from the year 1&36. That treaty was negotiated by Mr. Buchanan under 1\fr. Polk. For 

fear that myo friends upon the other side will not re;!ard that as the 

best authority, I will state that Daniel Webster was a member of the 

Senate, and that he and every single Northern Whig in the Senate, 

and every single Southern Whig voted for the ratification of the treaty. 

They did not get up here rrnd say "We will not have tll:k! matter settled becau e we can not have everything settled." They followed the 

rule of American diplomatists, to get all they .can fairly settled, to get a treaty right wherever they can and leave the rest for the future. 

Now we come.to 1850, when we had another treaty with Great Brit· 

ain. Things were pretty hot about the fishery matters in 1850. I desire to call the attention of the Senator from Delaware [Air. GRAY] to 

my statement. I think about 1850 there was a great debate in the 

Senate of the United States on the subject. 

Mr. GRAY. That was in 1852. 

Mr. GEORGE. Still things were bot a.bout the fisheries. Then we had the Clayton-Bulwer tre..'lty, with the fisheries, commerce, navigation, aud relations with Canada all left out, no attempt having been 

made to settle anything but one single question. General Taylor was 

President and John M. Clayton, of Delaware, was Secretary of State 

and negotiated the tJ:eaty. 

Then in 1853 we bad a treaty for the settlement of claims. Both 

Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Pierce are responsible for that treaty, because it was concluded under Mr. Fillmore February 8, 1853, and was ratified 

under Mr. Pierce March 17, 1853. J. R. Ingersoll was the negotiator; 

W. L. Marcy was the Secretary of State when the treaty was ratified. 

Yet no .American Senator got up and said, as is proclaimed here: ''We 

shall not yote for that treaty because there are outstanding disputes 

between Great Britain and the United States which are not settled." 

In 1854 we had another treaty. That was the reciprocity treaty 

with Canada, and it settled nothing else. 

In the same year we bad another treaty-two treati63 in the same year-merely extending the duration of a commission which had been 

provided for by a former treaty. 

Now we come down a good long step. The next treaty was July2, 

1862, Mr. Lincoln being President and Mr. Seward Secretary of State. 

There wereseveral bnrningquestionsin1862 between the United States 

and Great Britain. There was the question of the 'recognition of the 

belligerent rights of the Southern States, and there were other questions; and yet that was a treaty confined solely to the suppression of the 

African slave-trade. 

Then in 1863 we bad another treaty, Mr. Lincoln being President. 

All these burning questi9ns about belligerent rights and privateers and 

Alabamas and Floridas and all that sort of thing were ignored, and the 

treaty merely added another article to the slave-trade treaty of 1 62. There was another treaty with Great Britain in 1863, with Ur. Lincoln President. That treaty related to claims; and as the two countries were settling the claims of the citizens of Great Britain against 

the United States there was the chance to have brought in the Alabama 

and privateering claims, but not a word was said about them. That 

treaty settled the claims of the Hudson Bay and Pnget Sound Agricult4 

nral Companies against the United States, and nothing else. The 

treaty was ratified by the Senate January 18, 1864, almost at the end 

of the war, after the battle of Gettys burgh, after it was seen by everybody that the life of the Confederate States was to be but a short one. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE. 8093 

Yet no American Senator, much less a majority of this body,_ got up 

and denounced that treaty because it did not settle all the claims and 

all the questions existi11g between the United States and Great Britain. 

There were no treaties under Andrew .T ohnson. 

We come now to 1870. The war was over. General Grant was President of the United States. Mr. Fish was Secretary of State. Then the 

Alabama claims and all the privateering business were flush and fresh. 

What was done in 1870? As the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] 

says, there were then a great many fishery troubles, and I shall show 

that also from President Grant's message. 

In December, 1870, General Grant sent a mes.~age to the Congress of 

tbe United States, in which the wrongs of the fishermen were pressed 

with great vigor. Yet, on May 13, 1870, there was a treaty of naturalization. That was all. There was not a word about fisheries, not a 

word about the Alabama claims, not a word about any of the disputes 

-which then existed, and there were many, between the United States 

and Great Britain. 

J nne 3, 1870, General Grant made another treaty with Great Britain, 

and that related to the African slave trade alone. Nothing was said 

about all these burning questions. 

We are getting on right close to the great reciprocity treaty of 1871. 

l\Iay 5, 1871, General Grant proclaimed _another treaty of 1871, about 

naturalization. Mr. Fish was the Secretary of State and the negotiator. Nothing was said about the Alabama claims, or about any other 

troubles that we had with that country. 

July 4, 1871, came the only treaty ever made between the United 

States and Great Britain which professed on its face to settle all the 

questions betV'teen the United States and that country. It has given 

rise to more questions than were settled by it. That was the treaty 

for the settlement of the Alabama claims, the fisheries, and reciprocity, 

and all that sort of thing for a period of years. 

Yet with all these twenty-seven treaties, every one of them, except 

one, partial, leaving out important questions unsettled, some of them 

expressly stating that the parties would negotiate further as to unsettled questions, not a single American Senator or American statesman ever objected to one of them because it did not settle all. It was re- served for the year 1888, pending a Presidential .election, for an American Senate in open session, in violation of the precedents of the body, 

to make that objection to the ratification of a treaty for the first time 

in the history of the counti·y. 

Mr. GRAY. Would the Senator from Mississippi object to an interruption? · . 

1\Ir. GEORGE. No, sir; I will yield to the Senator. 

Mr. GRAY. I call the Senator's attention to the fact, in the line of 

the argument he is making, that between the years 1869 and the ratification of the treaty of Washington in 1871 there were more seizures and 

forfeitures of American fishing vessels than occurred between the abrogation of that treaty in 1885 and the negotiation of the treaty which 

has' just been rejected by the Senate. The Senator can confirm my 

statement, as he is on that subject now. I believe that in the treaty of 

1871 no provision at all was made looking towards the settlement of 

the damages claimed by the fishermen whose vessels had been seized 

and forfeited. 

M:r. GEORGE. T·he treaty of 1871 does not contain a single provision on that subject, unless I have overlooked it. Unless I am cor- rected by some Senator on the other side or on this side who is more familiar with it than I am, I will repeat the statement made by the 

Senator 'from Delaware, that there is not a single provision in the treaty 

of 1871 for what we call indemnity for past wrongs. All look to the 

future. 

Now, 1\Ir. President, I think that disposes of that subject. Remember what I stated in the former part of my remarks, that the question which the President names in his message as a subject of retaliation, that is, as to the tolls, is not a matter which can be settled by 

negotiation with Great Britain any better than has been done already. 

All that Great Britain can do in reference to it is to engage to urge 

upon Canada t{) grant this equality, as the United States on their part 

engage to urge upon the States of the Union to grant equality to 

Canadian vessels on their canals. 

So, you see, 1\-Ir. President, how hollow, how utterly without foundation is that objection to the treaty, and how vain it is to claim that the 

President erred when he brought that matter before the Senate in his 

message asking additional powers for retaliation. The case stood ex- actly this way when the President sent in his message! "We can not 

settle this wrong by negotiation. We have already a treaty upon that 

subject. We have no cause of complaint against Great Britain, the 

party to that treaty, for any failure on her part. She has made the 

recommendation to Canada, and the fault is with a party we can not 

reach by negotiation. There are and can be no diplomatic arrangements or communications between Canada, a dependent of the British 

Empire, and the United States, any more than there can be between 

the State of Mary land and Great Britain." 

The treaty failed. Notice was served on the President that we would 

not negotiate; that we would not co-operate with the executive department. Here were the wrongs, wrongs about the fisheries and wronas 

about the canals. The President necessarily turned to retaliation, 

the only thing left us. As to treaties, you may carve out your questions and settle them 

year by year or treaty by treaty, but it is an unheard-of thing when 

you commence to retaliate that you leave a part of your wrongs which 

demand retaliation for a second act of retaliation. Retaliation is not 

done by piecemeal. Retaliation is quasi war-initiative, leading to war. Would it not be a most unheard-of thing for a nation to go to war with another with a list of grievances and select out four or five 

of those and go to war upon them? So, when you come to re~'lliate 

there is a difference between that and negotiation. Retaliation is the 

act of one party; negotiation is the act of two. You must have the 

consent of two to make a treaty, but when you come to retaliate it is 

the act of one. Retaliation is the act of the injured party or the party 

supposing itself to be injured, and of course if there is to be retaliation 

it ought to cover all the wrongs complained of between the two coun- tries; and it ought also to be thorough, adequate, and efficient. 

That brings ine to the next question, and that is whether the a.ctof 

1887 is a sufficient retaliatory act. I say it is not. I say, first, that it 

does not cover all the grounds we have for retaliation; that is, there are wrongs committed by the Canadians against us for which the President can not put the act of 1887 in force. One of those wrongs is the 

very one mentioned by the President of the United States in his mes- sage, the inequalitytOf tolls in the Canadian canals. Now, let us see 

what the act of 1887 is. It providesThat whenever the President of the United States shall be satisfied that 

American fishing vessels Ol' American fishermen visiting, etc. 

Of course this question does not come under any clause of the act of 

1887, which relates to American fishing vessels or American fishermen, 

because it is a question of tolls on commercial vessels, on the Weiland 

and other canals, hundreds of miles from any fishing station or grounds. 

Now we go to another clause of the act of 1887. Here is a clause 

that refers to all American fishing vessels. Le~ us see what it is: 

Or whenever the President of the United States shall be satisfied that any other vessels of the United StatesThat embraces alltheir masters or crews, so arriving at or being in such British waters or ports or places of the British dominions of North America, are or then lately have 

been deniedWhat? Anytreaty rights? Noany of the privileges the-reinThat is, in such portaccorded to the vessels, their masters or crews, of the most favored nation. 

We can not make out a case for retaliation in that unless we can show what does not exist, that other nations have superior rights to us in those canals, and that is not complained of. The complaint is that we have not the same rights there that the Canadians ha>e. 

So under the act there is no place to put in operation the retaliation 

authorized by it upon a failure of the Canadian GovernmE:nt to carry 

out the recommendation of the British Government made in the treaty 

of 1871 to give our vessels equality with the Canadian vessels as to 

tolls in the Dominion canals. 

Therefore, if we want to retaliate about this unjust discrimination a.~ 

between the Canadian vessels and our own in tolls, we must have an additional act of Congress. That is not one of the cases, it is not a casus talionis mentioned in the act of 1887, under which and by which 

the President can put that act into operation; nor when it is put into 

operation can he continue it until redress is had in reference to that 

matter. So the President's messa,ge contained a recommendation 

which must be adopted by Congress or we must abandon the claim o! our vessels to equal tolls in the Dominion canals. 

l\Ir. FRYE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mississippi 

yield to the Senator from Maine? 

l\Ir. GEORGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRYE. Does the Senator know of any reason why Canadian 

vessels can not be kept out of the SanltSte . .Made Canal, or why a toll can not be levied on all Canadian vessels that do pass through the Sault 

Ste. Marie Canal? 

Mr. GEORGE. Is that the St. Clair Flats Canal? 

Mr. FRYE. No, sir; it is the big canal which is probably used as much as any other by the Canadians in the United States. 

Mr. GEORGE. That canal is not mentioned in the treaty of 1871? 

1tlr. FRYE. It is not. 

1\Ir. GEORGE. It is in the United States? 

Mr. FRYE. It is in the United States. 

Mr. GEORGE. It was built since 1871? 

Mr. FRYE. It is one of the most important canals there are in the 

world, I suppose. 

1\Ir. GEORG E. If there is no law of Congress which gives Canadian 

vessels privileges, they must depend for their right in that canal only 

on the treaty. There is no reason why there should not be a treaty, 

but there may be acts of Congress to which my attention bas not been 

called. 

Mr. FRYE. There are no acts of Congress. 
8094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

Mr. GEORGE. If there iRno act of Congress, I will tum to the treaty 

of1871. 

Mr. FRYE. No; it is not mentioned in the treaty. That is why I 

asked the Senator the question. When he says the President can not 

retaliate in any way I ask the question whether there is anything in 

law or .treaty to prevent our levying a toll or stopping entirely the 

Canadians from going through the Sault Ste. Marie Canal? 

J',!r. GEORGE. That is just one canal, but then therea.re the others 

they could go through. A little partial retaliation amounts to nothing. If you have retaliation let us have it adequate and efficient. 

:Mr. FRYE. I should like to ask the Senator another question. 

ThePRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mississippi 

yield? 

Mi. GEORGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRYE. I ask the Senator if be knows that there has been a bill 

for retaliation on this very subject pending before the Committee on 

Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the House of Representativea for the 

last two or three months? 

Mr. GEORGE. . I do not know it, but it shows that the subject requires legislation. Becll.use there is a bill pending in the House of 

Representatives and not pa&ed and not acted upon, that is no reason 

why the President should not ask the Congress of the United States to 

pass an-act on ~at subject. On the contrary, instead of being a reason 

for his not doing it the negligence of the House s;n that subject is a 

sufficient reason, and the greater negligence of the Senate too, because 

we have not even gone so fitr as to introduce the bill. That is a _good 

reason why the Presidentshoulcl call our attention to it and urge action. 

::M.r. FRYE. I should like to ask the Senator another question. 

Whether he is aware that Sir John MacDonald--

Mr. GEORGE. Oh, I do not know anything about Sir John MacDonald. Please let me off on ir J obn. 

Mr. FRYE. He is the bead of the Canadian Government. I ask 

the Senator whether be knows that Sir John MacDonald declares that 

there is no discri~ation against us in those canals? 

Mr. UEORGE. I can not find anything about that canal in the 

treaty of 1871, but there is the other one mentioned; and then there 

are State canals and all that sort of thing over which we have no juris· 

diction. Now, Mr. President, I have· proven the neces ity for the passage of 

an act. I presume when the Senator from :Maine and every other Senator will look criticall.v at the act of 1887 they will see that this toll 

business is not one of the cases under which and through which and on 

which the President of the United States can institute any act of retaliation under the act of 1887. We must settle the ·question now as to the 

events or contingencies under which the act of 1887 may be put in force. 

Now let us see what can be done when it is put in force. I was calling 

the attention of the Senate to the means of redress or the acts of retaliation which the President was authorized to take or use under the 

act of 1887. I bad shown befo-re that as to one, and that a very grave 

cause of complaint, that is, the inequality of the tolls levied by the 

Dominion of Canada-that act of 1887 provided no means of redress for 

that wrong, that is, it could not be put into operation-the retaliatory 

measure provided in the act of 1887 could not be put into operation on 

account of that wrong. I now desire to show what means of redress 

are provided for by the act of 1887 for the difficulties to which {nave 

before alluded which exclude the inequality of tolls. The act authorizes the doing of these things and no more: 

First. To deny entrance to any vessels of the British Dominion to 

our ports. 

Second. To deny entrance to fish or any product of said Dominion. 

Tbird. To deny entrance to any other goods coming from said Dominion to the United States. 

The President may apply this denial to any part or to all of the above, 

but that is all be can do. He can not, as has been asserted on this 

:floor, do any more than this. He can not deny the right of transit over 

American territory to goods coming from foreign countries going into 

Canada. Therefore this measure that the President asks for is not allowed by present law. 

I wil1 read from President Grant's message of 1870, to show that be 

regarded the identical measure recommended by the President as a 

most efficient means of retaliation on Canada. In that message, dated 

5th day of December, 1870, President Grant, after making complaint 

against the Canadian authorities for their treatment of our .fishing vessels, uses this language as to the mode of redress: 

AnticipatingSaid President Grantthat an attempt may possibly be made by the Canadian authorities In the coming eason to repeat t-heir unneighborly acts toward our fishermen, I recom - mend you to confer upon the Executive the power to suspend by proclam.~· 

tion, the operation of the laws authorizing the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond across the territory of the United States to Canada; and further, should such an extreme measure become necessary, to SU!>pend the operation of any laws whereby the vessels of the Dominion of Canada. are per- mitted to enter the waters of the United States. 

So that President Grant recommended the very thing that President 

Cleveland recommends in his message now before the Senate. and he 

recommends it, too, in addition to the measures which are provided for 

in the act of 1887. That act provides for the suspension of the 

operation of any laws whereby the vessels of tbe Dominion of Canada. 

were permitted to enter the watersofthe United States. So President 

Grant, in the exercise of his duty to recommend to Congress such 

measures as he deemed the pnblicwelfa.re demanded, has recommended 

the exact thing w hicb President Cleveland recommends in the m sage 

now under consideration. 

Th'i/d'sday, Au!Just 30, 1888. 

.Ur. GEORGE. :Mr. President, in the argument which I have had 

the honor to submit to the Senate I have endeavored to prove, and I 

think I have proven, that there are wrongs committed by the Canadian authorities against the people of the United States which do not 

fall within the retaliatory clauses of the act of 1887. I have also endeavored to show, and I think I have shown, that for these wrongs the 

means of retaliation provided for by that act are insufficient. I proved 

that by the consideration of the terms of the act of 1887, and I have 

also proven by the message of President Grant, dated December 5, 1870, 

in which be recommended the very retaliatory mea.snre, almost in the 

same words, recommended by the President, that these two eminent 

Presidents on this subject occupy precisely the same ground. 

It is alleged, however, that there are other means of retaliation in 

the power of the President not em braced in the act of 1887. I deny that. 

One of the Senators who took this position is the Senator from Vermont 

[1\fr. EmruNDs]. I read from bisspeecbdelivered.August 24, in which 

be says th:1t Cungress took the viewThat if Great Britain, the treaty being in force, violated it on her side n.nd denied to us a. right that we had under b, we were no longer under :my oblign.- tion to. grant to her< right that shtdmd under it. 

To which proposition I agree. But the Senator proceeded further: 

.And it dld not need a statute to do that. There are gentlemen within the h earing of my v oice now who ha.ve occupied positions as Cabinet ministers of Presidents of the Unit-ed St tes, there are others who have not who have been students of public law, and my friend from .Alabama. [1\Ir. MORGAN] I can ap{leal to as one of the best of them, and they know that when one nation having a. treaty with another chooses to break it or to refuse or refrain from carrying it into reciprocal and equal effect, the other nation is no longer bound; and it is at the option of h er Executive, whose busineas it is to see that the laws are faith- fully executed, and that nothing else is exeeuted, shall stand up for the ril{bts of t he nation th t is thus wronged, just as the Senator from New York [1\Ir. EvARTS] -did under a trealy with some power of whom we are now speaking, who told them that if they cho e to put a certain interpretation upon thattl'eaty then he would regard it, under the direction of the President of the United l:;tates, as an end of the treaty. 

So I understand the proposition of the Senator from Vermont to be 

that if there be a violation of ::my treaty rights which we have under 

the treaty of 1871, it is competent for the President of his own motion, 

without any action of Congress, to declare the treaty at an end, and to 

deny to the other side rights secured to them under the treaty. This 

proposition I deny; it bas no foundation in .Amel'ican constitutional 

ln.w. I say both by the speculation and the writinga of our· eminent 

statesmen and by the acts of Congre s themselves this assumed or alleged 

power stated thus by the Senator froiu Vermont to be in the President 

of the United States is shown not to exist. I That power rests solely in 

the Congress of the United States. 

The first authority I shall read in contravention~ftheposition taken by 

the Senator from Vermont is from a very high authority, Mr. :Madison, 

who says: 

Treaties, as I understand the Constitution, are ronde eupreme over the con· s:ti~utions and laws of the particular States and, like a. subsequent law of the United States, over pre-existing laws of the United States; provided, however, that the treaty be within the prerogative of m.aking treaties, which, no doubt, has certain limits. That the contracting powers can annul the treaty can not, I presume, be questioned, the ~me authority precisely being exercised in annulling as in making a. treaty. That a breach on one side (even of a single article, each being considered ns a condition of every other article) discharges the other is as little questionable, but with this reservation, tha.t the other side is at liberty to ta.ke advantage or not of the breach as dissolving the treaty. Hence I infer that the treaty with Great Britain, which has not been annulled by mutual consent, mu t be re- garded as in full force by all on whom its execution in the (Tnlted States de- pends, until it shall be declnred by the party, to whota a right has accrued by the breach of the other party to declare, that advantage is to be taken of the breach, and the treaty is annulled accordingly. In case it should be advisab d 

to take advantage of the ndver e breach, a question may perhaps be stnrt.ed, whether the power vested by the Constitution with respect to treaties in the President and Senate makes themThat is the President and the Senatethe competent judges, or whether, as the treaty is a law, tho whole legislature are to judge of Hs annulment, or whether, in case tho President and Senate be competent in ordinary treaties, the legislative authority be requisite to annul a treaty of peace, as being equivalent to a declaration of war, to which that au- thority alone, by our Constitution, is competent. 

1\u. MORGAN. From what do you read? 

Mr. GEORGE. I am reading from a. letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. 

Edmund Pendleton, dated January 2, 1791, cont-ained in Wharton's 

Digest of International Law, section 138. • It will be seen that Mr. Madison, in discussing who is to determine 

the breach of a treaty and the release from its obligations of the United 

States on account of this breach, alludes to two parties only as competent to declare the breach and the release. One is the President and 

the Senate. As they made the treaty it has been argued that they 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8095 

may annul it. That is one of the competent authorities which he says land in Maine, or any other port specially designated by the Secretary of the 

possibly might, as some allege, have the power. But that power is dis- Treasury, and de.stined for .Places in the adjacent British pr?vinces, or arriving 

P

uted as between them .and the Congress of the Uru"ted States upo·" at. the port of Pomt Isabel rn Texas, or any other port spemally designated by cu. !he Secretary of the Treasury, and destined for places in the Republic of Mex- the fum ground that the treaty, being the supreme law of the land, can 1co, .may be enter~ at the custo~-ho se, and conveyed, in !ransit, throngh the 

not be annulled except by making another law which annuls it. These terr1tory of the Umted States, Without the payment of dut1es, under such regare the only two authorities which under our Constitution, according ulations~ the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. 

to Mr. Madison, can by any possibility lay claim to this power. No Section 3006 read in connection with this I will notice hereafter. 

one then pretended that the President alone had the powet:. It will be noted in the first instance, a point that has been overlooked 

There is no express power vested by the Constitution of the United in this debate, that section 3005 of the Revised Statutes refers only to 

States in the President and Senate to simply annul a treaty. The importations into Canada through the United States. It does not refer 

power granted to them by the Constitution is to make a treaty. Of to exportations. There is no authority in section 3005 for a transshipcourse in the exercise ~f their power of making treaties they may ab- ment through the United States of goods from Canada and destined 

rogate all former treaties or any part of former treaties between the for other countries than the United States. That authority is found 

United States and the particular government with which they make elsewhere in our statutes passed prior to the enactment of that 

the new treaty, but tpat results not from their power to declare a treaty section. ' 

annulled for a breach of its conditions, because that is not given to So, then, if section 3005 could be construed as giving any power whatthem by the Constitution, but it results from their power to make a. ever to the President in relation to this matter, it could not be connew treaty which can-only be made by the consent of the other nation, strued as giving any power over exportations from Canada, and the 

and thus by m~tual consent abrogating a contract already existing be- stopping of exportsAs about as important as the prevention of imports. 

tween the parties. But, sir, section 3005 is a statute of the United States. It is absolute 

So, then, we are remitted to the other alternati>e presented by Mr. in its terms. It does not propose or profess to have any force or vital-

~Iadison, and that is that Congress may annul it, and why? Upon the ity contingent upon any reciprocal right granted or to be granted by 

admitted grou~d !ecognized by numerous decisions of the Supreme Canada or upon any act to be performed by Canada. It is absoiute, 

Court of the Umted States, a subsequent act of Congress in conflict with and there is no power in that section 3005, no provision, which authora prior treaty annuls the treaty to the extent of the conflict and itself izes the President to' uspend its operation upon any cause or for any 

becomes the supreme law of the land instead of the L'\w made by fue purpose whatever. So, if the President of the United States were ·to 

former treaty. undertake to suspend the operation of section 3005 he would assume 

Mr. President, I think then the learned Senator from Vermontgriev- the autocratic power denied to him by the Constitution and posseosed 

ously erred in asserting to the Senate that the autocratic power was only by the most despotic autocrat in Europe or in Asia-a powe:r to 

vested in the President of the United States by the Constitution of the suspend or abrogate a statut-e absolute in its terms without in any sense 

United States to annul, to change, to abrogate a supreme law of the being made contingent or dependent on his will. 

land by his own individual action. No such power is granted to him But the Senator from Massachusetts, as I understand his argument, 

by the Constitution. We have some precedents a.s to the abroaation of base:' the righ~of the President of the United States to suspend the optreaties by the United States on the alleged ground 0 ( the1r viohotion by eration of section 3005 upon the effect of these terms used in the statute, 

the other party. I call the attention of tJle Senate to the only act on that this transportation may be "without the payment of duties, under 

our statute-books, the only act existing in the history of this country such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe." 

so far as I have been able to learn-and I have searched with some dili- That is the ground work of the argument, based upon a provision in 

gence-by which the United States undertook of their own motion the s1atute, whichis very common, aUowingtheSecretary oftheTreaswithout consulting the adverse party, to annul and abrocrate an exis~ ury with reference to foreign commerce to make regulations for ii:s oring treaty upon the ground that the other party had n~lated it. If derly conduct. That argument is based on the assumption that the 

there be any other instance it has escaped my observation. This in- power given to regulate a certain transaction, which is made lawful 

stance is the act of Congress Of July 7, 1798, which I will read to the and p ermitted by the statute, includes in it the power to prohibit a.bSenate as showing the earliest construction of the power of the Con.sti- solutely the doing of the transaction at all. 

