1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8159-

such an agreement; but as to 'the other point, would a SecreLaryofthe 

Treasury make an agreement that would authorize anybody to readjust 

accounts of twenty years' standing? 

Mr. HOAR. If the question is one of doubt in the Senator's mind 

as to the agreement of the Treasury Department, and whether it ~xisted, let the bill go over until the documentary evidence can be produced. To that I have no objection. · Mr. ALLISON. I hope the Senator will allow the bill to go over, 

and I shall look into it further. It may be that I am mistaken about 

the question of an agreement. 

Mr . . HOAR. I wish to say that I have no personal knowledge of this 

matter. I received a letter from gentlemen in Bo~ton (I do not know 

what their occupation is), asKingmetospeak to the Senatorfrom Wis- consin who made the report and call the bill up. The gentlemen are strangers to me. On looking at the report it seemed to me so absolutely plafn a case, and knowing that the Senator from Wisconsin is 

out of town, I called it up in his absence. 

Mr. ALLISON. I will say to the Senator, if he will allow me, that 

my attention was called to this case by one of these claimants some three or four years ago. He brought his case before me and I examined 

all his papers. He wanted the amount inserted in one of the appropriation bills. 

Mr. HOAR. That is what the Treasury Department recommended. 

Mr. ALLISON. It is probable that the Treasury Department recommended that course. The person to whom I refer had a claim under 

the statute of, I think, $60,000, it may have been twice that amount; 

it was a large sum of money. It required, as it seemed to me upon 

that examination, legislation to enable him to secure the money, and I 

did not believe that the Government of the United States was under 

any legal or equitable obligations to provide that legislation. 

Mr. BERRY. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. HOAR. Let the bill go over. The PRESIDENT p ro tempore. The bill will resume its place on the 

Calendar. The Senator from Arkansas moves that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I hope the Senator from Arkansas will permit an executive session. I believe there are some nominations. Are there 

not? 

Mr. BERRY. No, I do not think there are. :Mr. COCKRELL. All right. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

motion of the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 6 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned until Monday, September 3, 1888, at 12 o'clock 

meridian. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE5. 

FRIDAY, August 31, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev . .T. H. CuTHBERT) 

D. D. 

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

AMERICAN REGISTER FOR STEAl'tiER SAGINAW. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House the bill (S. 3364) to provide 

for an American register for the steamer Saginaw of New York. 

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the.Mercbant Marine 

and Fisheries have unanimously reported a bill which is an exactcopy 

of the Senate bill. I have carefully examined them; and 1 ask unanimous consent now to place the Senate bill upon its passage. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will he read now, subject to the right of 

objection. 

The bill was read, as fol1ows: 

B e it enacted, etc., That the Commissioner of Navigation is hereby authorized and directed to cause the foreign-built steamer Benison, owned at the port of New York, State of New York, by '\V. P. Clyde, an American citizen, and rebuilt by him in the United States, to be registered as a. vessel of the United States un- der the name of the Saginaw. SEC. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, authori.zed and directed to authorize and direct the inspection of said steam-vessel, steam-boiler, 

steam-pipes, and the appurtenances of said boiler, and cause to be granted the proper and usual certificate issued to steam-vessels of the merchant marine, without reference to the fact that said steam-boiler, steam-pipes, and appur- tenances were not constructed pursuant to the laws of the United States, and were not constructed of iron stamped pursl,lant to said laws; and the tests to be applied on the inspection of said boiler, steam-pipes, and appurtenances will be the same in all respects as to strength and safety as are required in the inspec- tion of boile rs constructed in the United States for marine purposes, save that the fact that said boiler, steam-pipes, and appurtenances not being constructed pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the United States, and are of un- stamped iron, shall not be an obst.acle to the granting of the usual certificate if said boiler, steam-pipes, and appurtenances are fotmd to be of sufficient strength and safety. 

There being no objection, the bill was considered, ordered to a third 

re:uling, and 'being read the third time was passed. 

~ir. DUNN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; 

and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER If there be no objection the bill (H. R. 10904) on the same subject will be ]aid on the table. 

There was no objection, _and it was so ordered. 

SEN ATE BILLS REFERRED. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House Senate bills of the following titles; which were read twice and referred as follows, namely: 

The bill (S. 3475) granting the use of certain lands in Pierce County, 

Washington Territory, to the city ofTacoma for the purposes of a public park-to the Committee on the Public Lands; and · The bill (S. 3482) to authorize the construction and operation of a wagon road across the Pike's Peak reservation in the State of Coloradoto the Committee on ·Military affairs. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: 

To Mr. GROUT, indefinitely, on account of important business. 

To Mr. DAVIDSON, of Florida, for :fifteen days after to-day, on ac- count of important business. 

To M:r. JoHNSTON, of North Carolina, indeP,nite1y, on account of serious illness. 

To M:r. ERMENTROUT, for two vv;eeks, on account of important business. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to Mr. WHITE, of Indiana, 

to withdraw from the :files of the Honse papers in the case of W. W. 

Wilkinson, on House bill No. 8224; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. · 

ENROLLED BILJ,. 

. Mr. KILGORE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that 

the committee bad examined and found duly enro1led a joint resohrtion of the following title; when the Speaker signed the same: Joint resolution (H. Res. 219) to continue the provisions of a joint 

resolution entitled a •' Joint resolution to provide temporarily for the 

expenditures ofthe Government.'' 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. FORNEY. I now call up the conference report on the sundry 

civil appropri~tion bill. This matter was presented to the House sev- eral days ago, and the report was printed by order of the House. 

Mr. CANNON. I ask the gentleman from Alabama to yield to me 

for a moment to allow me to offer a resolution of inquiry touching the 

printing of a certain public document. · Mr. FORNEY. Will it require any considerable time? 

:Mr. CA.NNON. Oh, no; it will take but a few moments. 

Mr. FORNEY. Very well. I yield to the gentleman. 

STATISTICAL REPORT ON WOOL AND WOOLEN l't:IANUFACTURE3. 

:Mr. CANNON. :Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit at this time the resolution I hold in my hand, and which I will read: 

Whereas the following concurrent resolution was delivered to the Public Printer on the 30th day of July, 1888: "That there be printed 1':',000 copies of the rec~ntspecial report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statist.ics of the Treasury Department upon wool and the m a nu- facturesof wool, as follows: 10,000 copies for the use of the membet·s of the House of Representatives; 5,000 for the use of the members of the Senate; and 2,000 for the use of the Bureau of Statistics, Trea.!iury Department : ' ' Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be instructed to make inqui-ry a n d inform the House when-the documents ordered to be printed by said resolution will be delivered at the folding-room, and the cause of the delay on the part o1 the Public Printer in printing the same. 

I want to state in this connection that this was delivered to the Public Printer on the 30th day of July, and the report in question was corrected on the 1st of August. It is a document for which we have all 

of us many inquiries, as it is a matter of much interest to a great many 

persons. It was printed and the pages stereotyped months ago; and, as I have said, the corrections have been made in the plates, and there 

is no reason, as I am informed, why it should not have come back to 

the House within two days after the adoption of that resolution. 

I do not offer this resolution, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of.finding 

fault with the Public Printer, except merely to get the document in 

question. 

.M:r. WEAVER. What is the document? 

Mr. CANNON. It is the statistical report relating to wool and the 

manufactures of wool. _ 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the chairman of the Committee on Printing does not seem to be present. This appears to be a resolution directing that committee to make the inquiry. 

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. 

The SPEAKER Does the gentleman desire to offer the resolution 

for present consideration? 

.M:r. GANNON. Yes, I shall be glad to have the resolution passed. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. 

Mr. TAULBEE. Let it be reported. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution bas been read by the gentleman 

from Illinois himself, but the Clerk will again report the resolution. 

The resolution was again read. · 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? 

Mr. CLEMENTS. I think this had better go to the Committee on 

Printing. Therefore I object to its present consideration. 

Mr. CANNON. I hope the gentleman will not interpose an objection. This is simply to secure the document without delay. 

:Mr. CLEMENTS . . The resolution recites certain facts of which the 
8160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

House is not fully informed. It is a matter which should be investi- , gated by the committee, a::J.d I think it proper that they should act 

upon it first. 1 

Mr. CANNON. It is a matter that I have myself investigated. It 

passed on the 30th of J nly, and the corrections were made at the Treasury Department on the 1st of August. The plates were stereotyped 

before the resolution passed and but few corrections made, and I am informed there is no good reason why we should not have had it within a day or two after the resolution was passed. I had an inquiry made 

this morning and could get no information at the Bureau of Statistics 

when it would be delivered. It is a very important document, and we are all having inquiries for it const2,ntly. My only object, I repeat, is 

to get the document. 

Mr. CL~MENTS. I am not prepared to controvert the statement of 

the gentleman from Illinois, but it is a matter that should be inquired 

into. 

The SPEAKER. Objection being made, the resolution will be re- ferred to the Committee on Printing. 

:r.mSSAGE FRO:\! THE SENATE. 

A mcssagefrom the Renate, byl\fr. McCooK, its Secretary, announced 

that the Senate had passed the joint rel'iolution H. Res. 219, being a joint resolution to continue the provisions of a joint resolution entitled a ''Joint resolution to provide temporarily for the expenditures of the 

Government.'' SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. FORNEY. I call up the conference report on the sundry civil 

appropriation bill. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading or the report. It has been printed for three or tour days, and I suppo e all members who desired to do so have obtained a copy of it. 

Mr. COBB. I o~ject. 

The Clerk proceeded to read the report. 

During the reading, 

1\Jr. COBB said: I desire to withdraw my objection. ~Ir. HOLUAN. Let it be with the understanding that the state· 

ment will be read. 

The sta~ement, which has already been printed in the RECORD, was again read. .Mr. FORNEY. I move the adoption of the I'el?ort as to the amendments which have been agreed to in conference, and then we will insist upon a disagreement to the other amendments; and any gentleman 

who desires to speak on all matters to which we have disagreed will 

ha'"e ample time to do so. Mr. COBB. I desire to attack a part of the report to which the con- ference committee have agreed. 

Mr. NELSON. I desire to ask what is the motion? 

The SPEA..KER. The question is upon the motion to agree to the 

report. The Chair will state the situation. In this report the con- ferees on tbe part of the House and the conferees on the part of the Senate ha>e agreed to certain matters, whileas to other matters they have 

disagreed. If the report is adopted the result will be that all those matters as to which the conterees have reached an agreement will 

be settled and no longer open for further consideration, while those matters as to which the conterees have disa_greed will be open for further conference and such further a~tion as the Senate and House may 

take. Therefore any gentleman who desires to oppose any part of this 

r eport in which there has been agreement must oppose the adoption of 

tho report, because it is one entire proposition. 

Mr. NELSON. I want to continue my question a little further. Is 

not this motion to adopt the report amendable? 

'l'he SPEAKER. It is not. After the report has been agreed to or disagreed t::~ further proceedings may be had, as the Chair has just stated. 

The report can not be amended. 

.Mr. COBB. 1\fr. Speaker, the part of the report to which I object 

is tbat action as to the amendment of the Senate numbered 134. I send 

to the Clerk's desk certain papers to be read, after which I will state 

the ground of my objection to the report as it stands. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

:f>EPART.ME..'<T OF THE lNTERIOJi, Wa.shington, .August 28,1888. 

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yonr communication of 

27th instant, referring letter of Messrs. Lamar and Zachry, in opposition to an item in the sundry civil appropriation bill appropriating $40,000 to the Wea, 

Peoria, etc., Indians, for the reason that there would not then be left sufficient 

funds of said tribes to satisfy any judgment on certain claims pending against 

them, and asking to be advised if the statements made in said communication are correct,and what, if any, necessity exists for said appropriation a,t th.is ses- sion of Congress. In response thereto I transmit copy of a communication of 28th instant from 

the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to whom the matter was referred. 

Very respectfully, 

Hou. ~ E. CouB, House of .Rep1·ese-ntatives. 

H. L. 1\fULDROW, 

.Acti11g Secretary. 

DEPARTMENT Oil' THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN Al•'FAIRS, 

Washington, D. C., August 28, 1888. 

Sm: I am in receipt. byyourref~rence, for report, on the 27th instant, of a com- munication from Hon. J. E. COBB, inclosing a letter from Messrs. Lamar and 

Zachry, in opposition to an item in the sundry civil appropriation bill appropriating $40.~ foi payment to the 'Vea, Peoria.. Kaskaskia. and Piankeshaw Indians,and as!"igning as reasons therefor that H. R. 8074,which passed both Houses of Congress at the present session, and which is now in conference, authorizes 

those Indians of said tribes, who became citizens under the treaty of 1867, to bring suit in the Conrt of Claims for an amount claimed to be due them, estimated at about 573,000, on account of a fraudulent or erroneous distribution 

heretofore made; and that there will not be left in the h ands of the Govern- ment sufficient funds of said tribes to satisfy a judgment for the full amount claimed 

Mr. CoBB asks to be advised if the statements made in said communication are correct, and what, if any, necessity exists for said appropriation at this ses- sion of Congress. In reply I have to report that the statements made by the attorneys are in the 

main correct, but that this office did not originate the amendment to the ·sun- dry civil bill for the relief of said Indians. It is known to this office that the deleg-ates representing the bands named 

based their petition for the payment of their tnvested funds on the ground that 

they were greatly impoverished by reason of failure of crops and loss of cattle, 

etc., by disease. 

The tribes named have a general fund amounting to $77,300, and a school fund 

amounting to $20,700, aggregating $98,000, being inve!!tments in . non-paying 

State stocks. namely: Florida, Louisiana., .:-J orth Carolina, and South Carolln&. 

The letter of Mr. COBB, with inclosure, is herewith returned. Very respectfully, 

Hon. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

A. B. UPSHAW, Acting Commissioner. 

Mr. COBB. It appears from that communication that this amendment added by the Senate did not originate with the Indian Office, and 

it does not receive the assent of that office. The circumstances of this 

matter are simply these: In 1867 there was a treat.Y between these Indians and the Government of the United States. By the provisions of 

that treaty those of the Indians who desired to do so were permitted 

to become citizens of the United States and to sever their tribal relations. It was also provided that all those who became citizens should receive their pro rata share of certain funds which belonged to the tribe as a tribe. It was fiuther provided that there should be taken a Jist 

of the Indians who became citizens and a list of those who were to be removed under the treaty to the Indian TeiTitory. These lists were ta.ken, and those who became citizens under the provisions of the 

treaty, about fifty-five in number, now complain tllat there was fraud 

practiced in taking these lists. 