tution with reference to the abrogation of treaties by the sin!Y'le act of When a statute is passed making legal the performance of a particuthe United States, made at an earlydaywhen the great state:men who br transaction under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of 

formed the Constitution itself were controlling the councils of this na- the Treasury, the power is claimed for the Secretary of the Treasury to 

tion: · prohibit the doing of the thing for the proper doing of which he was 

Whereas the treaties concluded between the United States and France have authorized to make regulations. As I . am informed by the Senator be~n repeatedly _yiolated on the part ?f the Fr~n~h .Government, and the just from Kentucky [Mr. BECK], who sits at my right, and who is very claims of the UmtedStates forreparatwnofthe lnJUrJes so committed have been familiar with all these things, three-fourths of the statutes of the 

refused, and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of nil com- U · d S plaints between the two ~a.tionsha.ve been repelled with indignity; and .mte tates r~gtllating foreig~?- commerce and internal revenue pro- ~hereas, un~er author1ty of the French Goverm;nent, th7re is yet pursued VIde for regulatiOns to be prescnbed by the Secretary of the Treasury. agau~ st the Umt~d States ~ system of preda~ory vwlence, mfracting the said The Senator from Massachusetts seems to have discovered that this ar- treaties, and hostile to the nghts of a. free and mdependent nation: Be it enacted, etc., That the United States are of right freed and exonerated gument would not of itself do, and so he also relies on section 3006 to 

from the stipulations of the treaties, and of the consular convention, hereto- make it good. That section is as follows: 

fore concluded between the United States and France; and that he same shall SEC. 3006. Imported merchandise in bond, or duty paid, and products orman- ~f:::uC:{~~~=·gardedas legally obligatory on the Government or citizens ufactures of the United States may, with the consent of the proper authorities 

of the British pronnces or Republic or Mexico, be transported from one port in 

This is the .only instance, so far as my researehes extend, where the the Unit~ States to another port therein, over the territory of such provinces United States ever undertook to decide for themselves that they were or Repubhc, by such routes and under such rules,regulations, and conditions as l b d b the Secretary of the Treasury msy prescribe; and the merchandise so trans- no onger oun Y a. treaty with a. foreign country on .account of the ported sha.n, upon arrival ~ th~ :United State!! fro!ll such provinces or Republic, failure of that country to observe its provisions. That was done by an be treated m regard to the hab1lity to or exemption from duty or tax as if the 

act of Congress approved by Mr. Adams in 1798, and from that time transportation had taken place entirely within the limits of the Uni~d States. 

to this there has not been the assumption of power by any President That section relates simply to the coastwise trade of the U~itecl of the United States to annul a treaty upon his mere belief that the States, the shipment starting from a port in the United States and endother side had not complied with it. That disposes of that question ing in another port in the United States, and the only difference between 

I think. ' that and the ordinary coa-stwise trade is the permission given in this 

So any remedy we might have arising under such a construction of statute that a part of the transportation may be over foreign territory. 

the·XJonstitution does not. exist, but other remedies are pointed out by So under section 3006, intended to provide alone for the regulation of 

distinguished SenatoqJ as existing over and above and outside of the the coastwise trnde of the United States, that is, transportation from one 

act of 1~87. Th~ Senl;\tor from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] claimed- port i~ the United States to another port in the United States, the ex- and I will read hiS claun, so that the Senate may understand it : traordrnaryresultis reached that the President may prohibit the trans-

! do not p1'9pose to add anythin~ to what ha.s peen said by the honorni.>Ie Sen- portation over our territory of goods, not from one port to another in 

atfor from V:ermont f'Mr .. EDMUNDSJ on th~ subJect, nor to express any opinion the United States but from one foreign country to another through o my own m regard to 1t at the present trme. . ' The President claims that the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of l STJ lms the Umted States! The Senator from .Massachusetts proceeds: bee~ a.bro~~d., and that each nation therefore is ';lt liberty witbon ~ fnrUter ne- 1\Iy proposition is that the transportation of merchandise coming from Amer- gotl~ion,:;. It shall see fit, to pr~d ~-o regulat-e Its own co~du?t m refer nee 1 ican railroads or canals or other modes of carriage through Canada is by sec- - tf t IS :Ou ~e~thatter of complamt ":I~hout regard to any bmdmg .ol?ligat!on tion 3006 oftheRev4;ed Statutes, to be conducted under such rules, reg~lations, ha onll t'-'~ t e odth1

er. ,Very well, 1f that tr ue, then the A~mst ati o!l and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and the moment . sa ......, e-: n desire to call the ntt eo n ~ the Senate t-o this propoS!- the Administration wa.s informed tha.t this discriminationt10n-ha.d a~solu~ power and control and d1scret 1on over the whole matter. . The auth_onty wh1c~ the President sks~ so far o.s it relat-es to the transporting That lS as I suppose about the tolls-

:leC:.!~:;;':n~~~~f c~:ao~no;:i~r~~ ralld :s 0{ b nals: ~so far af sto~ng wa_s made by Canada against our inte17sts, the President had the right instantly already complete. _ 8 an cuna s Y our ppers o go • IS to m.terpose ~a put an end to the entire traffic at !:mce-jnst what he asks the 

special authonty of Congress to do at the present time. 

He bases that on two sections of the Revised Statutes. He had this Suppose he had power under this section, what traffic could he pnt an 

read: end to? Transportation from Canada to a foreign country? TransporSEc. 3005. All merchandise arriving at the ports of New York, Boston. Port- tationfromaforeigncountrytoCanad!lo? No; but transportation entirely 
.· / 

8096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 3Q, 

between two ports of the United States, as from Buffalo in New York or Oswego in New York to Chicago in Illinois. That is a very remarkable 

proposition; and the Senator from :Massachusetts seems to have thou~ht 

that it was necessary to support it by authority, and he produced two circulars of the Treasury Department for this authority. The Senator 

from Massachusetts claims that this very power asked for by the President, which is a power to prevent goods coming from England, for instance, or France destined for Canada going through the United States 

to Canada, or goods coming from Canada destined for England or France 

and going through the United States-he claims that this power bas 

been asserted by ~he President and Secretary Uanning in two circulars, 

which he read to the Senate. Now let us see. He read :first circular 

102, dated July 2, 1885: 

TERMINATIO:rf OF CERTAIN ARTICLES OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 

[1885. Department No. 102. Division of Special Agents.] 

• TnEASURY DEP.ART:MEl.,., OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

To collectors of cu"toms: Washington, D. 0., July 2, 1885. 

Notice having been given by the proclamation of the President, dated Janu- ary 31, 1885, of the abrogationOf what? Article XXIX, which authorizes this transportation from 

Canada to France through the United States? No; butof Articles XVIll to XXVWhich are the :fishery articlesand Article XXX of the treaty of WashingtonWhich was the article admitting the British to our coastwise trade. 

But I proceed with reading the circular: . 

collectors of customs are hereby notified that article 844 of the Customs Regulations ot 1884. which iS' identical with article 19 of the Regulations of 1\!arch 30, 

1875, made pursuant toTo what? Pursuant to Article XXIX, which I will read in a few 

moments, which he says the Secretary understood was abrogated? No; 

butpmsuant to Article mIt has no more to do with the transportation of exports from Canada 

to Europe or from Europe to Canada across the United States than it 

has to do with the transportation of goods from Liverpool to HongKong. The circular goes on-I have read the ground' or reason for the 

issuing of the circularArticle XXX of said treaty, will cease to be in force from and after this date. 

Shipments of merchandise in transit from one port or place within the territory of the Unit-ed StatesFollowing exactly the provision of Article XXXto another, by a. route a. part of which is by land carriage through the Dominion of Canada, and a. part by the Great Lakes and the rivers connecting the same, or by the river St. Lawrence, in either British or American vessels, from 

ports on the northern frontier of the United States to ports on the Canadian 

frontier for transshipment to railway cars, and from points on the Canadian 

frontier, at the termini of railway transDorta.tion, to ports on t.he n01·thern frontier of the United States, will hereafter be treated in all respects as ordinary im- p ortations from foreign contiguous t-erritory. 

DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. 

I desire to call the attention of the Senate and the attention of the 

country to the fact that in the recitals of the trade or navigation about 

which this regulation is made the Secretary follows almost vet·batim 

.Article XXX and has no reference to Article XXIX. But I willread 

from the Senator from Massachusetts his comment on that: . 

Now, it will be seen that the Secretary of the Treasury, conceiving at the time tllat the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of 1871 was terminatedYet there is no reference in the circular to Article XXIX, and what 

is more, there is no reference in the circular to any operation of com- merce authorized by Article XXIX. It refers solely to operations of commerce authorized by .Article XXX: I will go back and read this 

com!fient all over again so as to do the Senator no injustice: 

Now, it will be seen that the Secretary of the Treasury, conceiving at the time t ha t the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of 1871 was terminated, instantly exer- cised his authority under the statute of 1866, re-enacted by the Revised Statutes as section 3006, and declared that all m erchandise coming from Canada as a part of the joint transportation routes sl:wuld be subject to the ordinary customs duties, showing the opinion of the President and the Secretary who was the bead of his Treasury Department that he possessed the ample power to accom- pli h this thing. 

Well, now, there is not a single reference in this circular to any com- mercial hansaction or transportat.ion which could take place under Arti- cle XXIX. The circular is based expressly in terms, on its face, on the 

fact that Article XXX had been abrogated, and it refers alone to com- mercial and navigation operations which were authorized not by Arti, 

cle XXIX but by Ar~icle XXX. It makes no reference to any sort 

of operation which was legalized or authorized by Article XXIX, and 

what is more remarkable in this argument is the language which I shall 

now repeat from the Senator's remarks: 

-instantly exercised his authority under the statute of 1866, re-enncted by the 

Revised Statutes as section 3006. 

The act of 1866, section 3006 of the Revised Statutes, as I have stated 

and as is plain on its face, has reference only to the coastwise trade of 

the United States where the goods start from one port in the United 

States and land at another port in the United States, on their way, 

however, going through Canada. It has no reference whatever to a shipment or a transportation startiqg from Canada, as is spe ci:fied in 

Article XXIX, intended for Europe, or Africa, or Asia, or South America, or anywhere else, which needs simply to go throu~h the United 

States from its port of departure in Canada to its port of destination in one of these foreign countries. That is the argumentation, that is the 

clear authority on which this Senate, having committed itself to reject 

all further negotiation, having committed itself to right our wrongs by 

retaliation, is asked to deny the just power asked for by the President 

to make effective retaliation, following exactly the example set by President Grant in 1870. 

There was an error in the circular I have just read; there was a mistake made by the Secretary of the Treasury in reference to the coastwise trade of the United States, provided for in Article XXX and also 

sanctioned by our statutes. The Secretary of the Treasury forgot that 

the only power to make this coastwise trade through Canada did not come from Article XXX. He forgot that there was a statute of the 

United States which authorized any American vessels-not any British 

vessels, as provided for in Article XXX, as well as American vessels, 

but only American vessels-to convey goods from one port to another in 

the United States through Canada. So in this circular, intended to 

forbid all operations under Article XXX, the Secretary went too 

far in prohibiting the transportation of goods from Oswego, for instance, 

to Chicago, where it went a part of the way through Canada over the 

W.elland Canal and in American vessels as well as British vessels. Article XXX gave the right to carry on this trade to both British and 

American vessels. The statute which remained in force after Article 

XXX was abrogated by the notice given for that purpose gave the right 

only !.o American vessels. In a few days thereafter; discovering his mistake, he issued the other circular, which the Senatof from Massachusetts 

commented on and claimed to have been an exercise by the President 

of the very power which he asks Congress to grant to h1m. I will re:td 

that: 

CJilCULAR. 

[Department No. 116. Division of special agents.] 

TREASURY DEPARTME~"'T, OFFICE OF THE S ECRETARY, 

To collectors and other officers Qj customs : Washington, D. 0., July"2i, 1885. 

Under. the authority contained in section 3006 of the Revised Statutes, im· 

ported merchandise, in bond or duty paiu, and products and manufact ures oi . the United States, may, with the consent of the proper authorities of the British 

provinces, be transported from one port in- · 

Canada to :t foreign country, as is argued here and is the very question before the Senate? No, sir; bufrfrom one port in the United States to another port therein over the territory O\ 

such provinces, by such routes and under such rules, regulations, anti condic tions as the Secretary of the 'rreasury may prescribe. 

Therefore, so much of Circular No. 102 of this Department, dated the 2d instant, as rescinded article 84t of the Customs Regulations of 1884. is revoked, 

and said article i~ hereby amended in such manner lis to restrict the transportation therein referred to to American vessels. Customs officers will be governed accordingly. 

The salaries of officers stationed in Canada to supervise transshipment from v essels to cars, and vice t:crsa, must be reimbursed to the Government by the 

transportation companies interested. 

DANIEL MAN~G, Secretary. 

This, sir, is the law under which the Senator from Massachusetts 

claims this power of the President, and these are the two constructions 

of this law which he claims have been made by the President and the 

Secretary of the Treasury, asserting the power which the President now asks for; and that is the unstable foundation upon which that 

claim is based. 

Now, Mr. President, I come to another important question, and one which several Senators on the other side said was the main question, 

and that is w hetber Article XXIX of the treaty of 1871 is now in force or not. The President claims that Article XXIX fell with Article 

XXX and the articles from XVIII to XXV, inclusive. I wish the Senate to understand that the sole point here is whether this Article XXIX 

is in force or not. 

Of course we can abrogate article XXIX if we see proper to do so by an act of Congress, but if it is in force and we abrogate it by virtue of a Congressional act, then this results, and this wide difference exists between abrogating it by an act of Congress and acting as if it were not 

in force, it being in fact not in force. In t.he extract which I read 

from Mr. Madison some time ago we :find a very clear statement made 

of the law upon the subject, that where there is a breach of one part 

of a compact between two parties there is a breach of all, and if the 

party against whose rights the breach is made takes advantage of it 

he does not take this adva.Jltage by abrogating the particular article of 

the trea~ which he complains has been violated, but he abrogates all 

the compact. If there is anything settled in international law it is 

that if you proceed for the annulment of a treaty upon the ground that 

some substantial provision in that treaty has been violated by tbe other 

party the annulment goes to the extent of annulling the whole treaty 

and not any particular article in it. 

You are not allowed to say upon a breach of a substantial treaty 

right, "I acknowledge all this treaty to be in force except just this 

part. and as to that I annul it." The language I read from Mr. Mad-
1888. .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.A,TE. 8097 

ison was that each provision of the treaty was" a condition · of every 

other provision of the treaty, so that if there be a breach in one part 

there is a breach in all parts, and if there be an annulment in one part 

there is an annulment in all parts. So this important thing, or this important right, or this important consequence arises for the consideration of the Senate, whether we proceed to annul the treaty of 1871 for a violation of Article XXIX or whether we, being right on the true 

construction of the treaty, declare that Article XXIX has been abrogated by the terms of the treaty itself. In the first hypothesis if we declare the treaty annulled we lose every unexecuted and nnvested 

I'ight in it. . There are provisions in that treaty of a very important character to 

the Americ.,<tn people about which no complaint has been made. There 

are navjgation rights with respect to great rivers which still stand in 

the treaty unaffected if Article XXIX is abrogated, in pursuance of 

the treaty itself, and which will be lost if we take it upon ourselves to 

decide not that Article XXIX bas already been abrogated in pursuance 

of the provisions of the treaty, but that it having been >iolated by England or by Canada we declare the whole treaty void. 

That is a sound principle of international law. So it makes a very 

great difference whether we proceed by virtue of the power-I might 

call it a physical power-of the Congress of the United States to declare that the treaty of 1871 shall no longer be binding upon us be- cause Article XXIX has been violated, or whether we are able to 

make out justly, truly, and according to the provisions of the treaty of 

1871, that the article has fallen. The President takes this just distinction in hismessage. In recommending to us to repeal the laws which 

authorize the transit of Canadian goods across our territory he states 

-to us that we are not in doing so restrained by any provision oftreaty, we are not violating any treaty, we are not setting aside any treaty, we are not declaring that any part of a treaty has been violated by 

England and therefore we abrogate the whole treaty, but we are acting 

in pursuance of the treaty itself. . 

That brings us to the discussion of the question whether or not Article 

XXIX, not having been abrogated by an act of Congress, remains in force 

to-day as a part of the treaty of 1871 and as a part of the supreme law 

of the land. To that I propose to address myself, and in order that the 

Senate and the country may understand exactly the argument which I 

make upon that subject, I will call the attention of the Senate again to 

the provisions of that article. I read now ArticleXXIXofthe treaty 

of 1871, to see what it provides for. That article reads: 

It is agreedPerpetually? No. Indeiinitely? No. ButIt is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article xxxm of this 

treaty, goods, wares, or merchandisearrivingat the ports of New York, Boston and Portland, and any other ports in the United Stateswhichhavebeen or may from time to time be specially designated by the President of the United States 

and destined for Her Britannic :Majesty's possessions in North America, may be entered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without the pay- ment of duties, through the territory of the United States, under such rules, regulations, and conditions f:>r the protection of the revenue as the Government of 

the United States may from time to time prescribe; and under like rules, regu- lations, andconditions,goods,wares, or merchandise maybe conveyed in transit, 

without the payment of duties, from such possessions through the territory of 

the United States for export from the said ports of the United States. 

The President wants as a just and effective act of retaliation to stop 

that; he wants to stop this transportation-that is the power he asks us to give-both to Canada from foreign countries through the United 

States and from Canada through the United States to foreign countries, 

and that is the provision. 

The first thing that strikes one who reads this article is that on its face it is limited in its operation to a term of years not mentioned 

in the article itself, but a term of years mentioned in some other articleArticle XXXIII. 

So we start out now with this plain proposition settled that this ar- ticle is not perpetual; it is not an agreement for an indefinite period of 

time. It is a treaty limited, so far as Article XXIX is concerned, in 

express words to a term Of years. Now, let us see what that term of 

years is. · Article XXXIII provides, and I desire to call attention to 

thatThe foregoing Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusiveThey have not got Article XXIX in. It stops before it gets to 

XXIX. It is XVIII to XXV. These are the fishery articles. 

Article XXXSkipping Article XXIX, leaping o>er XXVIII, XXVII, XXVI, 

and :XXIX. 

Tl::e foregoing Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX ofl hls 

treaty, shall take effectWhen? They did not have effect upon the exchange of ratifications 

of the treaty. Something else was to be done before they could take effect. Up to the time that these things were done they were mere 

mutual propositions from one country to the other. Let us see what 

were the things to be doneshall take effect as soon as the laws required to carry them into operation 

shall have been passed by the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain by the 

Parliament of Canada, and by the Legislature of Prince Edward Isl~nd on the one hand, and by the Congress of the United States on the other, 

XIX:-_-507 

Yon will note that not one of these articles from XVIII to XXV, inelusive, and Article XXX could ever have the slightest effect as a contract, as atteatyobligation between the United States and Great Britain, 

until four distinct legislative bodies should give effect to them. Three 

would not do. Itrequired the English Parliament, it required theCana- dianParliament, it required theLegislatureofPrinceEdwardisland, and 

it required the Congress of the United States, and any one of these four 

failing to give its assent to the going into effect of these article3, the 

articles would have remained forever without the slightest obligation or force whatever. 

It seems that the exchange of ratifications of this trea.ty was in June, 

1871. Remember that. The legislation of all these parties took place 

prior to the 1st day of July, 1873, when these articles were declared by 

both governments to take effect, so that for more than two years after 

the treaty was signed and ratified every other article in the treaty exeept those mentioned in this particular article or otherwise limited were in full force and effect. Note that. There is nqthing said there 

about Article XXIX-not a word-as to putting it into effect. 

Now I proceed to read the last clause of the article and to see how 

and what is to be done in the way of terminating these articles. Article XXXIII contains a power not only to put these articles into operation, but also to destroy their life. Without Article XXXIII aud 

the action required by Article XXXIII those articles could never lw. ve had birth, never could have had any effect. Having had birth and 

having had effect, they never could have been terminated without ihe 

provisions of Article XXXIII. Now let us see what the provision is 

about the termination, and I will read from the place where I stopped 

before: 

Such assentThat is, of these four legislative bodiesSuch assent having been giyen, the said articles shall remain in.force for the 

period of ten years from the date at which they may come into operation; and 

further until the expiration of two years after either of the high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same · each of the high contracting parties being at liberty to give such notice to th.; 

other at the end of the said period of ten years or at any time afterward. 

You hear nothing in this article of Article. XXIX, either as to its 

birth or as to its death; and yet, singular as it may seem, without a. single word justifying it, it is insisted that Article XXIX is of per- petual obligation unless in pursuance of Article XXXIII it is ter- minated. Where do you get your power to terminate it under Artic: e 

XXXIII? You can not construe treaties upon any idea of just takin:• the language and making it mean anything that you see proper to m:t ~ it mean. They are contracts, solemn contracts, between great nation,., 

entered into with deliberation, intended to preserve peace betwct:·a nations, to regulate rights between nations, to regulate intercour ~e 

between nations, and treaties, like other contracts, like other writings, like statutes, are to be construed accordi~g to the plain meaniu;; 

of the language employed. Now. I should like to hear some astut e lawyer make--the argument by which we can terminate Article XXIX 

under the provisions of Article XXXIII, except. as an incident to t:1 e termination of the fishery articles and Article XXX. Article XXtX 

is not referred to expressly or by implication. 

As I have just remarked, you cn.n not amend a treaty by merely attributing to it a meaning which it does not have, but which you wish 

it to have. You can not interpolate into a treaty a provision which 

the parties to it did not put in it when they made it. You can not do 

that expressly, nor have you the power by a dishonest, a hypercritical an ingenious argumentation to do by implication what you can not d~ expressly. This argument can not be answered; not because it is a staong argument, but because it is an argument founded on the plain, 

unambiguous words of the treaty itself. Further argument could make 

it no more plain than if I were to argue that 2 and 2 were 4, or that 10 

divided by 2 resulted in 5. There is not a hint, there is not a squinting at Article XXIX in this Article XXXIII. 

Then we must go back to Article XXIX, and see bow we are going 

to get rid o~ it? . Is it perpet:ual? . Everybody·says it is not. All agree 

that there Is a way to get rid of It, and all agree-that is, those who 

say it is not alteady dead-that it must be done in pursna.nce of Article 

XXXIII. Now let us see how we are going to get rid of it in pursu- ance of Article XXXIII, if it does not fall without being namedand that is my position-with Articles XVIII to XXV and Article 

XXX. I say that Article XXXIII does provide for an event which 

terminates Article XXIX, but it provides for this only in providing 

for the termination of the fishery articles and Article XXX. Article 

XXIX itself makes the act which destroys the life of these articles 

destroy its own. · 

There is not a word in Article XXXIII about the death or termination of Article XXIX; but Article XXIX itself pro-vides for the term 

of its own existence. It provides when it shall go into effect; it provides when it shall cease to have effect, and wha t provision is that, 

Mr. President? 

I want to make this plain, because it is so plain to my mind-from 

the very moment tl}at I firstexaniined it-that such is the result, as the . 

Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] well knows, as the Senator 
8098 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AuGusT 30, 

from :Maryland [Mr. WILSON) well knowsJ and as the Senator from any other article of any treaty an operation or effect which it does not 

Delaware [fur GRAY] well knows, it appeal'S' so plain to me that it possess within itself. can not be made the subject of reasonable dispute or Mgtunent. - . Treaties are made by the President, by and with the advice and con- My proposition is that whilst Article XXXIII provides for the birth 1 sent af the Senn.ter and when they are made they are what they are and for the death of Articles xvm to XXV and ArticlSJ X:X.X,. it as written and as they mean at the time they are made, and it is not 

contains no provision fov the death of Article XXIX. How, then, are in the power of a committee of the Senate, it is not in the power of a we to get rid of it, because Article XXIX itself says. that it shall live , President of the United States, it is not in the power of a Secretary of as long and no longer than the te1'ID. of years mentioned in Al'ticle State, it is not in the power of all these combined to add one jot or XXXIII? Now let us see. I read: tittle to the legal force and effect of a treaty, or detract from it one jot 

For the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty.goods, etc.- or tittle of its inherent strength. 

There is also. a provision in behalf of Canadians in the second clause If that is not right, let us 'see what the other view is. Sometimes 

of it- one of the most effective means of destroying a fallacy is io apply the 

argument which the mathematicians call the red·u-etio ad absm·dmn. 

Article XXIX says it shall have life for the term of years mentioned 

in Article xx:x:m, as I have so often stated. If it has life and exist- ence independent of .Articles XVill to XXV and Article XXX, then 

let ns see what will follow? As I have shown already, .A.rticl es XVIII to XXV and Article XXX required the assent of four distinct, 

independent legislative bodies before they could have life. None of 

these bodies was bound by this treaty ever to give assent to. these articles or to pass the laws necessal'y to put them into operation. 

n is further agreed tl'la.t, :for tlre like: periodThat. is for the same term or yea:ra mentiroaed. in Ar.ticle xxxm 

certain other rights exist. _ .Article XXIX.pro-videsior its own life; it measures the: years of its own existence ·It says for the term prescnoed in Article XXXIII 

Article XXIX shall have effectr 

.Ur. P.resident all you ha.-ve to do in order to :find out the: life of Article XXIX is to :find out if there be a term of years mentioned in Article XXXID, because Article XXIX itself says. for that tenn this ar- ticle shall live and nn longer.. Hel'e it is: Suppose the legislature of Prince Edward Island or the Congre5s of 

the United States had perpetnally refused, either of them or either of 

Shall remain in force for the period of ten.~ the other two, to pass the laws necessary to put these fishery articles 

T:ful.t is the term. From when?- and Article XXXinto operation. If Article XXIX had an independent 

from the-date at which. they may come in operation; and, further, untn the ex• life and existence, it' it was not bound by the very terms prescribed in 

piration of two yeal'S' afte-r e~er c» the high contracting pa.rties shall have itself as. to the time when it should begin and when it should end, we given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same. would have had this extraordinary rel:!ult, that Articles XVIII to XXV 

When we find out what that is do we not find out the life of Article and Article XXX, never having received the assent of all the four 

XXIX. On this hinges the controversy as to the proposition of the legislatures, would never have gone into operation, and Article XXIX· 

President's message that we can enact new legislation withorrt vio- would have been in operation all the tim:!. If that be so, then how 

lating our treaty rights. Article XXIX eame into this world with can you square that with the language ';for the term of years men- a la.bei a:round its neck stating, '~Your e-'Xistence- here, your opera- tioned in Article XX:Xill," for which it shall have existence? Under 

tion r shall be fOl! a te:rm. of yearso mentioned in Article XXXIII ~ that view of i~ instead of having existence and force and effect for the 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to inquire: ef the Sen-ator what he· term of years mentioned in Article XXXTTT it would have I:tad a perthinks the term ofyears mentioned in Article XXXIII is? pe:tualexistence in directcontraventionofthe termofyea,rsmentioned 

:rtfi:. GEORGE.. There are twa constructions which might be put in Article XXXIII. Certainly yon can not put a construction upon a upon it~ I nave .considerea both. I am very glad the Senator called treaty which thus turns and twists and reverses its plain meaning and 

my attention. to it, and! I shall answar it now~ A very strict and nar- language. row construction of it might say that it was ten years plus two. But if that is not correctr how are you going.• to get rid of it? CerMt . TELLER. Oh, no. tainly it is to m_e some time; certainly it contemplated only a tem1\fr. GEORGE. Ten years from the time these articles went into porary existence "far a term of years." How are you to get rid of 

operntionphlsth.etwoyearsforwhichthenoticewastoru.nbeforethey it? Can you give notice? Suppose we do give notice that Article were ·tO' die. But I do not think that is' the. proper construction. I XXIX is terminated. Suppose we give it to-day and in two years from 

think, according to an old law maxim, Id eertum. est quod certum reddi now, say the 1st day of September,· 1890, that is to be terminated. 

potest, that when the notice was given after a certain number o:fyears,. Suppo ewe gi~e it life,. then, from the 17th day of June'rl873, when the 

the term of yeam was fixed; so that the term of years in .Amcle treaty was ratified and when all the other articles went into force, up 

:XXXlll] take to be not only the ten years in which notice could not to the 1st day of September, 1890, it would have a life then from 1873 

be given and not only the two years in addition which the notice was tQI 1885, and from: 18 5 to 1889, four years: more, which would make 

to run, but n.ll that period af time which elarpsed from the commence- four years or more longer than the life o.f the fishery artieles and Article 

ment of the operation of these articles by the passage of the necessary XXX as fixed by the notice tmder Article XXXliL How can you 

acts by the four Legislatures, and the time which should elapse before make out that proposition consistent with the treaty? You can not 

these articles died under the operation of the notice. That is my idea inject into this treaty something that is no~ in it. You ean not., ac- abont it, and yon. ean not make it anything else. cording to this treaty, give Article XXIX an operation.longer or shorter 

:Mr. TELLER. If I do 11ot interrupt the Senator-- than the term prescribed in Article X:x:::xn::t, and then it must fall. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from ?Yiississippi The only term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII is the term of 

vield to the Senator from Colorado?- _ years during which Articles XVTII to X:XV and Article XXX shall • Mr. TELLER. If it is o.bjectionable to the Senator, I do not wish live. Besides, and this is conclusive, there is no provision in Article 

to in tenttptl him.. XXXIII or elsewhere in the treaty for giving notice of the termination 

Mr. GEORGE: I believe I would prefer w go on a little further in · of Article XXIX. Ifyon undertake to give this notice you go outside 

my argument so that I can present my idea fully to. the Senate. of the treaty, yon interpolate a provision not in it, and you measure the 

Mr. TE.LLER. I will not interroptl the Senator if it is objection- life of Article XXIX, not by a "term of years mentioned in Article 

abie to him. XXXIII," as it requires, but you measure it by an acb not authorMr. GEORGE. I would prefe:r to haye the interruption afterwards, ized by that article nor by any othe:r part of the treaty. 

although I nave p.o desire tQl shirk any discussion about thia matter, There are two other arguments supplementary to this. One is the 

becau e I feel absolrrtely certain that I am right, and absolutely cer- copy made by the President in his message from the memorandum 

tain that there is no. amount of ability possessed by any man God ever · made by the joint commissioners who negotiated the treaty. That is 

created that can disprove the plain proposition made by the treaty in these words: 

itself: The transit question was discussed, a.nd H wn.s agreed that any settlement that 

might be made should include a reciprocal arrangement in that r~specli for the 1 ask the SenatoP from COlorado to state when ne comes to reply to period for which the fishery articles should be in force. me, and I hope he will take notice of it, if there is any other term of These joint high commissioners, when they started out to make this 

years mentioned in Article XXXill except the term of years which treaty, started out with a declaration in writing made by them that 

marked the life of Articles XVIII to XXV and Article XXX? If there they were going to do one thing. They, as I have shown, have done 

be n() other term of years, then, that must be the term of ye3ll'S which that thing, and yet it is insisted that they have failed to do what they 

:fixes the life of Article XXIX, or else in violation of Article XXIX declared they would do and have .given a life to the transit arrangeyou fix its life by a terlll of years not mentioned in Article XXXlll. ment different from and longer than the life of the fisheries articles. 

It hall be alive, says Article XXIX, "for the term of years men- There is another argument which was referred to by the President. 

tioned in Article XXXUI.''' That is its own provision. You may I am here only repeating his views, The act of 11Iarch 1,. 1873, pro- ca.Ilt it suicide or carrying within its bosom that deadly weapon which vides: 

automatically destroys it; but it lives, it lives only, for the term of That from the da.te of the President's proclama.tion anthm-ized by the firat 

years mentioned in Artic!e xx::xnL There is no human power which section of this act- _ - can give it one moment's longer existence except a new treaty between That was the proclamation authorizing the President to put in force 

the same cont.rac1ling partieBJwhich shall lengthen its e:ristenee. That the fisheries articles and .Article XX::X: upon the a.ssent to those articles 

is what the-y agreed t& then, and there is> no earthly powe:r under t:he given by Congress and by the other three Legislatures to which I have ·Con titution of tl'l.e United S1lates to.give to this treaty, this artide, or called attention. 

. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8099 

Sn:c. 3. That from the date of the President's proclamation authorized by the tl:eaty because he said Amedcan fishermen wete wronged. and by the 

first section of this act, and so long as the Articles XVIII to XXV • inclusive, and con tin ned repetition of wrongs upon the..rights uf American citizens the .Article XXX of said trea.t.y shall remain in force according to the terms and con- ditions of Article XXXIII of said treaty, all goods. wMes, and merchandise ar- nation was being disgraced. Why d{)es he stop now to ask for more riving at the ports of New York, Boston, and Portland, and any other ports in , power and fail to. use w bat he has? :Mr. President, I desire to be en- the United States- tirely respectful to the President and the hlgh office he hillds; but, sir, 

And then repeating exactly the provisions of .Article XXIX, providing for transit across the United States. 

So we have not only the plain meaning of the words of the treaty 

itself, but we have the declaration -of the men who negotiaied it, and 

we have the act of Congress assented to by both Houses and by the President himself declaring the sam-e thing. Can that be answered? If 

the plain words of the treaty do not constitute its m-eaning when those 

plain words a.re substantiated by the declarations of-the men who made 

it, upon what can we rely? And the plain words -of the treaty and , this declaration of the men who made it are fortified by an act of Congress itself. ·If all these can not settle the meaning of the treaty, I 

confess I know of no means which can remove doubt from a proposition which any ingenious mind may see proper to dispute. 

I believe, Mr. Presiden~ I have said all I desire to say on this subject. 

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I shall not follow the course uf the 

Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] in the discussion -of the lar2:e 

number of treaties that hs.ve been made at different times between tbe 

United States and Great Britain, nor shall I discuss tbe recent treaty 

that wns before the Senate of the United States, but I shall confine 

what I have to say, which will be very brief, to the situation as presented by the President's message. 

The United States of America as a nation is perhaps as well situated 

in its relation to other countries as any of the great nations. The people of the United States possess greater advantages than any .other 

people in the world. It is easily within the power of this Government 

to dominate the western hemisphere if it desires to do so; by true 

statesmanshipit alwayswill be, and my judgment is thattheCanaclian 

possessions, in the not far distant futnre1 are destined to become-a part 

of the United States. 

In dealing with questions involving the relations of our Government 

with another, whether great or small, the most serious consideration 

should be given., and only such steps taken as we may be sure we are right in taking. We have no right to play with national or rnternational.a.ffairs to please the fancy or inflame the passions of the people. 

Great questions involving great interests, even the peace of nations, 

should be approached with a purpose to ascertain and then do the right, 

having constantly in view the welfare of our own people, to whom we 

owe unqualified loyalty and whose servants we are. On the 20th February last the President sent to this Senate amessage transmitting a treaty, commonly known as the fisheries treaty. It 

was before this body much of the time under consideration until the 

21st of this month, when it was rejected. That treaty was ably discussed. A~ now that it has gone .. I believe I a.m justified in saying 

that the action of the Senate in rejectingJ.t has met with the approval of 

a majority of the people of the country. The Senate performed its 

duty in rejecting it. 

The President has since sent us a message, which now lies on the 

table, which I think may be fairly taken ns evidence that even he has 

become satisfied that his treaty wjth Canada was a mistake. To retrieve what he has lost by his mistake he launches out into a broader 

se..'ll, and in my judgment he will find himself in deeper water than he 

has ever been in before, with greater danger threatening to overtake 

him. 

He says the rejection of the treaty ''seems to justify a survey of the 

condition to which the pending question is thus remitted." This-declaration is proper. There can be no fault found with it. He then pro , ceeds to discuss the situation between our Government· and Canada as it existed before the treaty was made and ,also since the rejection of the 

treaty, n.nd says he is "b.Y no means disposed to abandon the interests 

and the rights of our people in the premises, or to neglect their grievances," and he therefore turns "to the contemplation of a plan uf retaliation as a mode, which still remains, of treating the situation." 

Mr. President, from the language quoted one would infer that the 

President had actually debated the question in his own mind whether 

after his pet treaty had been rejected by the Senate, a part of the treatymaking power, he would do anythingmore, and if so what, and thathe 

finally patrioticaJly and generously concluded thathewonldadoptthe eon.rse marked out by the law. How grateful the American people 

should feel for the conclusion to which the President came ~s to the course he would pursue after he saw that his treaty was dead. The 

treaty 1·elated to the fishery troubles, n-othing else. Onr eountry has 

been having no serious trouble with Ca-nada that can not probably be 

easily settled, about anything else, and yet the President seems to almost turn his baek upon the .fishery question, and from $.e contemplation of the wrongs inflicted upon American fishermen, which called for 

the act of 1887, which is known a.s the retaliation act, and calLs the attention of the country to other grievanee.q, and asks for more power o1 

retaliation than the sta,tute of 1887 gives him1 though he bas never taken a step to enforce the law in his hands. He wants more power. Why 

has he not used the power in his hands? He undertook to make a 

I can not resist the feeling that his call upon Congress for more power 

is not prompted by high motives of patriotism so much as by a desire 

to break the fall caused by his mistake in bringing to the light of day a treaty that has been shown to be so impotent for the purpose of its 

creation. 

The President recommends that b.e be authorized to suspend by proclamation the operation of all laws permitting transportation in bond 

through the United States ofshipmentseoming fromorgoingtoCanada. 

He assures us that we need have no h~sitation in giving him this au- thority or in suspending the operation of those laws on the supposition 

that their continuation is secured by treaty obligations., and proceeds 

to argue that Arthle XXIX of the treaty, which, as he says, rneor- poratea the laws in question, is no longer in force. This discovery 

.appears to be an entirely original one on the part of the President. If 

he is entirely mistaken in the matter, and Article XXIX remains in 

full force and effect, n.s everybody .supposed to be the case until this 

message came in, then of course it would be inconsistent with our treaty 

obligations to grant to the President the authority which he .asks. 

If the article has been utterly disregarded, as the Senator from Mississippi has stated, it is within the power of the President alone to disregard the trea:ty, either in whole orin part, perhaps 

Let us see what the exact language of the treaty itself is on this subject. Article XXIX b6oo-ins as follows: "It is agreed that., for the term 

of years mentioned in Article xx:xrn of this treaty,, -ete. 

The same language precise1y was used in the fishery amcles, and in 

Article XXVIII, which made the navigation of Lake Michigan free fu 

subjects of Great Britain. Turning next to Article XXXIII, we .:find 

that it enumerates "the fishery articles, and provides that-· · The said articles shall remain in force for the period of ten years from the date 

-at which •they may come into Ol>era.tion; and further until the expiration ;ot 

two years aft.er either of tbe bigh contmcting parties sha.l1 have .given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same. • 

Neither Article XXVIII nor Article XXIX is mentioned in Article 

XXXIII, and yet their duration or continuance is stated to be "forthe 

term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII.'' The question is, therefore, what is that termofyears? 

The SenabJr from Mississippi says that if.A:rticle XXIX was not abrogated and did not fall when the other articles were abrogated-the :Jr.. 

ticles from XVIII to XXV and Article XXX-then, when does it end? 

I answer that the article remn.ins in force indefinitelyf if you please! 

until two years' :notice. as required by Article XXXIII of the treaiy 

itself; or, if the treaty has been disregarded by the other pow~ then 

it is within the power of this Government to abrogate it at once without any formal notice. 

. The question is, therefore, what is that term of years? There was no particular rea.Son why the dm:ation of the articles in relation to the 

navigation of Lake Michigan and to shipments through both .countries 

in bond should be limited to the duration of th-e fishery articles, which 

in their terms and in the arrangement of the treaty were tr.eated as "n 

independent subject. Being thus treated, there was .no question a1> to 

thelimitofthei.rduration. That was plainlystated by Article& K x Ill 

to be for ten years and until two years after the required Jl(}ti.ce o! 

their termination was given. 

.Article XXIX begins by saying "It1s ·agreed that for the t erm of years 

mentioned in Article XXXIII." What was the term of years? I.t W41.S 

the ten years certain, and then two years after notice had been given. 

As to the articles "from XVill to XXIX and .Article XXX (skipping 

those between), the ten years had expired, two years' notice had been · giveri, and those two years had expired, and then those articles mentioned 

had expired with the term; but as to Article XXIX the ten years have 

expired, but there has been no notice given bythls Government !that d.t 

desired that t.his article should expire, and therefore the article is in 

force, and is so regarded not only by this Government but by the Government of Great Britain as well; and I say that the only w y you can get rid {)fit is by declaring that the other side has disregarded it, .and 

then assuming the responsibility of disregarding it as well, or lif that 

does not exist, giving the two years' notice, and then the tteal;y mil 

fall at the expiration of the term. 

The President expresses the opinion that " the t erm of years .mentioned in Article XXXIII " which was w be the du.rntiou of Article 

XXIX means the period dm·ing which the .fishery articles remained 

in force. I do not think this view is justified by an examination of the 

language used in the severru articles referred to. Article XXlX, lik1:l 

.Article xxvrn, by its terms pla.1nl.y remains in force ' fur the term. of years mentioned in Article XXXllL" That term <Of years as plainly, first, the ;period of ten years from the date en the 1ID a_ty 

went into operation, and, secondly, a farther maeiinite period extending until the expiration of two years after either part y h ad given notice 

of its wish to terminate any article <Of the treaty. It can not be contended that l' the term of years men,tioned in Article XXXI IT n during 

which Article XXXIX wM to .remain in fOTce meant onl.J the period 

of ten years which is .mentioned. On the contrary~ 'it evidentJy meant 
8100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

both that period of ten years and whatever further period of time might 

elapse until a notice of termination was given and took effect. 

This; then, must be the period during which Article XXIX re- mains in force, and, as no notice of a wish to terminate it has been 

given by either power, it must still be in force to-day and can not be 

abrogated except after two years' notice or upon the ground that the 

other country has so utterly disregarded it as to justify the American 

nation in disregarding it also. 

That I am not alone in thus dissenting from the opinion expressed 

by the President will appear from the opinions expressed by others, to 

which I shall now call attention. 

While the present interstate-eommerce act was under consideration 

the committee of conference which draughted it gave attention to the 

difficulty encountered in applying its provisions to the Canadian railroads. The question of how far we were hampered in our proposed 

legislation by our treaty obligations with Canada was raised,· and in our search for information ,inquiry was naturally made of the Department of State. This inquiry was made by the Senator from Texas [Mr. 

REAGAN], and the reply of Mr. Bayard, which the Senator placed on the files of the Interstate Commerce Committee, was as follows: 

DEP.A.liTliENT OF STATE, Wash·moton, January 7, 1887. 

Sm: I bad the honor to receive late yesterday afternoon your telegram asking to be informed •· when was the treaty of Washington between the United 

States and the Dominion of Canada abrogated? When did its provisions cease to operate?" 

The information you desire is found in the accompanying document, containing the correspondence which took place between this Department and the 

British minister in 1885, and the President's proclamation in 1·egard to the ter- mination of the fisheries articles of the treaty of Washington. 

This document is reprinted in full in the recently printed Executive Docu- ment in relation to the rights of American fishermen in British North Ameri- can waters (Executive Document No.19, House of Representatives, Forty-ninth 

Cong1·ess, second session, pages 199-210), a copy of which is also inclosed herewith. 

The treaty of Washington between the United States and Great Britain did not relate solely to the Canadian fisheries. Only the fishery articles thereof were abrogated., as enumerated in the President's proclamation of January 31, 

1885. The remaining articles, comprising those which relate to commercial in- tercourse between the United States and the British North .American posses- sions, are stil'l in force. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, T. F. BAYARD. Hon. JoHN H: REAGAN, U. S. Senate. 

In this letter .Mr. Bayard distinctly states that the articles of the 

treaty "which relate to commercial intercourse between the United 

States and the British North American possessions are still in force." 

Mr. Bayard is the President's adviser in such matt{lrs. -It is to him 

that the President would naturally turn for information in respect to 

the matters discussed in his message, but this letter, in which it is 

stated without any qualification whatever, that Article XXIX remains 

in for~e. confirms my statement that the President's discovery of the 

termination of Article XXIX must be original with himself or have come 

from outside of his own Administration. The opinions expressed by 

the President in respect to Article XXIX certainly could not have been 

communicated to him by his Secretary of State, unless the latter has 

recently changed his mind on a subject about which he did not entertain the least doubt whatever last year. 

In the report of the majority of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

upon· the tre..'\ty recently rejected, submitted May 7 last, it is distinctly stated, although in an incidental way, that Article XXIX of the 

treaty of 1871 is still in force. But there can be no mistaking the languao-e used in respect to this article in the accompanying report of the minori'ty of the committee. That minority report bears the signatures of the 

Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. 

SAULSBURY], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN], and the Senator 

from Ohio [Mr. PAYNE]. These gentlemen represented the Ad.ministration in attempting to defend its one-sided and un-American fisheries 

treaty, and will be expected to uphold the views of the President as to 

the termination of Article XXIX of the treaty of 1871. Let us see 

what they say. 

Referring tb the abrogation of the fisheries articles the minority report says: 

.Article XXIX· was not terminated, but it never bad the least reference to the 

fisheries treaty of 1818, to enlarge its scope, change its meaning, or in any way to affect any right to which that treaty related. Yet, if that is not the true meaning of the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of 1871, this present treaty in no way affects that article, an~ it stands for all that it was ever worth in favor 

of our fishermen. 

Mr. President, there is not the slightest difficulty in our distinguished 

friends on the other side of the Chamber changing as often as the President of the United States himself sees proper to change, and therefore 

it is that when the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 1t!ORGA.N], who signed 

the minority report, a part of which I shall quote in a moment, was 

asked the other day if he believed that Article XXIX was still in force, 

he said it is not, and of course the ~enators on that side will all indorse the position the Administration has so recently taken. 

Mr. DOLPH. That is the minority report? 

Mr. CULLOM. That is the minority report of the committee making the report on the fisheries treaty and the language as incorporated 

in it by the Senators on the other side of the Cha.mber. 1 Evidently the views now expressed by the President in respect to , 

Article XXIX were not communicated to him by the Democratic mem- bers of the Committee on Foreign Relations of this body, for in May 

last those Senators believed and stated that .\rticle XXIX was still in 

force. 

Both Governments have understood and have acted upon tbe supposition that this Axticle XXIX remains in force at the present time, 'and additional evidence of the correctness of this view could be presented if necessary; but in order to avoid any charge of" offensive partisanship " in taking issne with the P1·esident on the subject, and in 

venturing to question his infallibility upon questions of international 

law, I am content to rest the case, so far as the question of this article 

being in force is concerned, by placing against the declarations of the 

President on the subject those of his own Secretary of State and of the 

Senators representing his party upon the Committee on Foreign Relations, leaving them to reconcile the opposing views they have ex- pressed as best they can. 

The laws which the President now asks authority to suspend the 

operation of were passed prior to tho treaty of 1871 and arc still in 

force. They are found in the Revised Statutes, and are as follows: 

SEC'. 3095 . .All merchandise ~rriving at the ports of New York, Boston, Port- land in Maine, or any other port specially designated by the Secretary of the 

Treasury, n.nd destined for places in the adjacent British provinces, or arriving at the port of Point Isabel in Texas, or any other port specially designated by 

the Secretary ofthe Treasury, and destined for places in the Republic of Mexico, may be entered at the custom-house, and conveyed, in transit, through the ter- ritory of the United States, without the payment of duties, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. . SEc. 3006. Imported merchandise in bond, or duty paid,and products or man- ufactures of the United States may, wilh the consent of the proper authorities 

of the British provinces or Republic of Iexico, be transported from one port in 

the United States to another port therein, over the territory of -such provinces or Republic, by such routes and under such rule&, regulations, and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and the merchandise so trans- ported shall, upon arrival in the United States from such provinces or Republic, 

be treated in regard to the liability to or exemption from duty or tax, as if the 

transportation had taken place entirely within the limits of the United States. 

As the existence of these statutes and the Pr.esident's sudden anxiety 

to suspend their operation seem to be the only public reason for his 

message, they are worthy of some consideration. 

In the first place, it must be clear upon examination of these stat"!ltes 

that a very large part of the -shipments in bond through our territory 

to andfrom Canada, which the Presidentnowwantspower to stop, are not authorized or carried on under these statutes. Section 3005 au- thorizes importations arriving at New York, Boston, and Portland, 

Me., and destined for Cana~a, to be carried through our territory free 

of duty, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may 

prescribe, but it does not authorize shipments to be made from Canada 

through our territory for exportation, nor does it authorize importations 

to be made at any ports except the three named! unless such other ports 

are specially designated by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is plain, 

therefore, that section 3005 does not authorize all the shipments in 

bond that are now made, and if the President believes, as he says in 

his message, that Article XXIX of the treaty and section 3 of the act 

of1873 are no longer in force, it-might be in order to inquire-by what 

authority he now permits any shipments to be made in bond from 

Cana~a. 

Mr. President, when I conclude my remarks I think I shall introduce a resolution calling upon the Secretary of the Treasury to inform 

the Senate whether ·be is to-day permitting any shipments from Canada through the United States to our ports for export, or what other 

shipments he is allowing that are not authorized by section 3005 of the 

Revised Statutes. _ I know of no law except section 3005 under which 

he can authorize these importations to the United States and through our country to the provinces of Canada, and I know of no law, if the 

law of 1873 has been repealed, that authorizes him to permit shipments from Canada through the United States to our ports for exportation. 

In the second place it will be observed that section 3005 is simply 

permissive in its terms, and that its operation is placed entirely within 

the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. It provides that the 

privileges specified may be granted under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe. 

'Ve have been discussing the fisheries treaty here for a number of 

months. It bas been before us since some time in the early spring. ~ecitations of outrages in connection with our fisheries have been given 

to us by the President of the United States. Yet in all this period of 

time since the act of 1887 was passed giving the President the power 

of retaliation as to .outrages on account of the fisheries we have had no information from him that there has been any wrong done on the part 

of the people of Canada upon the people of the United Sta.tes in connection with our commercial relations. 

As I say, the act provides that the privileges specified may be granted 

under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe. It is entirely 

within the discretion of the Secretary to grant or continue these privileges. Even if it should be claimed that in this statute ''may '' means "shall " the whole matter is still practically within the discretion of 

the Se~retary, because the transpor~'l.tion must be carried on under 

such regulations as he prescribes; and under this power, which no one can question, the Secretary can, if he pleases, make regulations which 

would practically be prohibitory. In other words, if he pleases, the 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8l01 

Secretary can make it so inconvenient to comply with his regulations 

that no one would do so. .. Therefore, taking the President's view of the situation, we find that 

he sent this message to Congress beeause he wants authority to suspend the operation of section 3005, and we find that the operation of 

that section rests entirely in the discretion of the Secretary of the 

Treasury. If the President is right in his contention that Article 

XXIX of the treaty and section 3 of the act of 1873 are no longer in 

force-that is what he says in his message-the authority which he 

asks Congress to give him, and all the authority he needs, is the authority to make his own Secretary of the Treasury do his bidding. 