They sa.y, and they are prepared, a.s they allege, to prove it, that 

there were only about fifty-seven of the Indians who removed to the 

Territory, whereaB the list taken showed one hundred and sixty-four. 

Now they say that this was a fraud, and that as soon as they discovered 

it, which was some years after the transaction, they :first applied to the Indian Department and were told that no relief could be given them 

there. 'l'hen they carne to Congress and applied for relief; and at this 

very session a bill has passed the House and is now in conference providing that these Indians may go before the Court of Claims and make 

good, if they can, the assertion that they make of fraud in taking the 

lists. 

If they succeed in establishing their claim in full, they will be en- titled out of the fund now in the Treasury to some 73,000 in addition 

to the amount they have already received. The Senate amendment 

provides that $40,000 of the money now standing to the credit of these 

Indians be immediately paid to those who have removed, under the 

treaty of 1867, to the Territory; and such payment would leave but a small amount of money out of which the citizen Indians can be paid if 

their claim is just. 

They say that they are entitled to ~73,000. If this sum of $40,000 

should be taken from the fund, it will leave nothing comparatively to 

pay the amount which they claim to be dne. 

Mr. Speaker, there is no necessity, as it seems to me, for adopting 

this amendment. The Indian Department appears to 'think there is no necessity for it. That department has not recommended this payment. The agent of these removed Indians went before the Senate 

and in some way got this amendment put on the House bill, anll the 

conterees have agreed to it; but it puts the citizen Indians in the attitn rle of prosecuting a claim without the prospect of realizing anything 

if they are successful in obtaining judgment . 

The whole matter resolves itself into this question: Whether this 

Congress will a1low these citizen Indians to prosecute a suit to estab1 ish a fraud and at the same time by adopting this report deprive them 

of any result to be attained by the snit? If these men are right there 

has been afrand committed, a palpable fraud, which ought to be rebuked 

by this Congress. If they are not right, the Indians who are now ask- ing the payment of $40,000 will only be delayed a little while in getting their money. So that, looking over this whole matter. it does seem to me we ought to pause here and not pay this money to these 

Indians until this contention is settled in the courts. We have sent 

the citiZen Indians there, but we send them there in vain if this conference report is to be adopted, because, although they may establish 

their claim, there will be no money left out of which it can be satisfied. 

For these reasons! Mr. Speaker, I hope the Housd will refuse to adopt 

this conference report • Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the attorneys themselves who represent these citizen Indians could have presented a stronger case than the gentleman from Alabama [.Mr. CoBB] has presented for them. My information as to the origin of this claim agrees precisely with the statement of the gentleman from Alabama; that is 

to say, that under the treaty of 1867-I think that is the date of the 

treaty-the Peoria Indians were permitted, as many of them as chose, 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 8161 

to become citizens, and ·the others to retain their tribal relations and 

be removed into the Indian Territory. A list or census of these citizen and tribal Indians respectively was taken. It is now claimed 

that the census of the tribal Indians was fraudulent; that it contained 

more names than there were actual members of the tribe. 

Th~, Mr. Speaker, is something that happened a quarter of a cen- tury ago. A claim of this kind was preferred by the citizen Indians, 

if I am correctly informed, about . three years after the treaty was made--

Mr. COBB. And, as they allege, as soon as they discovered the 

fraud. 

Mr. RYAN. I am not complaining that there has been any dereliction on their part. They preferred a claim; I am unable to say whether 

it was in the same amount as now presented or not; .but my information is that it was far less. .According to my information that claim, 

when the evidence was all fresh before the Department, was examined 

thoroughly, and rejected by the Indian Office. 

Mr. COBB. For the reason that the Indian Office said they had not 

authority to rectify the mistake or correct the fraud. 

Mr. RYAN. Even though the Indian Office found there was fraud, 

and I am not advised it did find anything of the kind, but, on the contrary, rejected the claim upon its merits. 

Again fift-een years ago these citizen Indians preferred the same claim 

to another administration. The claim was again carefully examined 

in the Indian Office and again rejected. So it stood until the present 

time, when the employment of these attorneys seemed to make this a 

propitious occasion to renew this old claim. They came here to Congres.'3. Con_gress sent them to the Court of Claims. Now it is protested 

here by these attorneys that though these tribal Indians have nearly 

$100,000 to their credit in the Treasury--

1\ir. COBB. They have not so much. 

Mr. RYAN. They have $98,000. 

Mr. COBB. No, sir. Twenty thousand dollars of the fund in the 

Treasury can not be touched; it is an educational fund. 

Mr. RYAN. It is an educational fund ; but it is the fund of those 

Indians resulting -from that treaty and is responsive for any fraud 

which may have been perpetrated, if it was perpetmted by these Indians. 

Mr. HERBERT. · What did the Court of Claims do on this question? 

Mr. RYAN. The Court of Claims, as I understand, has not yet investigated the case at all. 

Mr. COBB. But I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that 

the twenty thousand dollar fund is not liable for the payment of this 

claim. 

Mr. RYAN. Why not? 

Mr. COBB. Because it has been set aside by the act of Congress itself for educational purposes alone; it is a trust fund for that special 

object. 

Mr. RYAN. But does it not grow out of the same treaty fund? 

Mr. COBB. It grows out of the · same treaty; but in paying this 

$40,000 you do not propose to US{': any part of that $20,000? 

Mr. RYAN. That is true as to this appropriation. If my information is correct, this claim is baseless. It is a claim that has never received favorable consideration by any of the authorities that have examined it, and yet it is maintained here that these Indians shall not 

now l1ave even $40,000 of their own funds to keep them fromsrorviog, 

to rebuild their houses and their barns that have been swept away by 

cyclones, to enable them to purchase cattle to replace those which 

have died from Texas fever, and to enable them to purchase food, as 

they are compelled to do, owing to the failure of the crops for the last 

three years. I am informed also by an eminent Senator, who has given 

this subject careful consideration, that there could not possibly be, 

giving the benefit of every possible doubt to these citizen Indians, an 

amonnt o•er $12,000. In addition to that I am informed that these 

tribal Indi:ms iu the Indian Territory who are provided for here have 

an excess of about 10,000 acres of land over and above their allotments, 

which is to be sold, and the proceeds of which would be responsive to 

any judgment that might be obtained in the Court of Claims in this 

matter. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have stated all the information I have upon 

this subject. I do not believe there can be any possible prejudice to 

these citizen Indians by making this provision for these tribaJ Indians 

who are in the condition I have described. I understand, also, that this 

matter was examined in the Indian Office and this appropriation approved. I understand further that it was examined by the Indian Committee of theSenateandapproved, andalsothatitwasexamined in an informal way by the IndianCommitteeoftheHouseand approved. This 

letter of the Department which bas been introduced by the gentleman 

from Alabama [Mr. CoBB] indicates from its date some degree of energy 

on the part of these attorneys in securing it, but in that letter there is 

no disapproval of this appropriation. I know nothing more about the 

matter than what I have stated. I believe the statement I have made 

to be correct. I have no more feeling about it than I have about any 

other amendment in the bill. We agreed to it because we understood 

the facts to be as I have stated. The delegates here representing the§e 

Miami ami Peoria Indians handed me, before we went in to conference, a 

XI.X-511 

t:'ttem ent and asked me to submit it to the conference committee for 

their information. I did not have occasion to do that, in fact I do not 

know that I thought of it at the time; but if it was a proper matter to 

be brought to the attention of the conference committee it is proper 

now to bring it to the attention of the House, and I will therefore ask 

t{) have it read from the Clerk's desk as presenting the views of the 

tribal Indians through their delegates, whose names are appended to the 

paper. 

The Clerk read as follows: WASHINGTON, D. C., August 17, 1888. 

Sm: You will please pardon us for intruding upon your time, but in view of 

the fact that the interests of the people we represent are at stake we are com- pelled to make a statement to you, and through you to reach, if possible, the 

conference committee on the sundry civil bill. We understand through 1\!r. 

PEEL, of Arkansas, that representations have been made by an attorney here 

that the Peorias are largely indebted to the citizen band of that tribe, and that 

the Peorias should have none of their money paid out to them until the matter is settled by the Court of Claims. The separation between the two bands of 

Peorias took place twenty-five years ago, and the claim now made or revived was started about three years after the division took place. It was investigated 

and found groundless by the Indian Office. Another attorney then took it up, and about fifteen years ago it was again investigated by the Indian Office, and 

again was it decided absurd and having no foundation. We are now confronted 

with this baseless claim again, and money that is ours alone, and which we need to assist us at a critical time, may be possibly withheld from us simply at the request of an attorney who has no other warrant for making it than the statements of former persons who had this absurd claim in charge and which was disposed of as stated. But to go into the merits of this matter would make 

this lettel' too long and tedious. 'Ve wish simply to say that the bill for the allotment of our land now before the Senate (House bill) provides for the adjudication of this claim. We have had, however, propositions from these said citi- zens to compromise. We have refused, being determined that this matter shall 

be finally settled by the courts for all time to come. 

We have in the hands of the Government, in all ...................................... $97,000 We ask under present amendments to sundry civil bill ........................... 41,000 

Balance on hand .......................................................................... :... 56,000 

Under our a.Uotmeut bill we leave 10,000 acres, worth............................. 50,000 

Assets 1·emaining to tribe ................................................................. 106, 000 

You understand no claim is made as against our land. The claim is that 

fraudulent names were used to increase the Indian list at the time of separa- tion, thus reducing the shares of the citizen Indians. We therefore think you will see we have ample means to meet any allowance that may be made for 

citizens (if any) after paying out the $41,000, for you can see that if any fraud was perpetrated by the addition of names to Indian list, that the sum covered 

by such additional names would inm·e not only to the citizen Indians but to the Indian band as well, in proportion to the numbers of each, and that on the 

basis of the tribal property at the date of separation twenty-five years ago, subsequent payment to Indians would have nothing to do with it. But we know 

there is no foundation in truth or justice to the claim made. Were itnotfor lhe 

fact that for the last three years our crops have been destroyed, our caltle 

killed oft' by Texas fever, and our losses this year by cyclone of houses, barns, and fences, and the probable failure of crops again this season we would not 

ask this money. But we need it to pay debts, to live on, a.nd to rebuild and re- pair with. To withhold this mt>ney on the claim made, when we have the n.mple means still in hand, is to cause us useless suffering and hardship. We :u-e sure no member of either the Appropriations or conference committees wish to do this or to be unfair to us. 'Ve respectfully ask that you submit this to the 

committee. One other thing we wish to say, that in all money matters the Mi- ami ancl Peoria. Ind.ians nrc separate nnd distinct. Theh·land is in common but not their money. Very respectfully, 

Ron. THO:.IAS RYAN, 

House of Represen.taUvcs. 

JOHN WADSWORTH, 

Delegate Peor ias. 

'l'H03I.A.S F. RICHARDVILLE, 

Delegate Mi.ami Indians. 

Mr. COBB. Mr. Speaker, after hearing that communication read, 

it is very easy to conjecture from what source my friend from Kansas 

[Hr. RYAN] obtained his facts. He alleged that this matter bad 

been examined carefully by the Indian Department and rejected.upon 

it::; merits, and there in that communication is his proof. 

:M:r. RYAN. I did not state that as a positive fact. I stated that 

such was my information. 

Mr. COBB. Information derived from this communication from 

these Indians wno are interested. 

Mr. RYAN. I got the information from that and from other sources 

~lso. I did not, however, go to the Indian Office to make inquiry 

about it. 

Mr. COBB. I want to say before I go any furth er that members of 

this House ought not to be prejudiced in this maticr because there are 

attorneys representing these claimants. I am not the representative 

of any attorney, nor am I the representative of the citizen Indians. I 

have no more feeling and no more interest in this matter than the gentleman from Kansas, or any other member of the House. 

Mr. RYAN. I trnst the gentleman did not understand me as intimating that he had. 

Mr. COBB. No, you did not do that; but you rather emphasized 

the fact that the citizen Indians had employed attorneys. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes; but I do not want my friend to infer from any 

remark of mine that I intended to state or intimate that he was representing attorneys here. On the contrary, I know the gentleman to be 

far above that. 

Mr. COBB. I did not understand the gentleman a.s intimating that 

I had any special interest or anything of that kind; but the mere fact 

that there are attorneys employed in this matter ouJ:!;bt not, I say, to 

prejudice the ?Se in the least in the minds of the members of Uris 

• 
81.62 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD==-HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

House, bec:1use it was entirely proper that jt should be brought to the -which would prompt us in_ the face of a solemn assertion of fraud to 

attention of the committees of this House or to the House itself by meu make haste to do this thing demanded of us, rather than delay for a 

capable of presenting it properly. Now, I look alone to the case a.'l few short weeks, or months at best. I say the House will act inconpresented; but I am not willing to take facts from these interested par- .'>i tently if it takes this report in view oflegislation that has preceded 

ties. I go to the Iudian Office direct, and before I was willing to act it. I belie\e it is in the interest of fair and even-handed justice that 

at all in bringing the matter before the House, I sought certain infor- t he payment of this money should be held up for a short time until an 

mation from the Indian Office, which I have her_e. The answer of that adj udication of the pending controversy can be made. 

office clearly discloses the fact that the only fund out of which the 1\lr. FORNEY. I now ask the adoption of the conference report. 

money claimed to be justly due by these citizen Indians can be recov- Mr. COBB. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry first. 

ered is about $77,000. The $20,000 can not be reached. The $20,000 The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. The gentleman will state it. 

is a sacred trust--ftmd set apart by CongreEs for educational purposes, Mr. COBB. In reference to ono of the matters in conference, I wish 

and is not to be reached by the claims of these citizen Indians, or by to ask if the committee have disagreed upon the Senate amendment 

any other claims. There is no doubt about that. appropriating money for education in Alaska? 