In any view of the situation that can be taken, whether we agree 

with the President or disagree with him, no action by Congress is 

necessary in order to suspend the operation of the statutes oJ 1866. 

The simple fact of the matter is that the President asks for authority 

which ought not to be exercised, and could not be honorably, if ArticJe 

XXIX of the treaty remains in force, or which he does not need at all 

if it is not. That is the sum .and substance of the whole matter. 

One word about the discrimination against American vessels using 

the Canadian canals to which the President calls attention. This discrimination against our citizens must be stopped, and there ought to 

be no difficulty whatever in stopping it if this Administration could 

be induced to move in the matter. The right to the use of those canals 

on equal terms with the Canadians themselves is expressly secured to 

us by treaty stipulations, and if these are violated, as the President 

says they ha>e been, the natural, common-sense course would be to call 

the attention of the British Government to the matter in the ordinary 

way. In all probability this would result in the immediate discontinuance of the discrimination. If it did not, it would be time enough 

to ask for legislation on the subject, but we have no evidence that the 

course always pursued under such circumstances has been resorted to 

in this instance. · 

When we have applied this message to the situation as it exists and 

see how little excuse there is for it, the fact that it was inspired by political necessity becomes more and more apparent. In fact, this message may be reg:arded as Mr. Cleveland's long-delayed letter of acceptance of the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, because it betrays 

so clearly his anxiety for another term of office and his fear that he will 

not be elected. His complete change of front on the fisheries question 

shows that Mr. Cleveland and his party are in desperate straits politically, that they see defeat staring them in the face, and that they are 

seeking to divert attention from the one issue upon which they deliberateJy staked all their chances of success at the approaching election. 

In my judgment this whole movement is merely a political movement, and I desire to call the attention of the Senate and the country 

to the proof of what I say upon that question. I :find in the newspaperS of the country a dispatch on the day of t~e delivery of this message 

to Congress, dated Columbus, Ohio, August 24, 1888, and it says: 

Have prominent Irishmen send congratulatory telegrams to President Cleveland on his message on the fishery treaty, and get up demonstration, if possible. 

J. R. TOWNSEND, 

Chairman Ohio State Central Committee. 

I hear also that this man Townsend has been and perhaps is now a 

partner of the distinguished gentleman, M1-. Brice, who was here, I believe, in the city in clo e conference with the President at the time the 

messag~ was-issued, and who had undoubtedly informed his law part--

ner, who was chairman of the State Democratic committee of Ohio, of 

what was going to happen, and notified him to do what Mr. Townsend 

proceeded to do, to get up demonstrations and have prominent Irish- men send telegrams to the President of the United States and-congratulate him upon the delivery of his message. 

I find here a few dispatches that were the result of that order. One 

of them is dated New York, .August24, and reads: 

I congratulate you on behalf of the entire business community. Your mes- sage is a masterpiece of dignity and statesmanship. HERMAN OELRICHS. 

I do not know how much of an Irishman he is, but the name does 

not quite sound like one. I believe that he is one of the captains that 

is running the Democratic national committee in New York along 

with Mr. Brice. 

I find ·another from mv own State. as follows: CHICAGO, August 24. 

Your message is received with uni versa! approval by the people. I congratulate you. ERSKINE W. PHELPS. 

He is another member of the national Democratic committee, and he 

is undertaking to re-elect the present President of the United States. 

I do not think that Mr. Phelps is very much of an Irishman. They were the only class that were appealed to by the chairman; but the 

national Democratic committee have been unable to get up demonstrations so far. 

So I could go and give a list of chairmen of Democratic clubs and of 

Demo<:ratic county committees, all of them sending congratulatory dispatches to 'the President on account of thattremendous messagewhich 

l1e sent here, that was to startle the country and attract, if you please, 

the attention of the people of this country from the great issue that 

they are determined to adhere to to the end in this campaign, whether 

the people of this country shall have any protection to America,n industries and American labor, or whether we shall inaugurat<f a system 

of free trade in this country that shall break down the industries of the 

country and reduce the wages of our American citizens to a pauper 

basis. 

I see no evidence here in these dispatches, as in the evidences that 

come to us from the country anywhere, that the message has excited any 

admiration on the part of the Irish people, who were expected to rally 

to its support and-get up demonstrations on account of the message. 

They knew too well that the pm-pose of that message, as I said, was to 

mend the hold of the Administration. It knew that it had lost them 

upon the great issue, and not only that, but because of its-leaning to 

the British Gov.ernmentfrom the very beginning of this Administration 

up to the time when the message was sent here and until the Irish people of the country had determined that they would have no more of it. 

1 The necessities of the political situation demanded that the President should, in the words of the manager of his campaign, "i::lo something to help himself." What could he do and what did he do? In 

the search for some means of diversion he turned to the contemplation 

of our relations with Canada, knowing that the country strongly disapproved the policy and course of his administration in respect to the 

treatment of our :fishermen by the Canadian authorities. The ..rejection of his un-American treaty having met the approval of the neople, 

it behooved him to make amends for his serious blunder in negotiating 

-and insisting upon the ratification of a treaty which involved a cow-

. ardly surrender of American rights when an entirely different course 

of action had been decided upon by Congress and the path of his duty 

had been plainly marked out for him by law. 

In lho hour of their tribulation and distress what did the President 

and his advisers do? What has the Democratic party "always done 

when its own plans and policies have been repudiated by the people, 

as they usually have been? Thequestion answers itself. They adopt 

the policy of the Republican party and claim it as their own. 

Since the President's message upon the tariff question last December, and since the passage of the Mills bill, or more especially since its 

introduction, the Democratic party have sought every opportunity that 

it had the power and of which it could avail itself to undertake to show 

that the President's message did not mean free trade, and that the 

1\fills bill did not mean fi·ee trade. Ifwe shall wait a little Jonger 

they will be insisting that they are a better protection party than the 

Republican party itself. 

'.rhe President's message shows that the emphatic protests which 

have repeatedly been made upon this side of the Chamber against the 

long·continued neglect by this Administration of the grievances of our 

:fi hermen have not been made in vain. After at least two years of indifference to their interests the President is at last ready to act, or 

rather, to state the situation more exactly, to talk . about doing something. If he was ready to act, or wanted to act, he would at once 

adopt the policy of retaliation marked outfor him by the act of Uarch 

3, 1887; but he is only seeking to do what the managers of his campaign have for some time insisted must be done if he desired to be re-

~lected, and that is ''to do something to help himself,'' and so he only 

talks about retaliation against Canada instead of actually retaliating, 

as he could any day or any hour. 

But even this partial and eleventh-hour conversion of one sn set in 

his ways as Mr. Cleveland is exceedingly encouraging, and I think we 

upon this side may with good reason congratulate ourselves upon the 

apparent adoption by the present Executive, reluctant and t-~rdy 

though it has been, of the a~pted Republican policy of protection to 

the rights and interests of American citizens in all their dealings with 

foreign nations. . After ignoring the plain requirements of the retaliation act for a year 

and a half without making the slightest effort towards retaliation, the 

President now comes to the front as the champion of the policy of retaliation. vVith the customary zeal of a new convert for a policy he 

has steadily opposed, Mr. Cleveland now professes a desire to enter 

upon a policy of retaliation that shall be at once ''thorough and vig- -

orous." The reason he does not retaliate is because he is so strongly 

in favor of retaliation and so anxious to retaliate. 

The retaliation act of 1887 marked out clearly and plainly thecourse 

of action to be pursued by the President when he found retaliation to 

be necessary, and when he became as anxions to retaliate as Mr. Cleveland now profe....c::ses to be. The investigation and consideration of the 

fisheries trouble by the last Congress resulted in the passage of that 

act, and the course of action there laid down· was deliberately decided 

upon by Congress as the proper one to be pursued under the circumstances. That act was signed by the present Executive, not withstand· 

ing his immoderate indulgence in the exercise of the veto power, and 

must be presumed to have then met his approval. It was believed then 

and is believed now that the exercise of the great powers conferred 

upon the President by that act would speedily bring to an end the 

·outrages perpetrated upon our fishermen by the Canadian authorities. 

That act provided that whenever t.he President "shall be satisfied, 

that .American fishing vessels or American :fishermen have been denied 

or abridged in the enjoyment of any rights in Canadian waters or ports 

secured to them by treaty or law, "it shall be the duty of the Presiden; 
8102 CONGRESSIONAL BEOOJil>-.sENATE, .AUGUST 30, 

of the United States, in his discretion,'' to deny to Canadian vessels any · 

entranceintoourports, "and also to deny entry into any port or place 

of the United States of fresh fish or salt fish or any other product of said 

dominions, or other goods coming from said dominions to the United 

States." 

While the words " .in his discretion" are used in the act, they apply 

:rather to the particular modes 'Of retaliation prescribed than to the 

question of enforcing the act, and it will be 'Observed that the act contains the mandatory provision that ''it shall be the duty of the President" to deny to the Canadians the privileges specified whenever he 

shall be satisfied that such a. state of facts exists as he says in his message has existed. It is now about a year and ahalfsincethelawwent 

into force, the condition of affairs which made it the duty of the President to act has existed during that time, his statement of the situation shows that he is satisfied of the fact, and yet none of the steps 

which the law required him to take have been taken. 

.After ignoring the existence and requirements of this law for a year 

and a half he now comes to Congress at this late day and asks for more 

power, because he is so anxious to enter upon a policy of retaliation. 

No 1·eason is given for his failure to exercise the great powers .already 

conferred upon him, but the pretense is made that a. further grant of 

;power is necessary. It is the same sort of pretense that was resorted to 

by this Administration fu regard to the payment of the public debt in 

l()rder to pile up a surplus as an :argument f~r free trade. The President 

doubted the authority to boy bonds, although nobody else did, and deIayed action on the pretense that further legislation was necessary. In 

a matter of sneh importance Congress was willing to gratify his whim, 

and sent him the desired legislation, but it contained restrictions he did 

not like, and .rnther than accept them he abandoned his pretense of 

·want of power and concluded the law gave all the power necessary, as 

everybody knew. 

This Administration has been from first to last one of sham and pretense. It has made a }lretense of economy, but has been the most extrav~o-ant one we have~ver had for very many years. It has made a pretense of favoring civil-service reform, while there never has been one 

that so utterly disregarded it, as the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE], 

the chairman of the select committee on that subject, has shown by his , 

statements here and by discussions which have taken place. l have in 

my hand a newspaper, which I shall not take up thetimeofthe Senate 

to read, but which gives an account of civil-service reform in the great 

city of Chicago, in my own State, in connection with the post-office there, 

where the law partner ()f the postmaster put a card upon his door and 

sent cards to the various employes, telling them to eome over and see 

him, and the account says that the ante-roo~ of that distinguished 

lawyer, the partner of the postmaster at Chicago, was full <>f people 

knocking at the door to get in to make the contributions, .so that they 

mip:ht not lose their places. 

' This Administration madeapretellS{lofananxiety toreducethe snrplus, but allowed it to accumulate for nearly a year before a dollar was 

paid out in the payment of debt which then was due. In its anxiety 

to reduce the terrible surplus of which we hear so much the Adminis-

- tration has succeeded in securing the passage elsewhere of a tariff bill 

' that would increase the revenues instead of decrease them, and has cohtrived to conduct the purchase of bonds in such a. blundering way as to 

unnecessarily enhance their price and to .needlessly payout large sums 

to speculators as premiums. . One thing, however, this Administration has done, and it is entitled 

to whatever _credit it can claim for such methods of financiering. It 

has transferred many millions of dollars from the Treasury to the custodyoffavored national banks. These banks undoubtedly finditprofitabl.e to hold and use these millions of dollars of the people's money. 

The interest or profit they receive on its use is not paid to the United 

States, but it will be surprising if a liberal slice of,this ''swag" does 

not find its way into the coffers of the Democratic national committee. 

That committee, it seems, does not hesitate to make those employed 

in the civil service "stand and deliver." 

.And the President's pretense that he needs further power in order. to 

undertake a policy of retaliation against Canada is ·on a par with those 

that have characterized his whole administration. He has not used 

the great }lowers already granted him, but pretends that he wants 

more. I should like 'to see the President exercise the power that has now 

been given him more than a year and a half to protect our American 

<citizens in connection with the 'fishery trade. If be uses that power 

discreetly and "Shows a disposition to protect American citizens, unless 

iWe can correct -other evils by law I am for giving him other powers in , 

order to correct whatever other evils may exist. 

I\Ir. President, the questions involved in our commercial relations 

with Canada are important ancl can not be dealt with carelesssly withon t danger of doing great injury to our people. M:aey millions of peo-

_ple in the W~t and Northwest, with their vast crops of grain and other 

pmdocts about :ready for the markets of the world, must be remembered 

in tl1e consideration ·of our <luty here~ I am for doing anything and -eT 1:_v thing that we can do consistent with boner and the interest o.f our peo~le if on i n\'estigation it shall be found that any legislation is nec-

'e&"k'H';\r. 

But I am not willing to concede to the President because he sends 

a messa~e here talking about grievances that, if they exist at all, have 

been gorng on for years, when we have not the scratch of a pen from 

that Administration showing us what the evils ,are that he has talked 

about in his message. I want the President or his Secretary of the 

Treasury to inform the Senate why he has been allowing goods in 

bond to go from Canada to Boston ~r to New York or to Portland for 

the purpose of exportation and to tell us under what law t.hat has been 

going on. I am not able to find any, and if it has been goina -on it 

has been going on without any:authority ,of law whatever. o 

I believe in the warning words of Washington in his farewell address 

to the American people, when he said: 

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence "I conjure you to believe me fellow-citizens, the-jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awalre sine~ history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most b~eful foes of republican government. 

I agree with that, and as I say I agree to-day to any legi'Slation that 

may be necessary to protect the rights of the American people. So do I 

agree that if it can be shown that the twenty-ninth article of the treaty 

of 1871 has been utterly disregarded by the British Government, by 

the Canadians, I agree that we shall disregard it, also, without waiting 

the two years necessary in order to abrogate it by formal notice. 

But so far as that article is concerned, I can not believe that there is 

any question but that the tw.ent-y-ninth article is in force, so far as 

the terms of the treaty are concerned, or any law that has been passed 

under it is concerned, and that the term means not only the ten years 

as specified in the article itself, ·but also the two years after this Government or the other shall see proper to give notice of its abrogation. 

Mr. · President, with these remarks I shall not detain the Senate further, but I shall ask leave to insert a synopsis, with a reason or two in 

connection therewith, of section 3005, section '3006, the third section 

of the act of March 3, 1873, and also the joint resolution of 1883, which 

applies to the . subject as well, and a),so Articles XXVI, XXVII, 

.xxvm, R?d XXIX of the treaty of 1871. 

• SECTION 3005. 

Section 3005 of the Revised Statutes authorizes the transportation 

through the teni.tory of the United Sf:3tes withoui the payment of 

duties, under such .regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may 

pr~scribe, of merchandise arriving at the pm·ts of New York, .Boston, 

and Portland, in Maine, or any other port specially designated by the 

Secretary of the Treasury and destined for places m -Canada. 

This does n~t authorize the transportation tbrQllgh the United States, 

without tl1e payment of duties, of merchandise shipped from Canada 

t() our ports for exportation, nor does iit authorize the transportation 

through our territory to Canada of merchandise imported on the Pacific 

·coast, unless such port <>n the Pacific coast is specially designated for 

:sueh purposes by the Secretary of the Treasury. 

This section co\ers only one kind of transporta.tion across <>trr territory, and that is of articles coming from abroad te oux ports on the 

Atlantic coast ·and going to Canada. 

SECTION 3006. 

Section 3006 is for the benefit of American rather than Canadian 

shippers. It p-rovides .for the transportion ofimported merchandise in 

bond, and products or manufactures of 'the United States, from ooe port 

.in the United .States to nnothet; through Danadian territory. 

TILE .ACT OF 1873. 

The .act -of 1I:trch 1, 187~ was passed to--carry into effect the treaty 

of 1A71. The third section of this act pr~vided that so long as the fisberies articles of the treaty !remained in force goods arriving at our portl' 

from foreign countries might be conve.red through our territory in to the 

British possessions without the payment 'Of duties, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury might prescribe. 

So far this section is similar to section 3005, but in a{ldition it cont::tined a provision authorizing the shjpment 'Of goods, war-es, and mel·-

cb·andise, under similar circumstances, from Canada through the territory of the United States for export . 

This section, by its terms, pro-tided that the shipments which it au- thorized might be made from the day on which th~ tren.ty of 1871 took 

effect and so long as the fisheries articles of said treaty remained in 

force. This section would therefore appear to bn.ve expired by limitation, unless it has been saved or extended by the joint resolution of 

March 3, 1883. JOTh'T RESOLUTI ON Oil' 1883. 

The joint resolution of March 3, 1883, was passed to terminate the 

fisheries articles of the treaty of 1871. 

.By the third sectio:Q. of this resolution tbe provisions of tbe act of 

1873, which was passed to convey the ~aty into effect, were repealed 

so far as they related to the fisheries articles of the treaty. As section 3 of the act of 1873 did not relate to the fisheries articles, that section was not repeal eel by the joint resolution of 1883, nnd, if it has not 

expired by limita,tion , is not -affected by that resolution. 

THE TREATY. 

Article XA'\TI ()f tbe treaty of 1871 relates to the Davigation of the 

St. La;wrence River. · .Article XXVTI relates to the use of the Welland Ca.nal, fhe St. Law-
I 

1888. CONGRESSIONAil RECORD-SENATE. 8103 

renee, and other canals by Americans, and the use of our canals by 

Canadians. 

.Article .XXVIII makes the navigation of Lake Michigan free to the 

British sn.bjects. 

Article XXIX relates to the shipment through our terri~ory of merchandise destined to or coming from Canada, and its terms are substantially the same as those of section 3 of the act of 1873. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question--

Mr. CULLOM. I offer the resolution which I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MANDERS6N in the chair). The 

resolution will be read. 

'Ihe Secretary read as follows: 

Whereas the President of the United States in his message of Augnst 23, 1888, 

concerning our relations with Canada advises Congress that Article XXIX of 

the treaty of Washington, which provided for the transit of' goods, wares, and 

merchandise in bond over the tezritory of the United States to or from Canada. 

is no longer in force; and 

Whereas in the same message the President also advises Congress that sec- tion 3 of the act of March 1, 1873, passed to carry into effect the provisions of 

said Article XXIX is no longer in force; and 

Whereas section 3005 of the Revised Statutes only authorizes the transit 

through the territory of the United States of merchandise destined for Canada. 

and arriving from abroad at mw York, Boston, and Portland in Maine (or at such other ports as :mn.y be specially designated by the Secretary of the Treas- ury): Therefore, 

.Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, directed to inform the Senate whether the transit in bond over or across the territory of 

the United States, without the payment of duty, of goods, wares, and merchandise coming from Canada has been permitted since July 1, 1885, when Article XXIX of the treaty of 'Vashington, and section 3 of the act of March 1.1B73, are said to have ceased to be in force; and, if so, to what extent and by what 

authority of law. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will lie on the table 

and be printed. 

Mr. CULLOM. I desire the adoption of the resolution. It is a mere 

resolution of inquiry. 

Mr. GORMAN. Let it go over. _ • The PRESIDING OFFICER. Being objected to, the resolution will 

go over and be printed. 

MESSAGE FROM TilE HOUSE. 

A m~e from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 8310) to provide for the 

disposal of the Fort Wallace military reservation, in Kansas. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

On motion of Mr. HARRIS it was Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the Senate the papers in the case of Hugh L. Brinkley and Annie 0. Snowden, there having been no adverse report thereon. 

FORTIFICATIONS APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration 

of the bill (H. R. 10998) making appropriations for fortifications and 

other works of defense, for the armament thereof, for the procurement 

of heavy ordnance for trial and service, and for other purposes. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the 

Whole, proceeded to corudder the bill. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Appropriations with 

amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless there is objection, the formal 

reading will be dispensed with and the bill will be read for amendment. 

Mr. PLUMB. I ask that theamendmentsofthe Committeeon Appropriations may be considered as they are reached in the reading of 

the bill. 

Tile PRESIDING OFFICER. That course will be followed. 

The :fint amendment of the Committee on Appropriations was to insert, as section 1: 

That the appropriations hereinafter provided for shall be ava.ilable until ex- pentled, and shall be expended under th.e direct supervision of a board to con- sist of the commanding general of the Army, an officer of engineers, an officer 

of ordnance, and an officer of artillery, to be selected by the Secretary of War, to be called and known as the board of ordnance and fortification; and saia 

boar<l snail be under the direction of the Secretary of War and subject to his 

supe1·vision and control in all respects, and sha.ll have power to provide suitable regulations for the inspection of guns and materials at all stages of manu- facture to the extent necessary to protect fully the interests of the United States1 and generally to provide such regulations concerning matters within saia 

board's operations as shall be necessary to carry out to the best advantage all 

duties committed to its charge. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I wish the attention of the Senator from Kansas in 

charge of the bill for a moment. I desiie to move an amendment for 

his consideration and the consideration of the Senate. In line 6 of the 

new section I propose to strikeout the words '' an officer '' and to insert 

"two officers;" so as to rea.d: "two officers of ordnance;" making the 

board consist of an officer of engineers, two officers of ordnance, and an officeL· of artillery. 

I mo\e the amendment as the result of along conversation with General Schofield, now the commanding general of the Army, who thinks, 

as this work is chiefly ordnance work, a single ordnance officer will be 

ove1 burdened with llis share of the work. This is the general opinion, 

in "-bicll I very earnestly and heartily coincide. The work of this 

board of ordnance and fortification, chiefly advisory, will to a Jarge 

extent fall upon the ordnance officer, especially the preparation of papers 

and the working over of the matter. Two ordnanoo officers will be 

valuable. The work will be better done in all probability . 

Another consideration arises. This is ordnance work Iarp;ely, and 

if there be but one ordnance officer and an officer of engineers and an 

officer of artillery, it may frequently happen.that, in the ordnance field 

especially, the -ordnance officer will be outvoted by two men from other 

corps of the Army. These three will be the active and working men 

of the board. The commanding general of the Army will only come 

in occasionally or to decide disputes among them. If the ~ngineer 

and the artillery officer should overrule the ordnance officer, 1t would 

rest upon the commanding general of the A:rmy to correct it, or to make 

a tie, if you choose. He is only a ~!?ember of the board; be is not commanding officer of the board, and could not overrule the two; so that 

the Loard would go on and frequently perhaps end in a tie, for the 

Secretary of War to decide. He is not a technical man; he knows 

nothing of the details of the manufacture of ordnance and ma~rs of 

artillery, of course. If you have two ordnance officers and an artillery 

officer and an engineer officer on the board, and it shall be tied-and 

I am guarding against the m::mifeatation of jealousies in the staff corp~­

General Schofield is quite capable and would easilyhave theanthonty 

then to make the board harmonize. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendmentprop(>sed bytheSenator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLEY] to the amendment of the Committee on Appropriations will be stated. 

The SECRETARY. In line 6, after the word ''engineers," it is proposed to strike out the words ''an officer'' and insert ''two officers;'' 

so as to read: 

Two officers of ordnance. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to make a suggestion to the Senator 

from Connecticut. 

Mr. BECK. The board is to consiSt of whom, then? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Let the Secretary begin reading in line 5. 

The SECRETARY. So a.s to make the clause read: 

A bo:ud to consist of the commanding general of the Army, an officer of en- gineers, two officers of ordnance, and an officer of artillery, to be selected by tho 

Secretary of War. 

Mr. HALE. That makes the bnard composed of :five. 

Mr. HAWLEY. It makes the working board four. 

Mr. BECK. It makes :five with the commanding general .of the 

Army? 

:Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

IYir. BECK. That can not hurt much. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator from Connecticut 

if he does not think it would improve the bill to put a civilian on the 

board? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Ifl were going to draught a bill-and it ought to be 

done by an independent bill really-for the establishment of an advisory board, I should perhaps put in a civilian or two. Two eminent 

civilians were on that very eminent board of fortifications two years 

ago, the most efficient board that I have known for a long time. But 

I do not think it necessary in this board. This is a mere professional 

advisory board oftheSecretaryofWar, ancl I donot belie-veitisnecessary to put a civilian on it. If it w-ere a temporary board to make a 

great examination, a board like the fortifications board, I should want 

to call in two outsiders. 

Mr. PLUMB. There is some force in what the Senator from Connecticut bas said, and in view of what he reports is the deliberate judgment of General Schofield, although it has not been presented to the 

committee, I shall have no objection to the adoption of the amendment which he propose.~. \ 

There is something always to be said, of course, in favor of a small 

board. In this case there is a good deal to be said in favor of having 

a board which will embrace members of all the bureaus of the War Department having to deal with the question of offensive and defensive 

military operations. It was, therefore, thought proper to bring in the 

Engineer and Artillery Corps as well as the Ordnance Corps, although, 

as the Senator from Connecticut very properly says, the Ordnance people work out the detail and largely the plan, and must of necessity 

do so in the construction of guns, and will continue to do so, of course, 

under the operations of this section. 

I think I shall not interpose any objection to the adoption of the 

amendment. We shall come to the consideration of this question after 

a. time with more experience on account of the trial we shall make of 

this plan, and if it does not work well we can then change it. 