So far as the land matter is concerned I have no information on it, Mr. FORNEY. Yes. 

and the Indian Department tells us nothing about it. The Indian De- :Mr. COBB. That being disagreed to goes back to the comerence, I 

partment tells us $77,000 only are liable to be appropriated for the sa tis- suppose? · 

faction ofthe claims of these citizen Indians. The claims amount to Mr. FORNEY. Yes, sir; and yon may speak upon it as long as you 

$73,000. So that if this $40,000 is appropriated yon only have $4,000 like after the adoption of this report. 

out of which to pay a judgment of $73,000. This is the condition of Mr. SAYERS. I wish t4> call the attention of the gentleman in 

the matter; this is the money side of the case. charge of the bill to the one hundred and nineteenth amet;1-dment proLet us see for a moment whether it is just and right we should listen posed by the Senate. I believe that has not been agreed to yeh, and I 

to the claim of these citizen Indians or not. The policy of the Govern- wish simply to call his attention and the attention of the House to the 

mont, Mr. Speaker, is and has been to encourage these Indians to sever fact that it involves a proposition which may require an expenditure 

their tribal relations and to become citizens of the United Stat~. It of from fifty to one hundred millions of dollars before the final conwas in pursuance of this policy that this treaty of 1867 was entered into summation of the work proposed in the bill. 

with them. Every inducement was held out to them to break their Mr. FORNEY. Let us get the report adopted first, and then wecan tribal relations, and to enable them to obtain citizenship. Ought the revert to that matter. 

Government of the United States to practice a fraud or sanction a fraud l'llr. SAYEkS. Does this not come in here properly? 

again.st the men who ha•e adopted the very policy which it has urged Mr. FORNEY. No, not until after the adoption of the report. 

upon them? And that is the question here. Mr. IUTT. Is that the irrigation feature? 

Now, Mr. Speaker, it will not do to say such and such is the fact 1\:Ir. SAYERS. Yes, sir. 

unless we have proof. There is not a scintilla-of proof •before us to The question being taken on the adoption of the report of the consustain the position assumed by my friend from Kansas [Mr. RYAN]. feTence committee, the Honse divided; and there were-ayes 85, noes 4. 

Not a particle of proof; bnt on the contrary, the evidence presented, so So the report was adopted. 

far as we have any, directly controverts the position he assumes. Look Mr. FORNEY. I now move that the House insist upon its disagreeto the action of the Government itself. ment t.o the Senate amendments, as numbered in this report, and agree 

We passed a billnotlougsincetoallowthesecitizenindianstogointo to a further conference. 

the courts. Then was the time for the assertion to be made that there Mr. PAYSON. Ur. Spe.'lker, what amendment was referred to in 

was no use of sending them to the courts. Then was the time to say the gentleman's proposition? 

"your claim has been in.vestigated; your claim has been rejected by The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. All of them. 

the Department time and again; the facts on record show you have no Mr. FORNEY. There are twenty-seven amendments disagreed to, 

grounds on which to base an appeal to the courts of the country. " commencing with No. 105, all of which are enumerated on page 13 of 

Who made that paint then ? It was not made on the floor of the the report. . · 

Honse, but we passed the act by which they were permitted togointo Mr. SYMES. I wish to mako a parliamentary inquiry-whether or 

the courts to prosecute their case, and to determine whether or not the not it is proper to ask for a division or a separate vote upon each prop· 

fraud charged has been or bas not been committed. There is the atti- osition where a motion is t-o be made to r ecede with an amendment? 

tude in which we are placed. We said to them, by the act passed, The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The gentleman is entitled to a separate 

there is sufficient evidence before us to make it reasonably probable vote on any one of them. 

that a fraud has been committed. ~ir. FORNEY. The gentleman can move to agree to amendment 

Now, Mr. Speaker, after turning them over to the courts, is itproper 119, I presume that being the one to which he refers. 

and right that we should turn round and destroy the very fund out of Mr. NELSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Honse recede from its 

which payment is to be made to them, if they are correct in the asser- disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 256, relating to the 

tion of their claim. Yon have sent them to the court. You told them proposed zoological garden, aQd agree to the same. At the proper 

thev ma.y be heard there; and now you propose to turn over to others time I wish to be heard on that amendment, 

thev fund out of which they ar& to be paid if they recover judgment. I I yield now to the gentleman from Colorado, simply having made 

do not say these citizen Indians are right in their claim. They say so, this motion that it may be pending. 

and we have sufficient evidence to cause us to suspect it to be so, other- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will suggest to the gentle· 

wise we would not have allowed them to enter the courts. - man fromAlabama that perhaps itwillbe bettertotakeuptheamendWhere is the necessity to pay this money over to the Indians claim- ments in their order, as several sug~estions have been made in_ regard 

ing'it? They say they are in asufferingcondition. Wehavenoproot to them. · 

of it. I might enter a clear denial and demand proof. The burden is Mr. FORNEY. Very well, then; I move that the House insist upon 

on them in that respect. They produce nothing but the document just its disagreement to the amendtnent of the Senate numbered 105. 

read, which is worth nothing. Amendment No. 105 was read, as follows: 

1\Ir. RYAN. I think it is hardly fair to say a document of that sort (105) To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay Mrs. Mary H. c. Baird, fis not worth anything. It comes from the duly authorized represent- widow of the late Spencer F. Baird, $50,000, in full compensation for the services 

atives of these Indians. It makes on t a prima facie case. The gentle- and expenses of the said Spencer F. Baird during his administration of the office of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, including rent of rooms for the use or man has no right _to say the representation made by their representa- said Commission from February 25,1871, to the time of his death, in August, 

tives as to their condition is not true. · 1887. 

Mr. COBB. If we are acting in. a judicial capacity-- Mr. RYAN. I suggest to my colleague that he pass that over for the 

Mr. RYAN. We have the statement from the Secretary of the In- present, as the gentleman from Ohio [M:r. BUTI'ERWORTH] desires to 

terior that their representatives have made the same representations to make some observations upon it. 

the Department as to the condition of these Indians. There is nothing Mr. FORNEY. Very well; I ask unanimous consent that it b!3 passed 

to overthrow that statement. over informally. 

_Mr. COBB. No; but, Mr. Speaker, I am not accustomed in my ex- There was no objection. 

· perience in the courts to accept as proof the bare assertion of a party The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. The Clerk will report the next amend· 

directly interested in the accomplishment of a result. If it is trne as ment. 

a matter of fact, then it seems to me that better and less suspicious ev- Amendments numbered 106 and 107 were read, as follows: 

idence could have been produced. In fact, this is no evidence at all. (lOO) UNDER THE DEPARTMID~"T oF sTATE. 

It is simply a part of the pleading. Now bring the proof. Yon have (107) International boundary survey, United States and Mexico: To enable 

not got it. I enter denial for the citizen Indians; and their represent- the President to execute and complete the enga2ements of the convention or ations are certainly worth as much as those of the other side. But it .July 29, 1882, between the United Stales of America" and the United States of Mexico, providing for an international boundary stli'vey to relocate the exist- is only a question of a few months' delay, and that is all. ing frontier line between the two countries west of the Rio Grande, SlOO,OOO, 

If the bill which we have passed, and which is now in conference, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the said survey and relocation of 

becomes the law of the land, it will take but a short time to adjudicate the monuments, to be performed by officers of the Army under the direction of 

the questi·0, ... of fraud. We will be prepared to act upon the matter in the Secretary of War : Provided, That all records, maps, field-notes, and com- c... uta.tions in connection with sa.id survey l!lhall be deposited in the Department a very few months. There is not that condition of affairs x>revailing of State as an international record ; and the money hereby appropriated, or so 

. . 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8163 

much thereof as may be needed, and also tbe money appronriated for the same purpose by the sundry civil act approved March 3, 1885, ~hall be disbursed and paid by the Secretary of State, on the requisitions of the Secretary of War, from time to time as it may be required. 