The suggestion of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] about 

having a civilian on the board llli.d consideration at the hands of the 

committee, and it originally was my own belief that that would be not 

only proper but very desirable. However, in the :first place, it enlarges 

the board; it makes it to some extent unwieldy. There might be a 

considerable period of time befoTe the board would get into that harmonious relation which would tend to efficiency of operations. There 

would be some jealousy, of course, existing as to who should be se- lected, and as to the weight to be given to the suggestions of the vari- ous component parts, divided as they would be into the two classes of 

military men and civilians. 
~104 CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORl)-SENATE. .AUGUST 30, 

I think, on the whole, in starting this matter as we propose to do by Mr. PL U.MB. No; the sum given is precisely the estimate of the 

the bill, the most important thing which we do in it is really to make War Department. 

sure that we have the combined co-operation of all the branches of the Mr. HAWLEY. For their preservation? -

Army, not only in determining upon the plans, but in wor1~ing theli\, :Mr. PLUMB. Yes, sir; that paragraph, commencing in line 4 and 

out, and that I think is satisfactorily accomplished in the constitution ending in line 7, is not only the amount but in the precise language of 

of the board as proposed.• If it shall seem after we get inio this thing the estimate of the War Department. 

more largely, as we shall do, and after we try the plans which are pro- Mr. HAWLEY. It bas been the custom for many years to recom· 

posed, that they are not what they ought to be, that they are. not being mend large sums for continuing the building or building new ones, but 

worked out properly by reason of incompetency or jealousy,or anything they have given that up I presume. -

else we can reconstruct the board in such a way-as to make it answer The readingoftbe bill was resumed. The next amendment ofthe 

to ~bat may then seem to be the needs of the service. . Committee on Appropriations was, in section 2, line 15, before the 

Mr. TELLER. The trouble with tbesuggestionofthe Senator from words'' hundred thousand,'' to strike out'' two'' and insert'' five;'' 

Kansas is that we are to go on wjJ:.b a system here and after we have so as to read: 

gone on some time he suggests tbatifwefind it is a failure then we can For torpedoes for harbor defense; the purchase of submarine mines andnecbring into the board some other talent. I do not wish myself to say essary appliances to operate them; for needful casemates, cable-galleries, and 

d d t to th b te f tb appliances to render it possible to operate submarine mines; for continuing anything that will be regarde as eroga ory e C arac r 0 e torpedo experiment-s; for practical instruction of engineer troops in detail of 

officers of the Army with reference to these things, but I know it is a the service, and for movable submarine torpedoes propelled and controlled at 

fact which everybody will admit who bas looked into these questions will by power transmitted from shore stations, $>00,000. 

at all, that if we were selecting for gr6ftt enterprises as a general rule The amendment wa.r;; agreed to. 

we should avoid the engineers or any other department of the Army of Mr. PLUMB. I now move to amend, in line 13, of section 2, by inthe United States. The Engineer Corps in the United States Army has serting after the word "for" the words "the pQ.rcbase of." That is never distinguished itself above the civilian engineers of the country, the intent of the section, but I am somewhat afraid that the purpose 

as everybody knows. is not expressed with sufficient clearne ~. 

The questions to be pr~nted to the board will be very largely q:ues- ·The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated from 

tions of engineering, and it -seems to me (though I have not any 1dea the desk. 

that the Senate will depart from the report of the committee; I want The SECRETARY. In section 2, line 13, after the word "for," it is 

to express my view of the subject, however), that.it would have bee!! proposed to insert "the purchase of;" so as to read: 

wise to have given the President an opportunity to select some em1- _ Andfortbepurchaseofmova.blesubmarinetorpedoespropelledandcontrolled 

nent civil engineer to be put in here. Especially is that true if the at will by power transmitted from shore stations, etc. 

·system is to remain as it is contemplated, which I understanq_ is to The amendment was agreed to. 

have outside parties come in and offer to the Government guns. r- The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the 

think that it would have been no more than fair to the outside people Com,p1ittee on Appropriations was, in section [2] 3, line 6, after the 

who are expected to offer to make guns that there should have been words "service guns," to strikeout "for machine guns;" so as to read: 

some eminent civilian engineer selected by the President. I do not SEc. 3. For t.he manufacture or purchase nnd test of cannon and carriages, 

suggest, of course, that the legislative department shou_ld des~gna~ including two 10-inch carriages maneuvered by power, one of which shall be a. 

Who should go in, but there are a great number of engmeers 10 tb~ disappearing carriage, and also including those for t.he field and siege services; for the alteration of carriages on hand t.o adapt them to iJDproved service guns; country from whom the Preaident could select. As this is to be a mat- for projectiles, etc. 

ter of long standing it would be pract?-cally! if a. good selection were Mr. HA. WLEY. I can not permit that to go without a protest, 

made a life duty for some great engmeer rn thiB country, and I am though the Senator from Kanaas [Mr. PLUMB] in private conversation 

very ~onfident that the results attained would he very much better bas told me something about the amendment. 

than will be attained under the present plan. The Government buys every year more or less of mn.chine guns to 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the supply to the State militia. The well-organized militia of many States, 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLEY] among them l'llassachusetts and Connecticut and New York and New 

to the amendment of the Committee on Appropriations. Jersey and Pennsylvania, have Gatling guns attached to their regiThe amendment to the' amendment was agreed to. ments. In short, there is a little trade every year in that · particular 

Mr. PLUMB. I move to further amend the amendment by adding weapon. The Government buysthe guns and the demand is made for 

at the end of the section, after the word "charged," in line 17, the fol- them by. the States under the law giving $600,000 a year for supplies 

lowing proviso: to the militia. I should hope the committee would permit those words p .,·ovided, That subject t.o the foregoing provisions the .exp. n~it';lre. shall be to remain in the bill. 

made by the several bureaus of the War Department havmgJurisdiction of the Mr. PLUMB. Really, this provision is covered, though not by 

same under existing law. name, in a subsequent provision of the bill; but still, if the Senator 

That simply provides that the agencies which now exist in the De- from Connecticut feels any special interest in having it :retained at the 

partment for· the transaction of the various classes of business, if I present time, I shall not make any contention about it. The discremay so term it, shall be continued the same as now, only under the tionary power :trnally lodged with the board in another {>art of the bill 

direction and supervision of the board. covers this, but it is not specially mentioned. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Mr. GORMAN. I hope the Senator from Kansas will state that it 

amt~ndment proposed by the ~Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] to the was the purpose of the committee to exclude all the different cla~ses of 

amendment of the committee. guns by name, leaving the selection to the discretion of the board. 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. HAWLEY. The committee is quite right in not namin~ any Mr. HALE. May I ask the Senator from Kansas whether in line 9 f I d.d t to ·ti · ·t t' · th t 

the words ''and control" should not be inserted after the word "di- description ° guns. 1 no mean en mse 1 s ac 100 10 a re- spect. 

rection?" - · The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

Mr. PtUUB. Those words should be in; and the Senator will see of the Committee on Appropriations to strike out the words "for rna- that the word "control" occure~ in line 11-" supervision and con- chine guns." 

trol." That settles it. The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. HALE. That is correct. I did not see that the words occurred The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the 

in line 11. Committee on Appropriations was, in section (2) 3, line 14, after the 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to t.he word •' employed," to strike out "and to test and, if found satislactory, 

amendment of the Committee on Appropriations as amended. to purchase two breech-loading field guns of three and two tenths inch 

The amendment as amended was agreed to. bore! of aluminum bronze, four," and insert ''five;" so as to read: 

The next amendment was to change " Sec. 1 " to "Sec. 2." . . . 

Tb d t d t For the manufacture or purchase and test of cannon and carriages, mclud1ng e amen men W~ agree 0 • • • • two ten-inch carriages maneuvered by power, one of which shall be a disappear- The reading of the bill was contmued to the end of line 7 of section ing carriage, and also including those for the field and siega sen;ices; for the 

2 as follows: alteration of carriages on hand~ adapt them t<? improved serviCe guns; fo.r ' . . I projectiles, powders, fuzes, and 1mplements, theu tnal and proof; for expen- SEc. 2. That tl;te sums of money herem. provtded for be, and the .same are ments in the means of protecting torpedo lines; for compensation of draughts- he~eby, approprlll.ted out of any moneys m the Treasury not otherwiSe appro- men while employed in the Army Ordnance Bureau ~ 01·dnance <:<>nstructi on, 

pr1ated, nnmely :. . . . . nnd for the necessary expenses of ordnance officers while temporanly employed For the protectiOn, preservatiOn, an~Iepa.Ir of fortificatiOns and ?ther works at the proving-ground and absent from their proper stations, at t·he rate of $"2.50 of defense, $100,000. For the constructiOn of sea-walls, and for earth embank- per diem while so employed, $500,000, and not more than $10,000 of said sum ments, Sll7,000. shall be expended for providing increased facilities for the manufacture of pro- :Mr. HAWLEY. I wish to make an inquiry just there of the Senator jectiles. 

in charue of the bill as to the fortifiCations. There is nothing here. that The amendment was agreed to. 

provid:S a dime for the improvement or renewal of fortifications as well The next amenflmellt was, in section [2] 3, line 19, after the word as preservation and repair. These fortifications cost ns some twenty "'projectiles," to inst>rt: · or thirty million dollars, and $200,000 is a comparatively small sum. I wish to inquire whether the estimates of the War Department are 

not larger than the amou~t here named? 

For examining, testiug, a.nd experimenting with. pneumatic or other ~:v;namite guns, gun-carriages, aerial torpedoes, dynamite shells ~nd ammumtJ_on, and batteries for coast. defense, whetl~er sunke?, counterpotse, or othe~w1se, 
1888. - CONGRESSIPNAL RECORD-SENATE. 8105 

brought to the notice of the Secretary of War, $100,000, or so much "thereof as be may deem proper. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The Senator from Kansas will pardon me if I make 

a verbal criticism there. The provision is : 

For examining, testing, and experimenting wit~ pneumatic or other ~~amite guns, gun-carriages, aerial torpedoes, dynannte shell~ and amm~t10n, 

and batteries for coast defense, whether sunken, counterpoise, or otherwiSe. 

That means really gun-carriages, "sunken, counterpoise, or otherwise." I should myself strike out the words "whether sunken, counterpoise or otherwio;;e,'' because ~~he word ''sunken'' has no reference 

to the character of carriage. I take it the committee is endeavoring 

to provide for the purchase of the disappearing carriages that drop with 

the gun behind the parapet. They are all disappearing, some of them 

counterpoise and some of them make the gun balance a certain part of 

the carriage and get the gun out of sight. 

I should strike out the words "whether sunken, counterpoise, or 

otherwise'' and insert, after the word ''gun -ca.rriages, '' the words 11 disappearing and other." 

Mr. PLUMB. That language, I think, is embraced in the estimates 

now, though I am not quite certain about that, but it is found on page 

21 of the Army bill, and the phra-seology of it, although not criticised as the Senator from Connecticut now criticises it, was very considerably 

gone over; and therefore the committee in pro vi din~ for the sa:me class 

of expenditures here transferred the language bod1ly. I thmk very 

likely the criticism may be right. 

Mr. H.A. WLEY. If the Senator will allow that to stand over, I will 

consult some technical authority about it; but there is no such thing 

as a battery ''sunken, counterpoise, or otherwise '' in the way it is stated 

here. 

Mr. PLUMB. I think that refers to the word "carriages." 

Mr. HAWLEY. It does; but the word "carriages" is two or three 

lines ba.ck. However, let that pass. I will see if that can be put in 

better $hape. 

1t1r. HALE. Do not those words refer to all the enumerations preceding and do not the subsequent words, ''brought to the notice of the 

Secretlry," refer to all thoie? So it ·strikes me. 

Mr. P L Ul\IB. I do not think they do. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not understand that · 

the Senator from Connecticut offers any amendment. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not move any amendment now. 

Mr. PLUMB. There is an amendment which I think ought to be 

made there. That section, as· I said, is exactly as it appears in the 

Army bill, and was, of course, inserted before without any reference to 

the expenditures being made by a board. I think that perhaps as it 

is it may be out of harmony with the first section of the bill, and that 

the words "brought to the notice of the Secretary of War or of the 

board" should be inserted, and the limitation of expenditures should 

be qualified in the same way. I will move, therefore, to amend the 

amendment, in line 23, by striking out the words "the Secretary of 

War " and inserting " sa.id board." Mr. H.A. WLEY. But if they are brought to the notice of the board 

the board reports them to the Secretary of War. 

:Mr. PLUMB. I think, perhaps,.it is well to put in the words "said 

board," leaving out 11 the Secretary of War." I thi~k that is correct. 

· The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated from 

the desk. 

The SECRETARY. In line 23 it is proposed to strike out the words 11 the Secretary of War '' and insert '' said board; '' so as to read: Brought to the notice ofsaid board. 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. PLUMB. Now, the word "he," in line 24, should be changed 

to "they." 

Mr. HAWLEY. Theboardrecommendand theSecretarybuyswhat 

he pleases. He is not absolutely bound to boy. 

Mr. PLUMB. That is true, but that is qualified in the first section. Nothing can be done but what he recommends, and what he 

practically himself does . 

.Mr. HAWLEY. To change the word 11 he " to "they " will be to 

buy "so much thereof as they may deem proper." He has final jurisdiction on the committee's theory. 

1\Ir. PLUMB. I will suggest an amendment that I think will cover 

the Senator's criticism. I move to amend it to read: 

Or so much thereof as m:::~.y be deemed proper. 

Mr. ITA WLEY. That is right. 

Mr. PLUMB. That leaves the question of authority open. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. 

The SECRETARY. In line 24 it is proposed to strike out the word 

''he, '' and in line 25 to strike out ''deem '' and insert ''be deemed;'' so as to read: 

ment, and for testing the same, as follows: One 1~inch breech-loading steel gun, wire-wrapped, with longitudinal bars on Woodbridge plan, $20,000 ; for 

testing the same, $25,000; one 1~inch breech-loading steel-hooped gun, $7,500; for 

testing the same,$25,000; one lO·inch breech-loading rifie,cast-iron,wire-wrapped, $1,500; for testing the same, $12,000; one 8-inch breech-loading steel-hooped gun, $>,000; for testing the same, $12.000; for testing one 12-inch breech-loading 

rifle, cast-iron, steel-tubed, S20,!XXJ; for testing oue 12-inch breecli-loa<iing rifle, 

cast-iron, hooped and tubed w1th steel on the French system, $20,000 ; for test- ing one 12-inch breech-loading mortar, cast-iron, hooped with steel, $10,000; in 

all, $158,000. 

Mr. PL U:M:B. I will state in regard to that amendment that . the 

work contemplated in that section is covered completely by the preceding section. and that was the reason for striking this section out. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the 

Committee on Appropriations was, in section 4, line 5, after "New 

York," to strike out "in accordance with the recommendation of the 

Gun Foundry Board of February 16, 1884, seven," and insert ''five;" 

so as to read: 

For the erection, purchase, or ~a.nuf cture or the necessary buildings and 

other structures, machinery, tools, and fixtures for an army gun-factory for fin- ishing and assembling heavy ordnauce, to be erected at the Watervliet a rsenal, West Troy, N. Y., $550,000: Provided, That not exceeding $20,000 of this sum may be used for the erection and completion of two sets of officers' quarters. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The Committee on Appropriations reduces there 

the appropriation $200;000. It very properly strikes out the words 

"in accordance with the recommendation of the Gun Foundry Board 

of February 16, 1884," etc., because four years have passed since that 

Gun Foundry Board made its report, and it is entirely probable that 

some of the machinery required for_ the new gun foundry will be of a 

different and better class than they recommended. That is all very 

well, but I submit that the committee has erred in striking down the 

amount there from $750,000 to $550,000. The careful estimates show 

that it will require $250,000 to erect the necessary shops and permanent 

:fixtures for the c.onstruction of guns-large establishments. It must 

be remembered that the building is not a mere inclosure, because it 

requires very heavy foundations for the lathes and boring-machines, 

etc., so that a large part of the cost of the building will be below ground 

and not show when the building is completed. The careful estimates 

show that it will require $250,000 to· erect the necessary shops and permanent fixtures for the construction of guns, inclusive of guns of12 inches 

in caliber; for the purchase of the necessary machinery and tools, as 

lathes, boring-mills, planers, rifling-machines, cranes, etc., $550,000 

will be necessary in order to fabricate the following quantities of guns 

per annum, namely: ten 8-inch guns, six 10-inch guns, and four 12-inch 

guns-a somewhatsmalleroutputthanis specified in the Gun Foundry 

Board report. The total of this foots up $800,000, to which should be 

added, for two sets of officers' quarters, $20,000, making an aggregate 

of $820,000. . 

Under the sundry civil bill about $35,000 was appropriated for the 

gun-plant at Watervliet arsenal, and they have on hand some available heavy-gun plant at that arsenal, I think amounting in value to 

about $35,000, so that the total sum may be reduced by $70,000, to 

$750,000. A less sum than $250,000 will not complete the shops, and 

it is important for economic reasons to procure as many of the needed 

tools. at one time as possible. If they are to contract for the requisite 

number of tools for this very heavy work, it is better that we should 

not leave $250,000 to be appropriated next year, but should embraee 

the tools in one large contract at one time. I should very much prefer to have the sum here remain $750,000. 

Mr. PLUMB. The estimate of the War Department for tlmt purpose is $550,000, and that was based upon the report of the Gun 

Foundry Board which assembled in 1884. If the Senator will recall 

that report, on page 50 of it is found an estimate of the cost of-the 

plant for gun factories in these words: 

Approximate cost of plant for a-un factories: Guns up to 6-inch caliber, $50,· 000; guns from 6-inch to 12-inch caliber, $150,000; guns from 12-inch to 16-inch 

caliber, $350,000; buildings and shrinking-pit, $350,000. 

The bill under consideration does not provide for the purchase of 

steel for a gun larger than a caliber of 12 inches, and it is evident that 

the War Department in making up t~ estimate simply eliminated so 

much of the machinery de~med necessary by the Gun Foundry Board 

as applied to the making of guns of 12 to 16 inch caliber. I have no 

doubt, however, that the estimate of the Gun Foundry Board was too 

low; that ultimately there will be obliged to be a plant at the Watervliet arsenal for the purpose of making a complete gun factory for .the 

manufacture of 12-inch guns, costing from seven hundred and fifty to 

eight hundred thousand dollars, although it is said that there is a very 

considerable amount of machinery there now which will be available 

for this purpose. 

Or so much thereof as m ay be deemed proper. 

But we were advised that the Navy Department bad not been able 

to contract in this country yet for lathes suitable for making 12-inch - guns at any such prices as they deemed proper, and the subject has gone 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The amendment as amended was agreed to. 

The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the 

Committee on Appropriations was to strike out section 3, in the following words: 

SEc. 3. To complete the guns now under fabrication by the Ordnance Departover for the time being, and we thought there would be money enough 

very likely for present purposes and we would ~et that which was 

available. .A large portion of the tools necessary for this faetory are to 

be found in stock among manufacturers and which can be purchased, as picks or axes can be purchased, and therefore would not take any 

very g!eatlen~h of time, but could be got together and put to use with 
8106 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

reference to the immediate operations of this factory, but meanwhile we shall be able to get it much lower. But it was in contemplation 

Congress will presently reassemble and what then -may be found to to limit it to the price which bas been paid to American manufacturers. 

answer for the expenditure of the am<lunt of money provided in this Mr. HALE. Should not that word ''charged,'' in line 20, on page 

bill can be embraced in .another bill which will undoubtedly follow at 5, read "paid "-''the lowest average price paid under contractshitbtbe next session of Congress. ~ Still, I have no doubt, as the Senator., erto made,'' etc. ? 

says, we shall ha;ve to expend considerably more money. Mr. PLUMB. It should be ' ' paid. 1 ' I mo>e that it~ so amended. 

Mr. DOLPH. Will the Senator be kind enough t<l state whether the The "PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposed amenament will be 

machinery for the manufacture of a 16-inch gun will answer also for a read. 

12-inch gun, and whether it would not be economy to provide the larger The SECRETARY. On line 20~ after the word t' price, '' it is proposed 

machinery-the machinery having the greater capacity? to strike out the word "charged" and insert the word "paid;, so as 

Mr. PLUMB. That would be true as to a portion only. We in- to IIUlJke the clause read: 1 . 

quired about that carefully from the or.dnance officers. Of eoru:se the No eontmet:shall be made hereunde1.· for gun steel at a. greater average price same forging machinery would be used for both purposes (if we were per pound for each caliber than the l.owest average price paid under cont"1'acts 

going to make forgings), and some of the minor machinery, but the hitherto made by the Government, etc. 

machinery· for handling the guns and the lathes necessary would .all The amendment was agreed to. 

have to be entirely different. In addition to that, it is contemplated Mr . .PLUMB. I move to amend, in line 21, by inserting -after the 

by the Ordnance Department ro build the wing of the building for the word ''Government" the words "with American manufacturer . " 

making of 16-inch guns entirely different from the part of the building Mr. HAWLEY. Or it would be suffi cient ro add the word ".A.merwlrich will be liBed for the smaller calibel'S. For the fabricn.tion of a ican '' before the word ''forgings.'' Would not that answer? 

16-i.uch gun according to the idea of the Ordnance Department, the Mr. PLUMB. That will do just as well-" for American forgings." 

operations would be canied on practically distinct, although under the I modify my amendment by moving to insert the word "American" 

same roof. They would be in a part of the building made larger and between the words ''for'' and ''forgings.'' · 

wliler and provided with heavier machinery for handling, and also Mr. HAWLEY. That would do~ but I doubt the wisdom of it. I 

llaving separate lathes for finishing. wonld leave the Government free to contract, because I do not wish to 

Mr. DOLPH. It would certainly be economy to purchase the ma- pass a bill in such shape as to throw these forgings into the hands of ·chinery necessary for the ~onstruction of 16-inch guns at once, wnich one company that has already got the plant established. I .highly remay be used independently for 16-inch guns .as well as any other. spect and compliment and honor the Bet hlehem Steel Works for the 

.Mr. PLUMB. I do not understand that that is the case, or that magnificent enterprise they have shown in investing money as they 

sucl1 machinery will be used independently. The officers object. did far i~ advance of Government contracts, so that they will have in 

:Mr. DOLPH. I thought the Senator said a portion of the machinery two or three months a plant for heavy forgings. But to limit it in this 

would be so used? way has a tendency, at least, to throw the matter into their hands as 

l!r. PLUMB. A portion of it would oe, that is truej but, inregard being the only people who can bid, because the others have not the 

to tlw.t point, no lathes of this kind have ever been made yet in this plant ready. They can say, "We will furnish yon steel at 35 cents, 

country. P.atterns would have to he made for them. No doubt the and deliver in four months." A new man will be obliged to say, ''I 

ma.nufactnre of lathes, etc. 3 for the construction of 12-inch guns will will furnish it at 35 or .36 cents if you wait a year for .me to put the 

,suggest impro-vements to our ~echanics. lt is the idea of our ordnance plant in." 

officers that the moment our mec'hanics get hold of ,this kind of rna-. M:r. PLUMB. We shoula lose nndonl>tf!dly more than we should 1 chinery and get to manuflcturing machinery for the fabrication of. gain if it were to have the effect to prevent competition, but I hardly 

guns and .all oth~r -things relating to this general question of <l.efense think it. will. The amount is large, though not so large as has been 

they will make improvements of a most valuable ~haracter. There heretofore proposed; still it is large enough to induce the erection of 

will be a gain, therefore, perllaps, in beginning with guns of the smaller plant for the purpo e of supplying steel. The provision as worded was 

eiz.es. At all events it will be a very long period of time before the contained in the bill as it came from the other Honse1 and on reflection 

Go-vernment will expecttomake, by a verylavishexpenditureofmoney, the committee thought they would not change it. 

maehineryfor the manufacture of .a 16-inch gun. That is not contem- Mr. HA. WLEY. i do not move any amendment. I only made the 

plated. Steel is not provided for in this p;un, the limit of the caliber suggestion. 

being 12 inches. It is also to be remembered that guns above 12 inches The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment suggested will be 

do not exist in any number anywhere. read. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 'I be SECRETARY. On pa.ge 5, line 21, .after the word "for, u it is 

proposed by the C..ommittee on Appropriations. proposed to insert "American; 11 so as to make the clause read: 

The amend.rnen~ was agreed toA Under contracts made by the Governmentfor .America.nforgings of like caliber. 

The .reading of the ~ill. was res~ed. .The n~xt amendment of the The amendment was agreed t-o. 

O>mnutreeon Appropiiations was, m section 4, line 16, before the word Mr. HALE. To go ba{)k for a moment in line .3 of :page 4 should 

"million/' to strike out "one" and insert "two;" so as to read: not the clause read, "for assembling and' :fi.nishing hea;vy0ord'nance," 

For the purchase of rough-finished, oll-tempered,.and annealed steel for high-! instead of ''for finishing and assembling?'' P,OW~r coast-d~-ense gun!!! -of~. 10, and_l2 inch_ ca.libey, in .qulility and dimen- Mr. PLUMB. Itb.inknot. I think the word "assembling" is used 

SlOn conformmg ¥> spe~ifi.eat10ns, SUbject to U1Spe7t1on at each stage of the there with reference 00 bringing together the parts after they have been 

manufacture, and mcludmg all the parts of each caliber, $2,500,<l00. subjected t<l the lathe. . 

The ame:J?-d.m.ent was . .agreed to. Mr. HALE. This is for an army gun factory. It is only a question 

The reading ofthe bill was resumed~ as follows: whether it should not be "assembling and finishing." 

.Provided, 'That no money-shall be eX'J)ended except for steel accepted and de- Mr. HA. WLEY. No, the fine boring, etc. J is first done with the 

livered, and no contract shall be made hereunder for gun st-eel at a greater lathe, ~nd then the men, with great delicaey, put the parts together. 

average price per pound for each caliber than the l"Owest average pr~e charged 1u·- HALE "A bl" , th · th 1 t · ? under contracts hitherto made by the -Govenunent for forgings of like caliber. .ll.U.. • ssem mg, en, 18 e as operation· · Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. HAWLEY. A question arises :there, ·Mr. President. The only The reading of the bill was resum~d. The next amendment of the 

contract made in this country ~r heavy gun forgings of :that character Committee on Appropriations was, in section 4, line 30, after the word 

has been made with the Bethlehem. Steel Works by the Navy Depart- "made," to strike out "unless already so provided;" and after the 

ment-l will not say the only one, but substantially the only one (be- word ''shall,'' attheendofthesameline, to insert ''have, or;'' soasto cause there have been some bits of work -done elsewhere)- the only .read: 

la.rge contract. There was a contract made with a.nother establish- The mat-erial for the guns provided for herein 'Sholl be purchased in accordment ro build an 8-inch ~:and there have be.en purChases made to a. ance with section 8709, Revised Statutes, for which purpose the Secretary of 

-considerable amount -:and especially fur the tubes-for the heaviest War is authorized to make co::l.tractswithresponsible steel manufacturers, who 

parts of the h€aviest grms-ftom .BI-itish manufacturers. It was in- -shall be resident citizens of the United States, after proper advertisement, con- tinuing not less than thirty days, in the newspapers most likely to reach the said dispensabl~. I do not know whether the proviso just read means that manufacturers: Provided, That each bidder with whom such contracts shall be we shall not pay more than we have paid Whitworth & Co. or whether made shall have, or agree to erect, in the United States a suitable plant, includit means that we shall not pay more than we have paid the 'Bethlehem ing the best modern nppliances, capable of making all the steel required, and of finishing it in accordance with the contracts, a.ud shall further agree to deWorks. liveryea.rly a specified quantity of each caliber,·the time of the delivery of the 

Mr. PLUMB. That ought to be amended, I thln'k, by inserting H of steelfor the smaller calibers of hea-vy guns to commence at the expiration of 

American manufacturers.,, not more than .eighteen months, and that for the largest calibers, specified in th-e advertisement, at the expiration of not more than three yenrsfrom the date 

1\fr. HAWLEY. Thai; would make it clearer, beca.U.:)"e they have of the acceptance of the contracts; and that all the tools, machines, and matebeen able t.o buy of others at a lower price than anybody here can rial for said guns shall be manufactured in the United States. 

~ili 1 ~~~~~~ 

J\:Ir. PLUJitffi. What was in mind was the contract that the Gov- The next amendment of the Committee on Appropriations was, in 

emment had reeently made for stecl for the use of the Navy. That section 5, line 1, after the words ''purchase of,'' ro strike out ''the 

iBt'Cel for the use of naval guns has cost about 33 cents a pound. That material for, .and the manufacture -of;n so as to make the clause read: 

is xegarded as a perfectly Bafe limitation, and it is believed by those SEc. 5. For tbe purchase of 1~ inch breech-loading rifled mortars of cast-iron, 

who have _given the subject particular ;attention that in a short time hooped with steel, of about 32,000 pounds weight, etc. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 8107 

Ur. DOLPH. I object to the amendm~nt; indeed, I am opposed to 

this entire section. 

I will not take up the time of the Senate at this late stage of the session and upon the considera;tion of this bill to restate my objections to 

east-iron guns and mortars and cast-iron mortars hooped with teel. 

I think it would be about as sensible to make an appropriation for the 

purchase of spears or bows and arrows for the purposes of national defen se, or an appropriation for wooden guns, as to provide fo:r the purchase of cast-iron guns at this time, when everybody admits that there 

are better guns more serviceable, and of higher power, and better 

adapted to the purposes of defense. 

There is time enough, after waiting as long as we have waited in the 

preparation for defending our coasts, to secure the best guns. In regard to guns constructed partly of cast-iron and partly forged steelguns with a cast-iron body and steel hoops-my opinion is that they 

are no stronger than one of the metals used in their manufacture; that 

is to say, that these steel-hooped cast-iron mortars are no stronger than 

the east-iron used in them. Then I have another objection to this 

:.unendment. The Gun Foundry Board, the Board on Fortification!\ 

and Other Defenses, and the Senate select committee, at the head or 

• which wastbe Senator from Connecticut [1\!r. HAWLEY]., have all reported in favor of the purchase of material for guns from private parties and the manufacture of them by the Government, and that is the 

policy which has been adopted under the authority of Congress for procuring guns for the Navy. 

.Provisiml is made in this bill for the purchase by contract, of private 

p:' rties, of steel ingots for the manufacture of 10 and 12 inch built-up 

steel gnns. The same boards and committee reported in favor of the 

mnnufacture of guns or 'the assembling of the parts by the Go>emment 

~t n. manufactory for the Navy to be established at the Washington 

navy-yard and at a. manufactory for the Army to be established at 

Watervliet, N. Y. As this bill came from the House it provided for 

the mariufucture of 12-inch breech-loading cast-iron mortars with steel 

hoops by the Government, and it is fairly implied that the purchase of 

the material is to be made from private parties. 

The first clause of the section reads as follows: 

ficient use to warrant the purchase of it at all, but on that point I want 

to read what General•Sheridan said about a year and a half ago: 

As rifle mortars have a range of from 8,000 to 10,000 yards, they may be con- sidered an essential of the main defense rather than an auxiliary. La rge batteries of mortars should be placed in the rear of the lines of e-un-pits, the cali- bers (lf these mortars being from 12 to 14 inches. .A.s the individual accuracy of 

their fire is not great, they should be established in groups of about fifty, each group being fired as a unit. A sufficiently large number of groups should be 

provided so that a continuous fire may beBhowered upon an advancing fleet 

while it is in effective range. 

And I n.m advised on perfectly good authority that mortars are important elements in the armament, for defensive o~mtions, of foreign 

nations. 

A gun of the type mentioned in this section has been experimented 

with at the Government proving-ground at Sandy Hook, and has been 

fired a very large number of 1·ounds-I think about seven or e]ght hundred. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Oh, no. 

Mr. PLUMB. Not so many? · 

1\ir. HAWLEY. No. If the Senator refers to the one described 

here, "the 12-i:ncll breech-loading mortar, cast-iron, steel-hooped, now 

at the Ordnance proving-grotmd at Sandy Hook, N.J.," it has been 

fired 183 times. It is the purpose ofthe Ordnance Department to go 

on and fire it 400 times before they have done with it. · 

Mr. PLUl\IB. :M:y impression was that it had been :fired a considerably larger number of rounds with a full charge, and then a considemble number also with a half <:barge; but at all events the officers 

who have tried it, those who a.re recognized as being as s1.'illfo.l as any 

in the department, speak of th~ mortar "\vith ~Ppl.'oval. It has this advantage, that it can be supplied very soon, and in all the c.1.1Qulations 

in regard to this question of coast rlefenses the possession of 1,000 or 

1, 200 mortars has been in contemplation by the Ordnance Bureau of the 

War Department. They are proposing under a previous seetion of this 

bill to construct steel mortar, which it is supposed will rost about 

$17,·000. The cast-iron, steel-banded mortars will cost from $8,500 

to $9,000, and .C..'Ul be produced not only so much cheaper, though tha.t 

is the least element to be taken into aecount, but they can be produced 

so much quicker that it would be worth while to prepare at least a For the p1uchase of the rn:1terials for and the manufacture of. fair number. Probably under this provision we shall get about thirty. 

That is to say~ pnrch1tBe by the Government of the materials for, and -I do not think th~t we shall be any worse off if we haTe them, at n.ll 

tho manufacture by the Government of, 12-inch bl.'eech-loading rifled events. 

mortars. As the committee have amended it it provides far the pur- Mr. DOLPH. The Senatm· from Kansas, in discussing the Army 

chase of the mortars themselves and clearly implies that they are not appropriation bill, or the amendment offered to that bill by the Sento be manufactnred by the Government. The Government is to pur- ator from Connecticut, said substantially that we should never hear a 

chase the material ana manufacture the 10 and 12 inch built-up steel hostile shot fired on this continent. If that is the case, I do not think 

guns, but is to purchase these rifled mortars already manufactured. haste is so important that we need' to provide f~r manufacture of infeTaking the two provisions together this is entirely clear. I am op- rior gUDB for the pUl.'pose of obtai.ning th~m within twelve months. 

}){)Sed to the n.mendment. In regard to th~ recommendation of the Chief of Ordnance, I was 

Bnt I am opposed to both the purchase and manufacture of these aware of his recommendation concerning these mongrel mortars, and I 

mortars. If this kind of p;uns or mortars are to be provided I see no assert that hisTecommendation stands alone, without the support of any 

reason why Congress should depart as to them from th~ plan provided of the boards or committees that have been appointed to cousidcr the 

for obtaining guns for the Navy, or for providing guns for the Army; subject. An-d I have an impression Lbat the plan for these mortars 

that is, the purchase of the forged steel and the manufacture ofthe guns originated in the Ordnance Bureau, nJ.though I would not so stnte as a 

by the Govemment. But I do not propose ta discuss this matter at fact. TheTe may be some personal prid-e in the matter. 

length at this time, having already on another occasion discussed it, Referring now to the recommendation of the late Gen~rai SheTidan, 

and I do not suppose · I will be able to prevent tb.e adoption of the quoted by the Senator from Kansas, I would not say a word to detract 

amendment proposed by the committee. I believe, however, this is a from the just fame of General Sheridan; he wn.s a dashing and an able 

dangerous departure from the plan recommended by the Board on For- mv.alryoffi.cer. I do not know what speei..'ll attention he had given to 

tifications and other Defenses and by the Secretary of War. the question of coast defenses. I saw at on~ time in a newspaper a 

1\lr. PLUMB. The amendmentwill not really change the result. statementwhichpnrported to ban been madehyhim. in rec,;ard to the 

The Department does not expect to make any part of these guns. It defenses of our coast, which was substantially that if we had modern 

e:~:pects to have all these mortars delivered before the end of the nex:t 1 guns they were all we needed, that they could be put down in the sands 

twelve months, before the Watervliet arsenal can be got into operation. anywhere aud effectively used for harbor defense. lf that statement 

Th c .gun itself can be made probably at the West Point Works or at the emanated from him it showed that oo was not informetl upon the ques· 

Son. th Boston Works, or a portion at each place, and the steel will come tion of coast defenses. ~ 

very probably from the Midvale Works, in Pennsylvania, and the Gov- .. l'he Senator from South Carolina. [Mr. B"tJTLER] once reitemted Ll.mt 

ernment will then simply shrink this stool hoop npon the cast-iron statement in this Chamber. 

harro1. I call the attention of the Senator from Kansas to another matter 

J\Ir. DOLPH. I wish to call the attention of the Senator-- with reference to this proposed plll'chase of mortars. I do not care 

Mr. PLUMB. Onemo~nt. Wesimplymakethe matter more ap· what the Chief of Ordnance or the Secretary of War might have proparent, that that was to be done which the Department say is inevi- posed to do under the bill as it came from the House, it did not authortn.blc; but if the Senator desires that" the amendment shall not prevail ize the purchase of manufactured mortal'S. It authorized the purcha-se 

I have not the slightest objection to letting the language remain as the of material and the manufacture of the mortars. But is there anything 

bm came from the Honse. in this section as proposed to be amended to prevent the purchase of a In regard to the subject of mortars, without going into the question gun from a manulacturer of Great Britain or France? There is in the 

as to the relative merits of the gun meta1, about which so much has section no provision that the gun itJself shall be manufactured in the 

been said, mtd without disputing at all what the Senator from Oregon United States nor that the material shall be produced in the United 

t::ays about steel and iron, I call his attention to the fact that the Chief States, and I have not been able to ftnd any such proposi trion in t.he 

of 01·dnance in his last report said: hilt 

In Yicw of Ute largenumbersofl2-inchmortarsrequiredforcoastdefense,nnd Mr. HA. WLEY. 1\Ir. President, I ilid think I would pass by these 

fmm the fact that there are several manufacturers wh{) can now supply mortars · two paragraphs, ortlria whole section, without any rema-rks, hu.t I think 

oft he type-cast-iron banded with steel-akeadytested bytheJ:\ePartmentwith I ought not to do so. mosL sntisfl\ctory results as regards endurance, I have recommended in my I anu uru estimate the a..pproprintion of 500,000 for the pl."'curemeu.t of 12-inch tis proposed here to get about one hundred·and thirty "Cast-iron mor- rifle<1 mortars ofn. similar type. ~ * * ta:rs, • bout thirty of them to be hooped with steel, which a<lds to their 'I'll is snm shonld procure from fifty to sixty mortars. stren~h and makes them more valuable. A great <leal has been said 

The committee red need the estimate from $500,000 to $250,000. The here, eloquently and truJy, :aboutopeningtbese things to competitioitSena.tor does..not say whetheT he thinks the mortar is :a weapon ofsuf:· I to the skill of the country, and invitingall men to manuf:~.eture. Now, 
8108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

there is nothing in section 5 or in section 6, the :first paragraph of which 

pertains to mortars, inviting any competition •or any bids: The Department i'l authorized to buy $250,000 worth of cast-iron hooped 

mortars, and authorized conditionally, in section 6, to expend $650,-

000 more, a total of $900,000, for. an inferior weapon. I do not mean to say that a cast-iron rifled mortar, whether breech-loading or muzz:eloading, or whether hooped or unhooped, is not of some value. It is 

of some value. The modern mortar is not the mortar we see in the 

navy-yards around here. It is really a short cannon. It stands up 

several feet in the air; it is a very heavy gun-a short, thick gun. I 

do not pretend t.o say that a cast-iron hooped mortar will not stand :fire, 

but I say that no mdnance department in the world would think of 

building such weapons and going ahead to renew the defenses of a country with such a weapon. But rather than not have anything, rather 

than depend on the old round mortar, which was a very uncertain 

weapon, as I know, for I have handled many a one, I would consent 

to take some cast-iron steel-hooped mortars; but I call the attention 

of the Senate to the fact that we do not in this bill provide for the construction -of one hundred breech-loading rifled mortars. In section 5 

the Department is authorized to expend $250,000 to buy them, going 

where it pleases, and there is nothing said about bids for them. The 

ordinary careful safeguards of the law are dispensed with. This 12-

inch breech-loading mortar now at Sandy Hook is furnished by the 

South Boston Iron Works, and I suppose it is contemplated to invite 

the South Boston Iron Works to make the thirty more for $250,000. 

Then section 6 says: 

Whenever any party shall present for test a complete cast-iron breech-loading mortar of 12 inches caliber, of about 32,000 pounds weight- · _: · 

The same weight as the cast-iron steel-hooped mortar of the previous sectionwith a proper supply of ammunition therefor, not exceeding two hundred 

rounds, such mortar shall be tested in the presence of the party presenting the same, and should it be shown to the satisfa.ction of the board by such tests to be equal in accuracy, rauge, power, endurance, material, and general efficiency to the 12-inch cast.-iron steel-hooped breech-loading mortar now at Sandy 

HookThe one which has been :fired one hundred and eighty-three timesthe mortar and run munition shall be paid for, including cost of transportation, and contract be made for a further supply of not less than fifty and not more than one hundred. 

Who will furnish that mortar? The South Boston Iron Works is 

ready, and can do it before anybody else can or will. They will furnish one of those mortars. I doubt >ery much if they can present a 

mortar as good as the one hooped with steel and having the same accuracy, but they are the only parties that can do it who are ready. 

This looks like giving $900,000 to a particular concern for a gun that 

the civilized powers do not care to duplicate. That is the truth. I do 

not like to say it, but it is the truth. As far as I cab read this bill with 

a telescope I can read "South Boston" in it as-far as I can read anything. Still I would rather have these mortars than nothing. 

Mr. GORMAN. The statement of the Senator from Connecticut 

[Mr. HAWLEY] is entirely erroneous. I have no doubt that he has 

not critically examined the bill, and that that is the reason why he 

has made the statement. 

The provision is simply this and nothing more: Manufacturers, and 

not only one but more than one fum, in the United States believe that 

they can make a cast-iron mortar of the same weight and endurance 

that shall have every quality of the standard mortazo now at Sandy 

Hook, which the War Department thinks the best in existence, and 

which is bound with steel-that they can furnish such a mortar of 

cast-steel or of cast-iron at half the price, and this section provides 

that if tber:e be any fum in the United States, one or twenty, that 

will at its or their own expense, without the cost to the Government 

of a dollar, produce such a gun, and in addition furnish to the Government $10,000 worth of ammunition to try it, or two hundred rounds, 

and then, if it comes up to the standard of the test-gun now at Sandy 

Hook, the Government agrees to take not less than :fifty nor more than 

one hundred, and we shall save on the transaction one-half the amount 

on the steel-hooped mortar. 

Mr. HAWLEY. May I say right there--

Mr. GORMAN. Just one moment. It is true, I belie•e, that there 

are, as it stands to-day, two establishments in this country that would 

attempt to compete for such a gun-the South Boston Iron Works and 

the West Point Foundry. 

I\fr. HAWLEY. Why not, then, say ''the Ordnance Department 

shall advertise for 100 cast-iron mortars of an average weight of about 

32,000 pounds, to be capable oi passing such tests as the Ordnance Department may lay down," or make the test whatever you please; or 

provide that the board referred to shall lay down the requirements, and 

then ask for bids, just as you ask for bids in all other cases, as the law 

provides that you shall. Ask who will build, for the least price, 100 

cast-iron, bree<;h-loading mortars of a certain standard of excellency. 

This does not say that. It says whenever any party presents one of 

these mortars, which be Cc'lrn do (he may have it ready now for all I 

know), contracts shall be made with that one .party; but suppose four 

present themselves, does it mean that each one shall have a contract 

for one hundred? 

11fr. GORMAN. No, it is limited to one hundred. There is not an officer of the Ordnance Department, and I may say generally not one of 

the Army experts, who believes that the conditions placed in this amendment can be complied with by anybody; but there are two manufacturing establishments wh_o believe that they can succeed in complying 

with the conditions, and if there are a hundred others they have the 

same opportunity to present their guns and have them tested. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Does the Senator--

Ur. GORMAN. One word more. The Government will not be com- pelled to purchase under that provision unless the guDB come up to the 

standard. 

Mr. HAWLEY. But suppose that each one of a half a dozen :firms 

furnished a mortar that co~es up to the standard, is each one to have a contract for one hundred? 

Mr. GORMAN. Unquestionably not. In the discretion of the board 

the :firm presenting the best will have the contract. I think the Sena. 

tor will :find by careful reading that that is the interpretation. If the 

statements of such an officer as Captain 1;3utler, who bas argued all this 

question out, be correct-and he Q.iffers from all his comrades except one or two in high command-this is a proper thing for us to do. 

He says it is feasible, that it is possible. If it is, the Government runs 

no risk whatever, but saves half a million dollar:.. Under the provision as it stands the authorities are required to advertise for bids under 

section 3709 of the Revised Statutes. I think the provision is such as to give everybody an opportunity without cost to the Government. 

11Ir. HAWLEY. If the Senator will look a little further down in 

Captain Butler's article he will :find that he is an advocate of steel; and 

he would have nothing else but steel if he could have his own way. 

All the officers are of that way of thinking. Captain Butler is like som<S~ 

of the rest, he will take the best he can get, but I do not think that 

Captain Butler said that he approved of this. I do not think he will 

say that. Nevertheless it is better than nothing. 

Mr. PLUMB. There is onething that the Senator from Connecticut 

ought, I think, to bear in mind in discussing this matter. What he means by a steel gun is, of course, a built-up steel gun. I think he 

understands that considerable attention has been directed to the man- ufacture of cast-steel guns, that some people who have given the matter considerable attention think it practical to make a gun of that kind 

which will have all the merits and none.ofthe demeritsofthe built-up 

guns. It is also true that by reason of recent discovenes there is every 

prospect that cast-iron is to be so treated with aluminum as to make 

it a great deal better metal, stronger, more dural:Jle, and closer grained, 

possessing more of the qualities necessary for the ideal gun-metal than 

iron has heretofore had according to any authority, and there are an- ticipations that it will be even better; and yet I suppose that it would 

come under the designation of "cast-iron" according to this bill. So, 

then, in entering upon this expenditure, if this should be adopted, the 

Government would be giving a stimulUB to the production of a better 

grade of iron by reason of its treatment with aluminum which may lead 

to very important results. 

Mr. DOLPH. I meant to say to the Senatox from Kansas, when 

I was on the floor before, that if he threw the responsibility upon me of taking the bill as it came from the Honse, or taking it as amended 

by the Senate committee, I should certainly take him at his word and 

take it as it came from the House. 

Mr. PLUMB. Very well. 

11Ir. DOLPH. But I again call attention to the fact that there is 

nothing in this section or in the bill requiring that the mortars shall be 

manufactured in the United States or that they shall be furnished by 

citizens of the United States. The same criticism applies to section 6, 

which provides for the purchase of cast-iron mortars and of steel builtup breech-loading guns. In all the legislation heretofore, I think, had 

upon this subject as to guns for both the Army and for the Navy we have required all materials to be of domestic manufacture, and I would 

suggest that an amendment be made, either to this section or to the 

bill, so as to cover everything provided for by the bill, and require the 

guns and mortars to be made in this country. I think this point was overlooked by the committee. 

I wish to say with reg-ard to mortars, also, that I do not think they are so important as the Senator from Kansas evidently thinks they are. 'I' hey are of but secondary importance.. Their range is limited. They 

:fire in the air and are designed to drop a shell on the deck of a vessel, 

and as a matter of course they can not be so effective as a gun having a horizontal :fire or nearly so. An enemy's vessel could get within 

range of such a battery before it was of any use. My own impression 

is that it would be wiser, instead providing :first for mortars, to provide 

:first for guns of the greatest range. I should like to see an appropriation made for even a larger gun than 16-inch guns. I would like to 

see an appropriation made fo.r a gun of 20 inches-larger than anything 

manufactured in the United States or in any foreign country to my 

knowledge .. I can not see why there shOR.ld be such extraordinary economy in the 

matter of appropriations for coast defenses, while we have been so liberal in appropriations for the Navy. I have stated before, and I repeat 

what I have said upon other occasions, that I do not believe it is practicable to defend our coasts by a navy. We have already provided for 
~888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8109 

three armored ships at great cost. That, in my judgment, is three too 

many. It would be more judicious to have expended the money for 

fast cruisers carrying effective guns and in coast defenses. 

We never can defend the coasts of the United States with a navy; 

there are too many points to be defended. An effective defense by a navy would require at least as many guns at every port to be defended as could be brought against that port by the enemy, and as we could 

not know where the enemy would attack we must be prepared to defend each port on both coasts of the United States if we are to defend 

our coasts by a navy. 

Now, the comparative cost of defending our coastB by navy and by 

coast defenses, land fortifications, is decidedly in favor of the latter. I 

will send to the desk to be read a statement made by a gentleman 

thoroughly informed on this subject as to the cost of one of the vessels 

of the Navy which has gone out of service-her original cost and the 

cost of maintaining her. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The statement will be read from the 

desk. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

As an instance of the cost of making and keeping of war vessels perpet.t1ally in se1·vice, we need give but a single instance, and for this we will take the case of the Tennessee, a vessel about the size of one of our new cruisers, but which cost more, as she was made twenty years ago. · Tlle Secretary states the cost of this ship, in 1867, to be Sl,855,075.81; the cost of 

repairs put upon her from 1869 to 1875, at $1,443,513.21; and for repairs from 1875 to :!.837, ~77,716.17; making together for first cost and repairs, $3,877,305.19. The 

interest on these sums at 5 percent. is$3,00C,OOO, making, for the cost and repairs, 

wiLh interest thereon, a total of $6,877,305.19. She brought, when sold in 1887, 

$H.525, leaving as the net cost for construction, repairs, and interest, SQ,IS42,780.19. 

The Secretary states that this vessel was in active service about ten years. The 

complement of officers and men for such a. vessel is a.bout four hundred. The 

yearly pay of these officers and men, together with their expenses, their clothes, 

rations, etc., and a fair allowance for the equipment of the 'l•essel, for the stores, 

etc., will amount to fully $360,000 per year, which for ten years would be S3,600,-

000, which, added to the abo,·e cost of vessel, repairs, and interest, makes over $9,44.2,000 as the cost of keeping this yessel in active service about ten years, or $944,000 a ye:tr, a sum which exceeds one-half of the first cost of the vessel and a swn which is almost double the cost it will be to us to keep these twenty 20-inch 

guns in service, and a sum fully equal to the yearly cost of keeping the sixty 14, 

16, and 20 inch guns in service, without our ever paying for them at all. It will be noticed that no armament was provided in the above estimated cost of keeping the Tennessee in service, but in leaving this out we did not leave out much, as her armament was of little account. 

The reference to the 16 and 20 inch guns is to a provision in the 

House bill which was not reported. I was not aware it was there when 

I sent up the article to be read. .._ I also send up a quotation relating to armored ships to be read. 

The Chief_Clerk read as follows: In regard to this 7 ,500-ton armored cruiser to be built at a cost of $3,500,003, we must uotonly consider this cost but-that of its armament, equipment, and what 

it will cost to keep it in se1·vice. 