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman in 

charge of this bill a question in regard to this amendment under the 

appropriation to complete the international boundary survey between 

th~ United States and Mexico. Can the gentleman inform the comnnttee what portion of the boundary line between the United States 

and Mexico is contemplated in this provision? 

Mr. FORNEY. My colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 

BURNES], is familiar with that question and can give the gentleman 

the information. 

Mr. BURNES. In replyto the gentleman from Texas, I havetosay 

that this is a survey, or intended survey, of the boundary line between 

:Mexico and the United States from the Rio Grande-River west to the 

Pacific Ocean, and it is not, as many have supposed, a proposition to 

survey the line between Mexico and this country from Paso del Norte 

south or east to the Gulf of Mexico. ' 

In 1882 there was a convention between the Government of Mexico 

and theGovernment of the United States, and bythetermsofthatconvention a survey of the boundary between the United States and Mexico 

was to be made at the joint expense of the two governments, each paying one-half. Under that treaty a Mexican party and an American 

party, each from the army of their respective countries, by appointment 

were to meet at Paso del Norte and pursue and mark the line from that 

point to the Pacific Ocean. 

The' Mexican party failed to put in an appearance until probably four 

or five days after the time appointed for the departure of the expedition. 

They then appeared at Paso del .Norte, and were informed tba.t the 

American party had gone on, and requested them to follow and join 

further along. For some reason they failed to join the American party; 

but the American party went through, marked and desi~ated the 

boundary line, which was reported to the Forty-eighth Congress as entirely satisfactory to the Government of this country and to the Government of Mexico. But the Government of Mexico has never paid any 

part of the expense of this survey. .A. full and complete report of this 

survey or reconnaissance and its record were transmitted to the Fortyeighth Congress by the then Secretary of State, l\Ir. Frelinghuysen, and 

an appropriation something like S400,000 or about that sum was asked or estimated therefor. 

It was urged by Congress that Mexico ought to supply· one-half of 

the amount and this Government half. But the Department wanted 

the whole of the money. The House committee declined to appropriate the whole of the money, and advised the Secretary of State at 

that tip1e to collec1! one half of the money from Mexico and then we 

would pay the other half. Nothing seems to have been done until the 

Forty-ninth Congress, when $100,000 were appropriated to pay our 

portion, or a part of our portion, of the expenditure. That money has 

never been used and never been paid out. It haS remained up to date 

an idle appropriation. 

With these facts before us, to appropriate $100,000 additional would 

seem absurd; and in my judgment it is absurd to take any furtherstep 

until by a convention-now to be made, because the limitation of that 

convention, as to the performance of the work, has expired-the two 

nations have agreed to pay, and do pay, the money required for the 

contemplated work in the first treaty. For these reasons, because th& 

line has been already agreed upon and :ID.¥ked, and because the Government of the United States has done its part of the original convention of 1882, and because the Government of Mexico has done ·nothing, 

it would be unbusiness-like, if not folly, for us to appropriate $100,000 

more. These are the reasons why we ha.ve resisted, and now resist, the 

Senate amendment. 

Mr. LANHAM. Has it any reference to the line between Texas and 

Mexico on the Rio Grande? 

Mr. BURNES. None whatever; on the contrary, it is from the Rio 

Grande westward to the Pacific. 

Mr. HENDERSON, oflowa. Is not this appropriation recommended 

by the Department? 

Ur. BUR.r..'i:ES. It has not been 11ecommended by the Department to 

this House, so far as I know. I presume it has been recommended by 

the Department, in some way, to the Senate. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Has not $100,000 been heretofore appropriated and not used because it was insufficient for the purpose 

sought? 

Mr. BURNES. I do not know the reason why it was not used. 

. Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I think it. has been stated that they 

did not enter upon the expenditure of $100,000 because it was insufficient for the end sought. 

.Mr. BURNES. Whatever the reason may be I would state that we 

can not do this now until there is anew. treaty ma-de, unless we desire 

to release Mexico from a share of the cost. By the terms of the convention of 1882 the completion of this work was limited I think, to two 

years, possibly three, but the limitation has expired; ~nd if we go on 

and do this work now without a new convention what assurance have we tha.t the work will be satisfn.ctory to ~r acc'eptea by Mexico and 

that Mexico will contribute· under the provisions of the old treaty 

wh.ich has expired? 

Ur. HENDERSON, oflowa. There has been no work entered upon 

at all. 

Mr. BURNES. The work that was entered upon was paid for out 

of the Army appropriations because it was the work of a detachment 

of the Army. They marked the line. They pursued it from Paso del 

Norte to the Pacific Ocean, clear through. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. The Department has recommended 

this additional appropriation that the Senate have put on this bilL I 

merely called this to the attention of my colleague for information 

more than for any other reason. 

Mr. BURNES. I will say to my friend and colleague bhat he may 

be right about it and I may be wrong; but there is no question' in my 

mind with regard to the necessity of a convention between the two 

governments before we can perform this work, unless we wish to pay 

for it all. In other words, if we do it now, Mexico will not be bound 

for its half of the cost unless they choose to pay it. 

l'r!r. HENDERSO.N,oflowa. I do not desire to antagonize the recommendations of the conference committee at all, but I understand that 

there is a region of country there of from 5 to 10 miles in width where 

people do not know whether they are under our Government or under 

another flag, and it is very important to have that question determined 

at an early day so tB.at our people can know with certainty whetller 

they are buying land from the States or locating on the domain of another 

power. The importance of that consideration has impressed itself upon 

my mind, and while, as I have said, I do not desire to antagonize the 

recommendations of the conference committee, I believe this is a matter 

that ought to be pressed to a settlement without delay, so that t.he 

boundary lines of the United States shall be accurately and certainly 

defined. 

Mr. LANH.A.l\I. I fully concur with whatthegentleman from Iowa 

[Mr. HENDERSON] hassaid. InareportbytheCommitteeon Foreign 

Affairs at the present session of Congress I find this statement: 

A survey of the boundary was made under the treaty, and the actual bound ary was then what was the middle of the river. Since that time it has shifted its channels so often and so far, in some cases gradually, in others abruptly by 

cutroffs, that no man knows accurately where the boundary is to-day. The channel will sometimes move slowly, by accretion on one side and erosion on the other. Sometimes the stream will suddenly cut a new channel, abandon- ing the old ones altogether, and in a single day, bycut-o:ff, a tract or a "banco" of 100 acres will be found on the other side of the river. 

Mr. BURNES. My friend from Texas [1\Ir. LANHAM] is 1·eading 

from a report which relates to the necessity of a survey from .Paso del 

Norte to the Gult: 

l\fr. LANHAM. That may be true; but what I desired was to ascertain whether or not the boundary between Texas and l\fexico was 

contemplated by the Senate amendment. 

Mr. BURNES. ThiJ; says in express terms, "west of the Rio 

Gmnde." 

Mr. ADAMS. Will the gentleman allow a question? 

1\Ir. BURNES. Certainly. 