First for construction.......................................... ................................. $3, 500, 000 Armament, equipment, interest on a portion of these sums during 

the four years of building, say.............................. ........................... 1,500,000 

l\Iaking cost of Yessel with armament, equipment, and interest to time of going into commission, which may here be taken as first cost................................................................................................... 5, 000, 000 

If her life is taken at twenty years the interest on this sum at 21- per cent. i.!l for 

twenty years, 112, 500, 000 more. If we assume the repairs for these twenty years to cost 6U per cent. of first cost of vessel as armed and equipped we add $3,000,000 more to h~r expense, and we ma.yaddforintereston this sum at 2t per cent. for, 

say, an average term of only eight year3, $600,000. 

Such a vessel to be kept in commission ten years with 600 officers and men, will cost for their pay, expenses, ship's supplies, etc., fully $5{0, 000 per year, or *'· 400, 000. . 

Now, add to the first cost of the vessel a1·med and put in commission 

these several sums, which we must pay, and we get a grand total of 

(first cost) ...................... : .......... ..................... .................................. .. Interest twenty years ........................................................................ .. 

r:t~~rs~ !t;~~~f~a: ~ighty~~~·~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Pay of officers nnd men, ship's supplies, etc., ten years .................. .. 

$5,000, 000 2,500,000 

3,000,000 

600,000 

5,400,000 

---- In all. ..... :..................................................................................... 16,500, 000 · 

Or, $1,650,000 per year for each of the ten years she may be expected to be in 

service. A very large sum, but less than one-third the cost of the ship and armament when put in commission-instead of over 50 per cent. as we find bas 

actually been paid in the case of the Tennessee. 

:M:r. HALE. Who is this gentleman? 

:hlr. DOLPH. I have no objection to stating who the gentleman is. 

It is Mr. Emery, who invented the Emery testing-machine, and who 

is a civil engineer of undoubted standing. 

Ur. HALE. He seems t~ have quite a remarkable system of mathematics. 

Mr. DOLPH. It seems to be all right, and I give it for what it is 

worth and for the purpose of emphasizing what I desire to say in re- gard to the apparent economy of Congress in the matter of coast defenses. I think we have begun at the wrong end of this matter. I am in favor of building up a navy. I am in favor of providing fast cruisers, armed with effective guns, to act as commerce-destroyers in case 

of war with foreign nations. 

As I said, I do not believe it is at all practicable to defend our coasts 

·with a navy and that the three armed ships which Congress has now authorized are just three too many; at least until we have provided a. system of coast defense it is neither wise nor economical to build such 

ships. When we undertake to provide a system of coast defenses I think we ouj!ht to have a definite plan and understand what we are going to 

do before we commence, and should provide the best known appliances 

for defense, and in determining what they are we must be guided by 

the committees and by the boards which have investigated and re· 

ported upon these subjects. When that is done we can not make the 

appropriations too large. Large appropriations are economical, appropriations that when the work is once commenced will enable it to be 

conducted to a final completion without interruption. 

It seems to me that what we are now doing, providing appropria,.. 

tions for dynamite guns, for cast-iron mortars, and for hybrid mortars 

with cast-iron bodies and hoops of steel, and all this, is simply divert--

ing the appropriations from the genern.l plan which has been recom- mended, and which is believed by the great body of the engineers and 

officers of the Army to be the best means of defense,-is making poor 

progress towards coast defense. I repeH.t, we have begun at the wrong 

end. We are making large appropriations for purposes which will not 

be adequate to the defense of our coasts, and Yery meager appropria,.. 

tions for those thing8 which we ought to provide. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I am in favor of liberal appropriations 

for fortifications, and think that Congress has been somewllat remiss 

in this direction; but we want also and luckily are getting good air 

propriations for a navy. One of the things that we are doing and have 

been doing for the last half dozen years is to provide against just such cases as have been cited by the Senator from Oregon in reference to the 

old Tennessee. She has cost a mint of money, counting her original 

cost, the repairs laid out upon her, and the expense of maintaining her; 

and we are building no more such ships. When she wentout nothing 

of the kind took her place. The modern ships that we are building, 

whether made of steel or composite material, whether armored or otherwise, are not ships that will consume the 'Treasury by large expensive 

repairs during the years of their life. That will be a great saving. 

I agree somewhat with the Senator from Oregon about the expense 

and the present utility of these great armored ships, but I believe it 

to be better to have a few of them. 

I do not think there is much force in the comparison between a ship . in its cost in the future and fortifications as indicated by the figures 

which were given by the Senator from Oregon. Of course it costs more to maintain a ship of war after she is built than it does a gun after it 

is built. You might as well say that a mau should not keep a horse 

and carriage and should put out his money upon ·monumental tomb .. stones, because it costs more to maintain a horse and carriage than it 

does to maintain a monument after it is put up. Of course it does. 

It does not cost very much to maintain a gun after you have built it. 

It does not require many men to look after it or to manage it. It does 

not consume food, provisions, and clothing, and of course t.he main ex- pense is reached when you have built it. 

Not so with a ship; build the best ship that you can, that it is possible to devise by human ingenuity and modern improvement, and 

when she is set afloat ·in the waters she begins to be expensive from 

thatvery day. That is athingthat can not be aped. You can make no comparison between her expense and the expense of a fortification or of a great gun. The guns themselves are immensely expensive. It 

would be a. surprise to any Senator who has not looked into the subject to find how much money is represented in a single great gun, some c6sting more than $100,000; but it is one of the situations. I think a 16-inch gun-I am not certain about my figures-<!ostB more than 

$100,000. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to say to the Senator that a 16-inch 

gun will cost$175,000 in Europe. 

Mr. HALE. I may not have the amount large enough. Our people believe they can make. guns, after they have established these plants, as cheaply as they can be made in Europe, and perhaps more cheaply. 

Mr. PLUMB. This statement is made on the authority of.the Ord- nance Department that a.14-inch gun would cost $93,632, a 16-inch gun 

$144,000, and a 20-inch gun $289,000; but that statement is challenged 

by gentlemen who claim to be better informed. 

Mr. HALE. I had the figures that the Senator has just given in 

mind. A 16-inch gun costa more ·than $100,000. 

Mr. TELLER. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt hjm, I 

will suggest to him that the :figures as to Krupp's 16-inch gun show 

that it costs $174,440, and everybody knows it could not be built b. 

this country for the same money. 

Mr. HALE. It could not at first. I did not propose to go into the 

immense guns that range away beyond that. Nobody will ever see the day when a 16-inch gun-and perhaps that is as large as we shaH 

build-will cost less than $100,000; perhaps not less than $150,000; 

but we are confronted with a situation, as the President says, and not 

with a. theory; and if we are to defend our coasts and our great cities we have got to have guns and ships and fortific;ations, and a kind of 

floating battery that I believe has never yet been developed, which 

will be better than any other kind of ship or any other kind of fortification. 

l\Ir. DOLPH. I should like to say in answer to tbc Srnator from 

:Maine that agnn mounted on shore is seYeral times more effectiYe than a gun afloat. It costs a great rleal less in the first instance. Then, 

when it is mounted upon a fortification or in a pit you ran coYer it up 

and it will stand for a hundred years with very little expense, wh re~ 
8110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

the life of your :floatin~ battery, your ship, upon an average :is, say, ( be tried and if it be satisfactory the man shall have ~ contract for 

twenty years. from fifty to one hundred guns of 10 or 12 inch caliber. In order to 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment make one of these guns it is necessary for a manufacturer to expend 

proposed by the Committee on Appropriations to strike out certain not less than a million and a half of dollars. Is anybody in the world 

words in section 5. The amendment will be again stated. going to expend that sum of money in a costly, elaborate plant to make 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 5, line 1, after the words "purchase a steel gun for the Government, the acceptance of which is altogether 

of," it is proposed to strike out "the material for, and the manufact- uncertain? Is he going to make that with the uncertain hope that he 

ure of.'' may get a contract for a hundred of these 10 or 12 inch guns? Is there 

Mr. PL U.UB. I ask that that amendment be disagreed to. anything in the history of scores of contractors for iron-clad ships, ships 

The amendment was rejected. of all classes, and war supplies of various descriptions, that should en- The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the courage any manufacturer to such simple and childlike experiments? 

Committee on Appropriations was, in section 5, line 7, after the words I do not think there is a mannfacturer in the world who will put up 

"New Jersey," to insert "said mortars to be subject to inspection in his plant for that purpose, and there is only one concern in the country 

all stages; '' and in line 8, niter the word "stages," to strike out that can make a gun or will be able within a year to make a gun of 

"five hundred" and insert "two hundred and fifty;" so as to read: that description. 

F(lrthe v.urchase of the material for, and the manufacture of, 12-inch breech- This is an entire departure from the universal policy of the Govern-· loa!iing r.tfl~d mor.tars of ca~t iron, hooped with steel, of about 32,000 po~nds ment, and one, in my opinion, unfair to the contractors and the great 

we1ght, s1m~lar to and equal.m range, power, and accuracy of fire to the 12-1.nch steel-men of the country and unfair to the Government Why not 

breech-loading. mortar, cast-1ron, steel-hooped, now at the Ordnance proVIng- " . , • ground, Sandy Hook, N.J., said mortars to be subject to inspection in all stages, say We want so many guns, who b1ds? and let any manufacturer ~.ooo. say, '' I can not spend a million and a half of dollars in the making of 

The amendment was agreed to. these guns unless you give me such and such a price; I will not then 

The next amendment wa,s, in section 5, line 9, after the word "dol- get my money back, but I shall have my costly plant on band for furlars," to strike out ''to be expended under the direction of the Secre- ther commercial uses and I. will get so~ething out of it, and possibly, 

tary of War in accordance with existing laws." I hope, I may make a steady business out of it, butl willnotbuildone 

The amendment was agreed to. gun for you to try, with no promise that you will ever give me another 

Mr. DOLPH. Does the Senator from Kansas desire that the last job like it." 

amendment should prevail? Why put such legislation upon the statute-book? Every practical 

:M:r. PLU.~m. We have made a general direction about the expend- man tells me it is good for nothing. I think the committee itself will 

itures in the .first section of the bill. That covers that point. I will say what the Senator from Maryland said with regard to the previous 

propose later on in the bill an amendment covering the point made by provision for one hundred cast-iron mortars, that the restrictions and 

the Senator about the place where this material should be acquired. qualifications are such that it is not believed by anybody, by any ordThe reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the nance officer or any man familiar with the subject, that itwill be done; 

Committee on Appropriations was to insert a. new section as section 6, but he thinks there are two concerns in the country that will try those 

which the Seeretary proceeded to read, as follows: cast-iron mortars. That is a comparatively small experiment. It is 

SKo. 6. Whenever anypa;rtyRhallpresentfortestacompletedcast-ironbreech- nothing to- cast a few tons of cast-iron; it is nothing, comparatively 

loading mortar of12 inches caliber,ofabout32,000poundsweight, witha.proper nothing, to put 16 tons or 20 or 25 toris of cast-iron into one casting 

supply of ammunition therefor, not exceeding two hundred rounds, such mortar and make a mortar; but it is a tremendous work to build up the millshall be tested in the presence of the party presenting the same, and should it ion and a half dollars of plant necessary to make one experimental be shown to the satisfaction of the board by such tests to be equal in accuracy, 1·ange, power, endurance, material, and general efficiency to the 12-inch cast- steel rifle of 12 inches. . iron steel-hooped breech-loading mortar now at Sandy Hook, the mortar and Mr. DOLPH. I should like to call the attention of the Senator from 

ammunition shall be paid for, including cost oftra.nsportation, and contract be Kansas to somethin!! furtlier in regard to section 6. As has already made for a furtlim- supply of not less than fifty and not more than one hundred, ~ 

at snch reasonable cost a.s the board herein provided for shall determine, notto been said by; the Senator from Connecticut, there is no competition proexceed 56,500 each. The entire number to be delivered in one year from date vided for here. It provides: of contract. Said mortar a.nd all which may be contracted for under this pro- vision shall be subject to inspection at each stage of manufacture; 

' Mr. HAWLEY. The first part of the section provides for a test of 

two hundred rounds at the expense of the manufacturer. That will 

not be the number of rounds that the board will require, I am pretty 

sure, because it is r iring of the first mortar, the one now on the 

ground, referred to in section 5, four hundred rounds. I would mm·e 

an amendment, except that this board, if this should become a law, will 

undoubtedly require every mortar to be fired four hundred times, but 

perhaps only two hundred times at the expense of the manufacturer. 

1\tr. PLUUB. I do not think that is material. The point of putting that in was that we could not have on hand a large supplyofammunition which probably we should not need. In other words, there 

could only be furnished the amount deemed necessary for experimenting. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I have expressed my dissatisfaction with this character of legislation; but I have said I would rather have a cast-iron 

mortar than none. That is all I wish to say about it. I do not belie>e in any ofit. _ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reading of the section proposed 

to be inserted will be continued. 

The Chief Clerk continued the rending as follows: 

Whenever any party shall present for test a completed single-charge breechloading steel gun of 10 orl2 inches caliber, with thepropersupplyofammunition 

fo1· the test ofthe same, such gun shall, in the presence of the party presenting it IJe subjected to such tests as the board shall hava prescribed; and should s~ch gun be shown to the satisfaction of the board by such tests to fulfill therequirements previously prescribed in respect to accuracy, range, power endur- ance, and general efficiency, the gun and ammunition shall be paid for at a fair · valuation, including cost of transportation, and contract shall be made o.t a price 1·easonable in the opinion of the board, with the party presenting the best 

of such guns. for a further supply of similar guns, to be subjected to the usual 

service test before acceptance, the experimental gun and all guns purchased 

hereunder to be subject to inspection at each stage of manufacture, as fo~lows, 

na.wely: For not less than fifty 10·inch steel guns ; and for not less than fifty 

12·inch steel guns. 

-Ur. HAWLEY. This is nnother extraordinary provision. When- ever the Government desires to have private manufacturers furnish it 

anything whatever it is a general rule that it shall advertise, specifying minutely the qualifications, the requisites of the article in question, 

and shall invite the manufacturers of such articles to compete. This 

does nothing ofthe kind. It is an entire departure. 

I shall make less trouble about this section than I would if I thought 

there was any possibility of anything resulting from. it. Butjust look 

at t.he character of-it: 

Whenever any party shall present for test a. completed single-charge breechloading steel gun of 10 or 12 inches caliber, with the proper supply of ammunition for the test of the same, such gun shallWhenever any party shall present for test a completed cast-iron breech-loading mortar of 12 inches caliber, of about 32,000 pounds weight, with a proper supply of ammunition therefor, not exceeding two hundred rounds, such mor- tar shall be tested in the presence of the party presenting the same, and should it be shown to the satisfaction of the board by such tests to be equal in accu- racy, range, power, endurance, material, and general efficiency to the 12-inch 

cast-iron steel-hooped breech-l?ading mortar now at Sandy HookMortars of that character shall be purchased. 

I have already stated that in my judgment the cast-iron steel-hooped 

mortar is not the best Jitun. It is only as strong as one of the metals 

contained in it, probably the cast iron, but in this provision a castiron, steel-hooped mortar is ma{]e the standard of excellence. 

Whenever any party produces a gun of a given weight and caliber 

that is equal to the gun already on hand, one of those mongrel guns, 

then we are to purchase the gun and others like it. We do not say we will purchase the best gun that is offered or the best gun that any 

party offers, bnt that we will take a superior gun to the mongrel gun 

at Sandy Hook, and will purchasesuch guns whenever a party offersthe first party that offers-although this cast-iron mortar may be already constructed. 

As soon as it is offered, if it is equal in material and endurance and 

efficiency to the 12-inch cast-iron steel-hooped breech-loading mortar 

at Sandy Hook, then the Government is to purchase a quantity of such 

gnus. There is no opportunity for competition. The standard fixed 

is a gun already constructed and in the possession of the Government 

at Sandy Hook. We propose to take guns of that efficiency and power, 

whether they are the best guns of the kind or not. 

Mr. PLU:M:B. Let me say with regard to what the Senator from 

Oregon has presented that we have given in this bill the money necessary to make what is called a type mortar of steel. Following the 

theory of the Ordnance Department, no steel mortar will be purchased nor would the Department purchase any steel mortar until the type of 

gnu it purchased had been made and tested. It will occupy two or three years of time, in all human probability, to make this type gun; 

certainly two years. That is an experimental gun. In other words, 

they are to determine just the kind of gun we ought to have in order 

to realize the greatest degree of efficiency. It will therefore be two 

years before we can enter on the manufacture of steel mortars. In the mean time the Department has provided a type cast-iron mortar, steelhooped, to wit, the one at Sandy Hook, and that has been tested to an extent which ma.kesitdesirable, accordingto the Department, that 

it should have more possessing that same degree of efficiency. Following that theory, we simply say that if any one will bring and furniSh to us a gun at a price $2,500 more than the gun at· sandy Hook 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD==-SENATE. 8111 ' 

or others like it can be pt.U'chased for we will let them furnish them. it is expected that a. gun which is in the lathe there now will be turned 

It is a.·mere temporary expedient, I admit. The Department do not out in respect of its tensile strength, its breaking strength, in fact all 

rega1·d this as the best, but they have got the merit of knowing exactly the strength that resists expansion, to be as good a piece of metal as what they will do. was ever made. It will not be very long before we have the means of 

The Senator said a few moments ago that I had said in a previous determining whether that is so or not. 

debate on this subject that I did not think there would be a hostile That one experiment-the fact that we are able to put in a lathe in 

gun fired on this continent again. That is my opinion; but I do not that Government gun foundry a billet of cast steel of such proportions 

expect to overcome the adverse opinion of the Senate. So far as I have and such compactness as would justify the belief that it will turn out 

been concerned in the preparation of this bill, I have been instructed a first-class gun, perhaps a gun of unparalleled strength-that fact ought 

in the first place by the vote of the Senate? I have been iru!tructed by not only to encourage us, but it ought to admonish us that we should 

the views of the Ordnance Department and of General Schofield, and I · not now abandon these efforts either in respect of iron guns or steel 

have been instructed by the feeling in the country, which has mani- guns. 

fested itself in various ways in favor of doing something, and so far as The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] alluded to a recent process 

I can I have labored to bring this bill within the compass represented by or discovery of the ·benefits of aluminum. He did not say that the 

these various opinions of which I have spoken, and I believe, taking knowledge of the benefits of aluminum in the casting of iron or steel 

the common opinion in regard to the necessity of doing something, that was recent, for it is very old, and the effects are marked and they are there will be a greater feeling of safety than there is now about New very conspicuous. They strengthen the metal, they pt.U'ify it, and they 

York Harbor, at all events, and in other places, if mortars might be protect it against rusting. But. the use of aluminum in making fine 

placed in them and were there to· day. ca8tings of steel or iron is an ancient thing; perhaps very much older than 

So, I only stand for this as in the line of that which accords with we know of now. But recent experiment-s and the advance of science 

what is deemed to be the best judgment of those who are.most compe- have developed the fact that aluminum can be obtained very cheaply. 

tent to express an opinion about it, ~hat relating to steel, and on that You can obtain it out of almost any ordinary clay in the United States 

other line of doing something as early as possible of a kind which is andinsufficientquantitiestohavetheeffectyoudesiretohavein making 

not the very best poc:....sible that ean be done, but is, according to that castings. Whatisthat? Thesimplesteffectintheworld. ItistoliquefY same opinion, better than nothing. • · the castings; liquefY the metal to that degree that it pours like water, 

1\Ir. DOLPH. The Senator· did not understand me exactly, I think. and in pouring into a cast the air rises to the surface and there are no If we are going to take cast-iron mortars, why not get the best? Sup- occlusions or blow-holes in it, but you ~et yot.U' metal pure and resort 

pose it should turn out that I am correct, that a. cast-iron body with · to the necessary means of getting out of it the phosphorus or sulphur 

steel hoops is not as good as all steel or all iron or all of one metal. or whatever refractory agent may be in it, and then put in the right_ 

Why not advertise and let parties come in and the board take the best amount of carbon to make it steel, and then liquefy it by the use of 

gun that is offered, provided that it shall not be of less effieiency and aluminum, and then cast it, and there can be no reason stated.-why 

power and. shall not be ofinferior material to the gun at Sandy Hook? that ought not to be the strongest form in which that metal can be 

:Mr. PLUMB. For the reason that this is a temporary expedient. produced. 

We are proceeding upon the theory of purchasing guns which shall be Mr. PLUMB. Let me intennpt the Senator there a. moment to ask 

in accord with the type that has been used for this character of guns. It him a question. I speak to him as a person possessing some authority 

is not known that it will be deemed advisable to open up this general on this subject by reason of his familiarity with it, and of the investisubject to manufacturers of guns with the idea that we are to purchase gations he himself has made, and I will ask him if one of the effects of 

of them indefinitely, as is expected in the latter part of this section the introduction of aluminuni into the molten cast-iron is not to drive 

providing for the purchase of guns. out very largely if not wholly the impt.U'ities and refractory substances, 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reading of the section proposed such as phosphorus, sulphur, and other things which contribute to 

to be inserted will proceed. _ make the iron short, to use a mechanical term, and to make out of it 

Mr. MORGAN. I do not care about participating in this debate, a high grade of steel? . particularly on the special merits of the proposition that is before the Mr. MORGAN. I have no doubt that is so. I have no doubt the 

Senate, but I think it is perhaps my duty to say a word about the use of aluminum in the casting of metal, by putting it, for instance, in 

question of our progressing in the direction of getting cast-steel ox: cast- the bottom of a ladle, will have the effect of so liquefying the metal as iron heavy guns. They are, of course, very much less expensive than that it will expel the impurities, and they :rise to the surface in the form 

wrought guns. They will not cost on an average, t suppose, more of slag and swim. on the top of the ladle, and, as the Senator suggests, 

than one-half the money. will approximate the production of steel in the sense that pt.U'e iron 

I wish to be able to demonstrate now, when we are starting in our makes better steel than implll'e iron. It purifies the iron by this procoast fortifications and in the building and arming of a navy, that we cess of extraordinary liquefaction. can make as good or better guns and mortars than are made anywhere Now, when the world is about to step right ont and grasp this subelse at half the cost. It is a matter that is very well worthy of our ject, the merits of which have been so long known, and to grasp it as attention. Without pretending to know much about it, I have had a practical matter because of the cheapness of the application of alumi- some little observation on the subject of the strength of ca..c:;t and num from ordinary clays in castings, this is no time for us to abandon 

wrought metals, and I go npon the theory that nature does her work these experiments. It is the right time to make the experiments in 

better than art can do it in respect of giving stren2th to metals that particular direction, I should say. 

through the crystallization or natnral formation that is desjgned for Of course whoever undertakes to make a gun under the provisions 

them. of this amendment will be very careful, I should say, to get the very 

I belie~e if you take a ton of iron and free it from all the impurities best metal he can possibly get, and in obtaining it to use all the methand get it into that condition of liquefaction where you can cast it with- ods that lead in that direction to secure the result. It is to his inout its having occlusions of air, where the entire body of the cast will te:rest to do it, because if his gun does not stand the trial, if his mor- be free from all interruptions by what are known as air-holes or blow- tar explodes or does not wear well under fire, he loses the whole of his 

holes, and if you will allow it to arrang~ its crystallization in that sort investment. More than that, I understand the ammunition is to be 

of slow prol!l'ess which nature itself has employed in the production of supplied, and the sum of $10,000 worth perhaps is to be supplied for 

metals, I suppose you get a stronger metal than n.ny human hand can the purpose of testing the durability and tensile strength and power 

make by any machinery that can be devised, and one that is safer, ... to resist strain that these mortars are to be subjected to. more homogeneous, and le.ss liable to cracks and interruptions and If you have got a strong body for a mortar the difference between a breaks than any other metal that can be made. rified mortar and a smooth-bore mortar is merely the expense of groovSo I have always believed that iron brought into the condition of ing or the rifting~ In addition to what would be the resistance of a steel, iron which possesses the requisite amount of carbon to make it smooth wall in the fire of a missile of any kind you have to have a gun, 

steel-for that is the only difference we know of between iron and then, strong enough of course to make up for the resistance of the nee- steel-when it is cast in a degree or state of fluidity which will permit essary amount of powder to be used in expelling the missile from a the contact of the crystals of that metal to be brought in connection, grooved gun than from one which is not grooved. But who ever heard 

and then when it is allowed to cool gradually so that the crystallization of a mortar exploding? If there is an instance of that kind anywhere 

will arrange itselfin a. natural way, we shall get a stronger metal than Ihaveneverknown it. I do not believe that a mortar which is well 

any man can make with any kind of machinery or any perfection of constructed out of good material can be exploded. So far as durability 

::rrt; and I think that is the prevailing opinion of men who are now en- and reli~bility are concerned, I think we might just as well trust an gaged in the bigher ranges and branches of metallurgy. iron mortar as a steel mortar, or one that is steel bound, because the 

If that is all so, there is no reason why .we should at this moment expansive forge is perhaps not more than 2()-tons to the inch, and that 

of time abandon our effort to get guns, the project of getting guns, either almost any good quality of iron will stand in a gun that is 12 or 14 

of cast-iron or cast·steel, but the greatest reason why we should con- feet long. -

tinue our experiments in that direction, for the mechanical and metal- Therefore there is no danger in making this effort; and if we can 

llll'gical world is coming around to the proposition which I am stating reduce the cost of these mortars from 12,000 to $6,000 or $6,500 of 

now, and we have had some rather strik:inO' examples of it in recent course we must do it; we can fortify the country at one-half the ex- castings that were made, I belie~e, in Pi~ burgh, which are being pense so far as the use of mortars· is concerned. I understand that 

turned down in the navy-yard here, at ot.U' ~un fact.ory. I understand these breech-loading rifled mortars are getting to be very precise guns, 

I 
8112 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 30, 

and that they have a range perhaps of something like 10,000 or 12,000 

yards. 