1t1r. AD.A.l\fS. I understand that a convention was made, and that 

under that convention it was intended that two parties should join 

to lay out this line, but that our party did lay out the line, the other 

party being a few days late. But I understood the gentleman to say, 

after making that statement, that the line thus laid out was accepted, 

or acceptable to the Mexican Government. Is that correct? 

Mr. BUR~S. Yes, sir. The Mexican Government expressly assented to the survey or reconnaissance which was made by our party 

alone. They were satisfied to let our people goon by themselves, say• 

ing that the result would be satisfactory to their Government, and my 

information is that we were advised by the Department of State foUJ 

or five years ago that l\Iexieo was entirely satisfied with the work tha.b 

had been done, notwithstanding the fact that her party did not pursue 

the line through. 

Mr . .ADAMS. It would follow, then, that the expenditure of this 

money would be mainly for the erection of monuments to mark the 

boundary. Is not that so? 

Mr. BURNES. In answer to my-friend from lllinois [Mr. ADAMs], 

and also in reply to-my friend from Iowa [Mr. HENDERSON], who asked 

substantially the same question, I desire to say that monuments have 

been there for twenty or thirty years, probably not as fine monuments 

as "sixty millions of people" would desire, but monuments which serve all practical purposes, though perhaps they are not so numerous as they ought to be. All along the line there are montJ.ments, but in 

the report of our party, which I have read, I found that they recommended certain additional monuments to be ·placed hel'O, there, and 

elsewhere . 

Ur. ADAMS. I did not mean that the money was to be used for 

the purpose of erecting more stately monuments, but rather for tho 

purpose of completely defining and marking out the line esta.blished 

by the reconnaissance or survey to which the gentleman has 1·eferred, 

in order that, as the gentleman from Iowa [l\fr. HENDERSON] has suggested, settlers should have no difficulty in determining on which side 

of the international line they were locating. 
.. 

8164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

Mr. BURNES. There are monuments there, but it does not fo11ow 

that n. man can recognize the line at any particular point where he may 

happen to strike it. No man can find even the line of his own quartersection of land at every particular point. But within a given distance 

there are monuments now existing which were deemed sufficient to 

mark the boundary after the war with Mexico, and by following from one of those monuments to the other the line can always be defined. 

When the location of one monument has been ascertained, or rather 

when two have been fixed so as to gh'e the direction, any one can determine the boundary between the two C'.ountries on two or three hours' 

investigation. The boundary might not always be before a person 

rushing backward and forward across the imaginary boundary line, 

but be could pursue and find the boundary in a couple of hours anywhere. 

Mr. ADAMS. Of course. But if it is true, as the gentleman has 

said, that the reconnaissance is made, what remains to be done about 

that boundary line? And why did the gentleman say, as I understood 

him to-day, that something ought to be postponed until a further convention? What use for a further convention? 

Mr. BURNES. Well, we have agreed with Mexico under the con- vention of 1882; and it seems to have been settled in the public mind 

and the Congressional mind that there ought to be some monuments 

marking this line, and that a considerable sum of money-estimated, 

I believe, as high as $400, 000-shonld be expended in placing these 

additional monuments along the line which has been pursued and 

marked. Now, if we undertake to carry out this plan, which bas 

been agreed upon between the two governments, one-half of the 

expense of which is to be paid by each-if we undertake to do this 

without a new convention, the old one having expire , where is the 

obligation which will justify us in demanding of Mexico a repayment 

of one-half of the expenditure? 

Mr. ADAMS. That is exactly what· I wanted to have clearly brought 

out. If we make this appropriation and go on under it, we shalf get 

all the benefit for which the work is done except that we shall have 

paid more than our share; and the object with which the gentleman 

would have action postponed until a furt,her convention is not that we may get a better boundary line or better or more numerous monuments 

on that boundary line, but that we shall be enabled to make Mexico 

pay a share of the expense . Mr. BURNES. That is all there is in it. Allow me to say there never hns been any dispute between Mexico and this country with re- gard to that boundary line. There is now no dispute between the two 

nations concerning it. The only question is whether by putting up more monuments we shall make it more distinct, more readily discernible for the benefit of our people and the Mexican people and for the 

sake of the good neighborsbip which should exist between the two 

countries. To that policy we stand committed. But I say we should 

not go on carrying out that policy until Mexico has given her consent 

by some contract or assent. 

Mr. ADAMS. And what the gentleman seeks to gain by postponing 

the advantages of a good boundary line, well marked out, is that we shall get a certain sum of money from :Mexico to assist in paying the 

expense. 

Mr. BURNES. So far as that is concerned, let me say this to my 

friend from Illinois: We are not going to perish from the face of the 

earth because we do not put up a few more monuments on this bound-· 

ary line within a month or two, or because we do not put them up 

while the information in regard to the subject is certainly very incomplete and imperfect. As the matter stands at present, true business 

policy dictates that we should have a conYention and settle this question with regard to the work, and then do it. I am perfectly willing 

to have it done. 

But we can readily get those facts; the Secretary of State can furnish 

them, I have no doubt. And before doing so he will have time to per- fect a contract by treaty or otherwise for the payment of the work. 

Hence, I say that the policy pursued by the House conferees in the 

conference on this question ought to be approved by the Honse. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker. the Secretary of State hns for years 

been insisting upon this appropriation, and that without further treaty. 

He has insisted that if this money were atcommand,.these monuments 

would be established and the boundary line at certain points relocated. 

I do not myself know the facts; but if there is any dependence to be 

placed upon the Secretary of State-and, by the way, our Secretary of 

State agrees in this matter with the former Secretary-if any depend- ence is to be placed upon the executive officer having special charge of 

this question, this survey can not be completed, the line relocated, and •monuments established until the additional sum of $100,000 is appropriated. An appropriation of $100,000 was made in 1885; but it is 

not sufficient. 

Having said this much, I am, of course, perfectly willing that the 

Honse should do what it pleases about this matter. My opinion is 

that the amendment is a proper one. 'l'he estimate has been coming 

in for years. Still I am perfectly willing that the next Secretary ot 

State should have charge of the expenditure of this money. 

Mr. ADAMS. Willmycolleaguesaywhatreasonsweregiven by the 

Secretary of State in favor of prompt action in this direction? 

Mr. CANNON. I understand in a general way that the Secretary of 

State claims there was a treaty made, I believe, in 1882, and that the 

treaty has not been canied out by the establishment of this line; that 

he desires to carry it out, to plant these monuments and relocate the line, so that the boundary may be well ascertained. I must confess that I am relying upon the estimate and recommendation of the Secretary of 

State. I know nothing abontthematter exceptas my knowledge comes in this way. I might say further that, as to many ofthese appropriations and estimates, Congress is forced to rely upon the recommendations of the executive officers. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House insist 

upon its disagreement to this amendment and agree to the furthe!." con- ference? 

The question was decided in the affirmative. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the next amendment. 