Here is a gun not to be disregarded or discarded; and if we can make an experiment and test the matter, as it seems to have been thoroughly 

tested already at Sandy Hook by a gun of similar construction and similar mateTial, only I believe it is steel-bound-if we can ·make this ex- periment and test the matter now on these very favorable conditions, 

it seems to me that we ought to do it. We ought to be able to save to 

the Government of the United States, ifwe can do it, half of the cost 

of these mortars. We have an immense coast to defend and we shall 

want a great many guns first and last, if we pn tit in a state of actual 

defense, or rather if we put t.be guns where they are available upon 

their carriages, and then we go with our spades and build the very best 

breastworks that can be made by throwing up earth and sand. If that 

is to be our comseoffortification we can save enormously to this conn- try by having cast-iron guns, if they a1·e good enough mortars; and I 

supp os~ in the test of one of them in connection with the tests which 

have been made already of the one at Sandy Hook we should be al;>le 

pretty well to determine whether it be necessary to go further. 

It seems to me that that is really the only open door of experiment, 

for we have tried compression. I do not mean that we pave done it, · but Krupp bas, Armstrong has, and others. We ha\"e tried these immense compressors; we have tried hammers and everything of that 

aort so as to get up a homogeneous metal for a built-up gun of steel, 

and we find in the experiments that have been made at various places 

that they are not the safest guns in the world. There are iron guns in existence to-day which have done twenty times the work of the steel 

guns made by Mr. Krupp which have exploded. The iron gun is still 

good. A good many of the Dahlgren nnd the Rodman g~s are in existence now and just as strong as they can be. They are JUSt as strong aa they ever were after having been fired an immense number of times-

! forget now how many, but perhaps a thousand times. So we must no t merely for the following of a fashion discard an opportunity of 

making a final experiment upon this thing when it can be done as 

cheaply as is proposed to be done in this bill. 

At first I thought I was in fa\"or of having this House bill passed 

inst as it came o>er, for the reason that when the Honse want to do 

anything in this direction I am in favor of meeting them on half-way 

ground and making as many steps towards the point as we can get, but 

I think that this is a valuable amendment to the bill. If we have 

only two or three establishments in the United States that can make 

them, H is our misfortune. I suppose that they can be made after all as cheaply in the United States as they can be made in Germany and 

in England, and if we can get them at a fair price it seems to me that 

is all tbatougbt to be required. 

M:r. REAGAN. Mr. President, I am one of those who believe that 

this country ou<Yht to be placed in a better condition of defense, both as to the strength of the Navy and the improvement of our fortifications, as well as the preparation for buildin~ a suffi.cien~ numbe! of a better quality of guns than we have. Looklllg at the sixth sectiOn of 

the bill I desire to call attention to the question as to whether it will 

render any aid in securing additional means of defense. The first 

clause in the sixth section provides thatWhenever any party shall present for a test a completed cast-iron breechloading mortar of 12 inches caliber, of about 32,000 pounds weight, with a proper supply of ammunition therefor, not exceeding two hundred rounds, such mor- tar shall be tested in the presence of the party presenting the same,_ and should 

it be shown to the satisfaction of the board by such tests to be equalm accuracy, range, power, endurance, ma~erial, and general efficiency to the 12-inch cast- iron steel-hooped breech-loadrng mortar now at Sandy Hook, the mortar and 

ammunition shall be paid for, including cost of transportation, and contract be 

made for a further supply of not less than fifty and not more than one hundred, at such reasonable cost as the board herein provided for shall determine, not to exceed $6.500 each. The entire num~er to be delivered in one year fro~ date 

of con tract. Said mortar and all which may be coutro.cted for un.der thiS pro- vision s!lall be subject to inspection at each stage of manufactut·e. 

If there were fifty such morli~us furnished they would cost about 

$325,000; if one hundred were furnished tbeywouldcostab?~t$650,-

000; but can we expect to get a single mortar under that provlSlo~? Is 

it not a delusion and a. snare to those who hope for real preparation for 

the defense of the country? Who can point to the person who will 

manufacture the plant to build the mortar and furnish the ammunition 

and have the gun tested without 1.-nowing whethcrhe is going to get a 

contract or not? 

Then the next clause of the same e~ction is a great deal worse. It 

provides thatWhenever any party shall p1·eseut fo-r test a completed single-charge breecl:~­

lo::tding steel gun of 10 or l2 inches caliber, wi.th the proper supply of ammum- tion for the test of the same, such gun shall. 1n the presence of t.he .Party pre- sen tin"' it, be subjected to such tests as the board 5hall have prescnbed; and 

should" such gun be shown to the satisfaction of the board by such tests to fulfill the requirements previously prescribed in respect to accuracy, range, power, endurance, and general efficiency, the gun and ammunition shall be paid for at a fliir valuation, including cost of transportation, and contract shall be made, at a price reasonable in the opinion of the board, with the pat·ty presenting the 

best of such guns, for a further supply of similar guns, to be subject-ed to the usu:~.l sert"ice test before acceptance, the experimental gun and all guns pur- chRsed hereunder to be subject to inspection at each stage of manufacture, as follows, namely: For not less than t.iftylO-inch steel guns; and for not less than 

fifty 1.!-incb steel guns. 

If we take the maximum number of steel guns to be provided under 

this clause, estimating the cost of a gun at $40,000 (and I understand 

that $40,000 to $45,000 is about what a gun will cost), there would be 

$2,000,000 appropriated under that clause. If there is to be the maximum number of 12-inch guns, costing about $55,000 each, there would 

be $2,750,000 to be applied in that way for the actual cost of the guns, 

making $4,750,000. 

Is there a human being who believes that one gun will ever be obtained under that provision of the bill, and is not the clause an entire 

delusion? If we desire to have the country put in a condition for deferne, if we expect to obtain the making of guns which will meet the 

necessities of the Government, are we to obtain it with such a provision as this? 

It seems to me that if Senators mean anything they had better change 

the form of this proposed legislation so as to produce results. If they mean anything, if they mean to hold out the idea that they are appropriating about $5,000,000 for preparation for the defense of the conntry, and know it will not effect it, then in common fairness we ought 

to strike out tbese·clauses. They have no business in the bill if they are there simply a delusion, if they must be ineffective; and I take it 

there is no Senator here who will assume that there can be a gun obtained under either of these provisions. 

Then, beginning in line 49, the sixth eection providesThat under the provisions of this section of this a{ltthe board sho.ll not expend or enter into contract or contracts involving the Government in an aggregate 

expenditure exceedint: $6,000,000 nor an expenditure on the par~ of the Govern· ment in any one fiscal year in excess of $2,000,000. 

It seems to me there is no use in putting such provisions in the bill. 

We can make a provision that will secure the construction of such guns. 

Surely we arc capable of employing language that will carry out the 

purpose and secure the construction oftbe guns; and if we mean that, 

why not put in the bill language that will give us the guns we need, 

and not language tba.t produces a mere delusion, and that we know in 

advance will never produce a. gun? 

I trust if the language is not improved that this section will be 

omit.ted. 'rhe truth is it seems to me that the bill ought to be recom- mitted to the committee, and let them reframe the language so that it 

will be calculated to produce real results. 

:Mr. PLUMB. M:r. President, in regard to the first paragraph of sec- tion 6, the committee had what we regarded as satisfactory assurances that a gun would be produced for test in accordance with it. The ord- nance officers, I think, do not belieYe the gun will re3pond to the test; 

they do not think it will be as good as the type gun to which reference 

is made and which is set up as the standard; but that some responsible 

manufacturer will present for test within a brief period a mortar w hicb 

he thinks will stand the required test, I have no doubt. If be should 

be mistaken, then we shall not get them, of course we shall not want 

them, but we shall have at least furnished the opportunity to the men who think they can make just as good a gun out of cast-iron as the Government already bas from a. combination of cast-iron and steel, and they 

will have been satisfied at least that they are wrong, and we shall know 

also that they are wrong. If we get them, then we shall have a weapon 

which, while not the very best perhaps that can be had, at the same time, as I have before stated, will be better than nothing. 

In regard to the second paragraph of the sixth section I do not 

know, nor do I have any very strong assurance, that we shall get by reason of its adoption finished guns from the bands of private manu- facturers, but we shall at least have made the effort, and we shall have 

made it under a. proposition which I think is entirely reasonable. If 

there is any manufacturer in the United States who bas the machinery, 

or w bo can be induced by a reasonable contract toj>rovide the machinery, we give him the opportunity to do so, and we encourage him to do so. I think it is fair encouragement. It may prove not to be so, but like a good many other things there will be eo me demonstration w bich 

will make us wiser. 

Now, suppose we do not get anything. It is not fair to say, itwouJ cl 

not be fair for the Senator from Texas to say, even if that were disclosed 

by t.he experience under this bill, that it bad been a. delusion aud a snare. I do not think he means to say that the committee bas designed 

to put something in the bill which it knew would be ineffective. I 

doubt very much if be with all his resources could frame a provision 

which would be more likely to accomplish the results, unless he low- ered the standard or largely increased the number of guns to be purchased under it in such a. way as to offer extraordinary inducements to 

somebody to engage in the manufacture of these guns. 

It has been a standing complaint for many years that the Ordnance 

Bureau of this Government was non-receptive, that it was determined 

that no guns should be made for which it did not first furnish the type 

and prescribe what should be done at every stage of the manufacture 

in such a way that all the guns we have should be credited to them. 

It is claimed by persons of high and low degree that they do not get 

consideration for their inventions, for their enterprise, for their genius, 

for their determination, for their skill at the hands of the Ordnance 

Dureau. I doilotsay whether that is true or not; it is not necessary for 

the purposes of this argument, but I only say that an opinion of that 

kind exists very largely in this country. 

Now, here is an answer to it. We say to these manufacturers, "If 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEo 8113 

you think you can make a better gun or as good a gun as the United 

States Government can make, here is your opportunity. Show your 

faith by your works." 

Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator permit a question? 

Mr. PLUMB. Certainly. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Has the Senator ever beard by word of month or by letter from a single steel manufacturer in the country that be bas 

the slightest idea of doing any such thing as be is invited to do 

here? 

Mr. PLUMB. I have not myself ~dividually, but I have been told 

by members of this body and by at least one member of the Honse of 

Representatives that it was altogether probable that the Government 

would get satisfactory propositions under sections similar to this. 

1\Ir. HAWLEY. No proposition bas been made? 

lli. PLUl\IB. Yes; I have been told so. . 

Mr. HAWLEY. I have seen a large number of the leading steel 

manufacturers, and have visited their establishments and talked the 

subject over with them. I never beard one of them say anytbin~ like 

it. It is a very stranp;e thing to me that they are willing to spend a million dollars for a plant to produce a gun to be tested. 

1\Ir. PLUMB. If I were in the place of the Senator from Connecticut and possessing the authority be does, I would not discourage by 

my language on this floor the manufacturers from engaging in just this 

kind of work. He certainly admits that it is d~irable to do it. Why 

should he characterize them in advance as being fools if they undertake it? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I can not instruct men in their business. I am speaking of what they have told us. Nothing in the world that the 

Senator or myself or anybody else says here will have any influence 

upon their investment or non-investment of a million dollars. They 

know all about the business. I am only telling what they have said. 

If any one of them has privately said, when none of the others stood 

by, •' If you will pass a section like this, I shall go to work, at an enor- mous expense of a million or a million and a half, and produce a ~un 

under the chance that I may get a contract," I will confess it is a man 

I do not know. ' 

Mr. PLUMB. I have been told on what I believe to be perfectly 

goo·d authority that the largest steel manufacturing concern in the 

country is now putting up a new plant, expected to be the largest, 

the most complete and perfect in appointment that there is in the 

United States, and that it would engage in gun-making under a provision similar to the one we are now discussing. That may be a mistake; I do not know. I do not know that I am aware of a single steel 

manufacturer in the United States whose establishment is in a condition to verify anything I have beard. 

Mr. HAWLEY. There is only one , establishment in the United 

States to which that language will apply. It will soon be ready to 

make large guns. · Mr. TELLER. What establishment is that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. The Bethlehem Works, which bas nearly com- pleted a plant for the manufacture of heavy gun forgings. 'Vhen I 

expressed my incredulity as to whether anybody bad done so, I based it 

partly on the very latest information I bad from that concern, from a 

man deeply interested in their enterprise. They have made no proposition. They may have, ne\'"ertheless, a concealed purpose to beahead 

of anybody else in making this costly plant. 

Mr. PLUMB. The company to which I refer is not the company 

about which the Senator is speaking. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not know any of their business secrets, but it 

is an amazing piece of news that anybody will make that calculation 

upon havin~ a contract with the Government of the United States 

hereafter. 

Mr. PLUMB. I was considerate myself of the Senator, because if 

I was engaged in manufaduring steel and had half way a notion under 

an opportunity of this kind, his expressions here would undoubtedly 

induce an abandonment of the enterprise. 

The Senator will bear in mind that sometimes after a man looks over a thing he changes his mind. The Senator was led to believe, as I was led to believe, three or four years ago when we considered this question, not exactly together but at the same time and in connection with 

the preparation of a bill, that we could not get manufacturers to erect 

the necessary plant for the production of steel forgings for guns of a caliber of 10 or 12 inches or make a contract for $10,000,000 worth of 

steel. We now know that a quarter of that sum will produce a result. 

Manufacturers, conservative and interested as they are, grasping as they are, gain in knowledge by process of time. It sometimes happens, I have no doubt, that if they can not get everythin~ that is lying around loose they will take an analogous ' proportion of it, and so it may prove that while the manufacturers would not do that at the 

date of the investigation which the Senator made carefully and thoroughly and which be had in his mind, they may do something a great 

deal better now. But I do not speak. of this as a certainty. I do not regard this myself as anything but a tentative proposition. I want to open the door 

just as far as it may be opened safely to the. private enterprise of this 

country to dow hat we are now prepared to do only through the medium 

XIX--508 ·. 

of the Ordnance Bureau, and see how it works. At all events, as I said, we shall bave disarmed the kind of criticism of which I have spoken. 

It will probably excite some manufacturer to say what he would do if be 

will not do this; and I am not prepared to believe that there will not 

be found a manufacturer who will be looking to contract-s with the Government as a direction in which be can employ his capital profitably, 

because the manufacturers know that when the Government enters 

upon an expenditure of this kind it is likely to. continue, and a Government contract has some attractions after all to the ordinary human 

being. _ 

So while I do not say, to meet the suggestion of the Senator from 

Texas, that we are going positively to get anything out of either one of these provisions, 1 believe, I feel perfectly s~re in fact, that there 

will be presented for test a mortar; and I am not prepared to believe, 

if that mortar does answer to the test prescribed, that the law will be 

disobeyed and ~hat the fifty absolutely required to be purchased will 

not be purchased. 

I am encouraged to believe that under the second provision some man- ufacturer will present for test a steel gun which be will believe when 

he presents it (and that belief, of course, would induce him to manu- facture it) that it will prove to be as good as, if not better than, the 

gun which the Government is manufacturing on its own account. 

Suppose, however, he does not do that. We have still here two million and a half dollars' worth of steel provided for, which we are to absolutely get without any contingency whatever, and we have a gun 

factory provided for, which is to finish and assemble these guns. That 

much of the work we .are sure of, anyhow. Two millions and a half 

dollars' worth of steel forgings, according to the testimony of competent 

officers in the Ordnance Bureau, will be produced. These gun manu- factories would cost probably three-quarters of a million dollars, and 

the gun would be finished and assembled during two years or perhaps 

within three years of time. 

So I think my friend from Texas, with his very worthy zeal in .favor 

of doing something in the nature of coast defense, will feel on reflect!on 

that even if these two provisions which we have been discussing should 

prove entirely ineffective it will not warrant us in rejecting this bill or 

delaying its passage for a moment. 

:M:r. REAGAN. I did not state fullyMr. HARRIS. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Kansas 

if' he does not think that a part of to-morrow may be profitably expended 

in considering this bill? It is five and a half o'clock. 

Mr. PLUMB. I shall not contend for a further consideration of the 

bill this evening. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I hope to be allowed to say a single word. 

Mr. REAGAN. I desire to say a word. I do not wish to speak tomorrow. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the motion of the Senator 

from Tennessee? 

Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the suggestion of the Senator from Texas, 

who desires to submit some remarks. now. · 

Mr. HAWLEY. May I say a word before be goes on? If the bill 

passes over, as undoubtealy it will, I hope it will be called up immediately after the morning business to-morrow. 

Mr. PLUMB. Yes, at once. Mr. REAGAN. Mr. President, I stated pretty broadly that I did 

not think under either clause of section 6, to which I refer.ed, we 

should ~et any guns or mortars. I did not state the reason for that, 

because tha·t reason had been stated by the Senator from Connecticut 

[Mr. HAWLEY]. I merely referred to the fact that it would involve 

an expenditure in plant that we could not expect private p:uties to 

engage in without some certainty of recompense for the expen liture in 

the plant. 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] goes upon the idea with his 

bill that it is more important to encourage private enterprisa than to 

obtain guns. That is my deduction from the line of his remarks. If 

it was the production of a commercial commodity, something which 

would ha\'"e a market and competition for its consumption, th tt would 

be all right; I would have no objection to the policy presented by the 

Senator from Kansas; but if we expect to get guns for the benefit of the 

Government we most bear in mind that the Government is the only 

possible customer, and it most incur the expense and responsibility of 

the necessary plant for the construction of the guna, whether they are made by the Government or by private individuals. 

I think from my mode of reasoning that there is no other possible 

way of securing the construction of guns and mortars. There is no inducement held out here in these two clauses of section 6 for the per- sons furnishing mortars and guns for test that they will be compensated 

in any way for the expense they may go to in the private enterprise of 

developing proper mortars and proper guns. 

It seems to me, under such circumstancts, that it is not at all probable, as I said before,. that one gun will be produced. The Senator 

from Kansas suggests that mortars may be produced under .the first 

clause of the sixth section. I do not know what a plant would cost. 

I take it the Senator from Kansas is much better informed than I am; 

but it will cost a million or a million and a half dollars. I take it we all feel certain that there are no private parties going to invest a million 
8114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE; AUGUST 30; 

or a million and a half dollars and construct a gun at a very large ex- penditure, and furnish the ammunition and put it in position for test 

in order to take the chance of possibly getting a contract -to construct a number of gun~. 

These were the objections I had, and I repeat that my conviction 

is that every interest in this country requires that it should be in a 

better condition of defense, that it should have a better navy, tha~ it 

should strengthen its fortifications, that it should P!Ovide more and 

better guns, and more and better material of every kind for the defense 

of the conn try. 

The Senator from Kansas thinks that there is no danger that there 

will ever be a hostile shot fired here. I think it is assuming a very 

great responsibility for the lawmakers of this country, for those who 

have charge of the dearest interest-a of this country, to assume that 

with.all the complications which surround us, with our position in the ·world, with our position as a nation, .being mixed up with all the commercial and political relations of the world, that there will be no hostile shot fired. I trust that may be so. No one would dread ·more than I would dread to see a war inaugurated. No one would go further 

than I would, on terms of honor and propriety, to avoid a war. · But 

if we would avoid it, we ought to havethatso-rtofstatesmanship, that 

sort of prescience, that sort of knowledge which would qualify us to 

prepare for such contingencies .and to sustain oar negotiations by the 

proper means of sustentation. 

As I had occasion to- say once before here, I believe unorganized 

power, I care not how great it is, is totally inefficient in the presence 

of organized power. A great Government like ours, charged with the 

responsibility which it has of protecting the population and the interests which it must protect, owes it to itselft owes it to its people, owes 

it to .every interest, if it would place itself in the position of a first-class 

power of the earth, to enforce the principles of right, which are neces- sary to the protection of its people and its honor. It is for that reason 

tllat it seems to me the committee ought to make more efficient provision for securing the construction of guns. 

FORT WALLACE RESERVATION. 

Mr. PLUMB. Before moving an adjournment, I desire ro present a conference report. . · The PRlf..SIDING OFFICER. The conference report will be re- ceived and read. · 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

The committee of -conference on the di.l!agreeing votes of the two- Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 8310) to provide for the disposal of the Fort Wallace military reservation in Kansas, having met, after full 

and free con:ference have agreed to reco.mmend and do recommend to their re- spective Houses as follows: · That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 2, 3,4, and 5. That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 

numbered 1, and agree to the same -with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken out by said·Senate amendment insert the following: 

"SEc. 2. That the Union Pacific Railroad Company is hereby granted the pref- erence right, for the period of three months after the appraisement herein pro- vided for, to purchase the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 

24, township 13 south, range 39 west, and fractional blocks 44, 49, 50, 51, 36, and 

48, according to the town plat of the city of Wallace, the same being now occu- pied by said railroad company for depot a.n.d other purposes, at 830 per acre.'' 

And the Senate agree to the same. P.B.PLUMB, 

H. M; TELLER, 

JAMES H. BERRY, 

Managers on the part of the Senate. 

WM. S. HOLMAN, 

J. E. WASHINGTON, E. J. TURNER, 

Manager• on the part of the HO'!Ut. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move the adoption of the report. 

The report was concurred in. 

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS. 

Mr. C~, Mr. TURPIE, and Mr. PLUMB submitte-d amendments 

intended to be proposed by them, respectively, to the general deficiency 

appropriation bill; which were referred to the Comin.ittee on .Ap-propriations, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. BECK submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the general deficiency appropriation bill; which was ref'erred to the 

Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

.ADMISSION OF W .ASHINGTON. 

Mr. PLUMB. Now I move• the Senate adJourn. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before submitting the motion, the 

Chair will lay before the Seriate the unfinished business, the title of 

which will be reported. 

The C.HIRF CLERK. "A bill {S.l2) to provide for the formation and 

admission into the Union of the State of Washington, and for other 

pmposes.'' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The qnesti.on now is on the motion 

of the Senator from Kansas that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 38 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, August 31, 1888, at 12' 

o'clock m. 

' . , HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

THURSDAY, August 30, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev . .J. H. CUTHDERT, 

D.D. .• 

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

JACOB BLOOMSTEIN VS. THE UNITED STATES. 

The SPEAKER laid before th:e Honse a letter from the assistant 

clerk of the Cour~ of Claims, transmitting findings of fact by the court 

in the case of .Jacob ffioomstein vs. The United States; which was re- ferred to the Committee on War Claims. 

COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following communica- aon: . 

WASHINGTON, ..4:u{l1L8t 29, 1888. 

Sm: I hereby tender my resignation as a member of the Committee on the 

Pacific Railroads, and also as a. member of the Committee on Coinage, Weightl;J, 

and 1\Ies.snres. I reqnest that the· resignation be accepted. Very respectfully, 

Hon. JoJiN G. CARLISLE, 

CHARLES TRACEY. 

· Speaker Howe of .Repre3enfati1JU. · 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the request of the gentleman from New York will be acceded to, and he will be excused from 

further service on these committees. 

There was no objection. 

SEN ATE BILL REFERRED. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the Honse the bill (S. 32:34) to abolish circuit-court powers of certain district courts of the United States, 

and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on the· .Judiciary. 

LEA. VES OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence WM ~ranted as follows: 

To Mr. WILKINS, indefinitely, on account of very important business. 

To Mr. LA.IDLA w, for ten days, on account of important business. 

To Mr. BREWER, indefinitely, after Tuesday next, on account of important business. 

To Mr. BYNUM. for fifteen days, from Saturday, September 1. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave of absence 

for myself for fifteen days. 

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the leave of absence will be 

granted. 

There was no objection. -

Mr. WISE. I also wish to ask leave of absence from Monday next 

for sixteen days. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? 

There was no objection. 

PRINTING OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. FoRD], the 

chairman of the select committee on the alleged violation of the law as to the importation of contract labor,· etc., asks that an order be made 

to print the testimony so far as taken by that committee. The Chair 

will state that the request of the gentleman doos not specify the num- ber of copies to be printed. 

1tfr. FORD. The request _is ro print the usual number of copies; 

1,900, I believe. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. To be distributed amongst the members? 

The SPEAKER. They will be printed of course for the use of the 

House. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Inorderthatthere maybeno misunderstand .. ing, I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio that when an order 

is made to print in this manner the number printed do not go to mem- bers by the usual method of distribution. . 

The SPEAKER. They do not of course go ro members as other 

documents which are printed for the use of the members; but they go 

into the document-room, where they are accessible to the members. 

Mr. BRUMM. I think in a. case of this importance there onght to 

be some understanding that the members shall each have the right to 

go there and secure a copy. . Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That is a very pertinent suggestion. It 

not infrequently happens that members go to the document-room to secure copies of documents and find them exhausted . Mr. RICHARDSON. That is the reason I Bllggested to the gentle- man from Ohio that when the order is made to print the usual num- . be.r of copies they are not distributed pro rata. amongst the members. 

· If it is designed that they shall go to the members it is necessary to 

introduce the resolution in another form; and I would suggest in this 

case that it had better go to the Committee on Printing, if that is the 

purpose. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that if the -resolution is 

referred to tbe Committee on Printing it ean report the cost of printing an extra number for distribution amongst the memhers. 

If there be no· objection, the request of the gentleman from Michigan will be acceded to and the usual number printed in this case. There was no objection.