The Clerk ~~d the one hundred and tenth amendment, as follows: 

Strikeout: 

''That the Committee on Public Building s and Grounds of the Senate and House of Representatives, acting conjointly, sh all, within ~hirty days after the passage of this act, invite from eminent architects, not exceedin~ five in number, designs and general specifications for a. buildlng for the Ltbra.ry of Congress, to be erected on the site purchased for that pw·pose in the city of ·washington, the cost of buildlng not to exceed 113,000,000; and the sum of $10,- 000 is hereby appropriated to be expended under the direction of the above- named committees, to pay for the said designs and general specifications. The said committees shall jo1ntly report to Congress its action in the premises on or before the 20th day of December, 1888. '!'hat the work now in progress on the building for the Library of Congress shall be suspended, and the commission authorized by act of Congress approved April 15, 1886, be, and the same is hereby, dissolved. That the property purchased for a site for the Library of Congress, including the buildings thereon, together with all plans, records, and other property of the United States connected with the building for said Library of Congress be, and the same is hereby, transferred to the care and custody of the Interior Department, the expenses of such care and custody shall be paid out of any money already appropriated for the constmction of the building for the Library of Congress." . And insert: "For continuing the construction of the building for the Library of C<>ngress, 

including the compensation of all parties employed in connection therewith, as follows: Architect, assistant architects, engineer and superintendent of con- struction, and skilled draughtsmen, civil engineers, and such other services as the Chief of Engineers of the Army m a y deem nec.essary for the prosecution of the work, and shall specially order, together with such mechanics and labor- ers as may be necessary to carry into effect the appropriation herein made for construction of said Library building and to be paid from such appropriation, for the construction of the western front of the building and reading-room, and the book repositories connected therewith, as shown by sketch termed 'Plan No.1,' on file in the office of the Librarian of Congress, Sl,OOO,OOO. This appro- priation and all appropriations hereafter made, and all sums available from appropriations heretofore made for this pnrpose, shall be expended under the direetion and supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the Army, who shall have the control and management of all of said work and the employment of all persons connected therewith. And all contracts for the constructidn of said building, or any part thereof, shall be made by t-he Chief of Engineers of the Army, and the commission provided for by act entitled 'An act authorizing the construction of a building for the accommodation of the Congressional Lib· rnry,' appro>ed April~5. 1886, is hereby abolished, and the duties of said com- mission under said act are hereby devolved upon the Chief of Engineers of the Army, and hereafter, until otherwise ordered by Congress, no work shall be done in the construction of said Library except such as is contemplated in the sketch or' Plan No.1,' herein referred to, and all contracts for work or mate- rials outside of the space covered by said plan are hereby rescinded. And all loss or damage occasioned thereby or arising under said contracts may be ad- justed and paid by the Secretary of the Interior out of the sums heretofore or hereby appropriated. All sketches, plans, and computa tions heretofore made or hereafter made respecting said Library buildlng, or auy part of the same, shall be the property of the United States." 

Mr. FORNEY. I move that the House further insist on its amendment and agree to the conference asked for on the part of the Senate. 

Mr. ADAMS. I understand the gentleman from Alabama [1\Ir. 

FORNEY] in charge of the bill moves that the Hon e further insist on 

its amendment. 

Mr. FORNEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ADAMS. I wish to ask one question. If the amendment of 

the House be agreed to, the work will be suspended and the commission provided by the act of Congress will be dissolved, and the property will be turned over to the Interior Department for custody. Suppose that amendment becomes the law, would the committee which is 

required to report on the plans submitted by eminent architects on or be tore the 20th of December next, if the rules of the present Congress 

remain as they have been construed at this session-would any appropriation for the new building for the Library of Congress be in order to 

any general appropriation bill? The purpose has been authorized in 

consequence of an act the result of diligent work on the part of the 

Committee on the Library for the last ten or fifteen years. Finally we succeeded in passing a law providing for the construction of a new Library building. As the appropriation is authorized by law at this 

time, an appropriation would be in order to an appropriation bill; but 

if the provision put into the bill by the House should become a law 

we would be exactly where we were ten or fifteen years agb. If the 

committee should present an appropriation for the new Library building it would not have the privilege of the Appropriation Committee, 

and therefore it would not be in order on a general appropriation bill. 

The work would have to be gone all over again. While I do not object a!'! to the proper way of erecting the building, yet I should regret 

to see the House take such action in reference to the new Library building, so much desired, as to put us back exactly where we were before 

I 
• 1888~ . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD=-HOUSE. HJ65 

the Library building law was passed, for every one admits something with that appropriation to the extent of carrying out the existing con- should be done. tracts for the concrete foundation and terra-cott:~. pipes on plan No. 1. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ADAMS] These contracts are ·not affected at all either by the provisions of the 

labors under a mistake. The amendment of the House does not pro- House or Senate. 

vide that the law providing for the building of the new Library build- l\1r. P .A YSON. Ur. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Ining shall be repealed, but merely provides for doing away with the diana, that this matter ought to be considered very fully and carefully 

commission provided in that law. The law in all other respects will by the House of Representatives before final action is taken. I do not 

remain in force, and the property will be turned over to the Depart- know how others may feel who were members of the Forty-ninth Conment of the Interior for custody for the time being. If the building gress when this bill passed providing for the erection of a building for 

is ultimately constructed the indications are that Congress will pla.ce additional accommodations for the public library; but speaking fo:r myit nuder that acco:nplished gentleman, General Casey. self I opposed the passage of the bill from its introduction until it was 

M.r. ADAM". The Committee on the Library are to 1·eport on the presented for adoption under a suspension of the rules, and passed. new plans presented before the 20th of December next. Then I simply refrained from acting on it on the day of its passage 

Mr. HOLMAN. Yes, and that is the only extent to which the Li- becauseofpersonalstatementsfrom thegentlema.nfromMississippi, Mr. 

brary building law is repeaJed, so far as now proposed. Now, I hope Singleton, then chairman of the committee, and others, which seemed 

the committee will non-concur in the Senate amendment. No act has to be based on definite information as to the cost. I have felt since -ever passed Congress involving so large an expenditure with less con- then, with the slight information tb~t has come to me, and from what 

sideration th3n the one providing for the building for the Congressional I I have been able .to ascertain, that the Honse of Representatives was Library. Although the subject bas been before Congress for many the victim at that time of false pretenses on the part of those having 

years, yet when the bill was passed it was done under the suspen ion charge of the matter and furnishing the committee with information 

of the rules, and the Honse acted on information which is found to he they gave. us. utterly at variance with the L'lcts. The distinguished and honorable I remember as well as I remember anything that one of the principal 

gentleman from Mississippi [.M:r. Singleton] who was chairman of the factors used in the argument in support of the bill before the House was House Committee on the Library would not have willingly deceived the economy of the plan adopted by the Honse as compared with others 

t.he Honse as to the real character of the enterprise; he was undoubtedly tlmt had been suggested. For the accommodation of the Congressional 

deceived by some one, .A distinguished gentleman connected with the Library various schemes or plans were presented to Co~gress which 

Chicago library, its librarian, and othe:r gentlemen connected with the usually involved some change of the Capitol building, and estimates 

great libraries of the country, I think-although I am not authorized were made under a commission appointed in 1880 to determine the cost 

to speak for them-wiD cordially agree in the House proposition that ofchangingtbeCapitolforthenecessaryaccommodationofthepublicliotber plans shall be considered for this proposed Library building. I brary. As I remember, not having the figures at hand, the report was believe it is ap;reed generally the policy recommended by the House something in excess of$4, 200,000 for each of the valious plans of cha.nge 

committee is the true policy. of the Capitol. It was conceded that something was necessary to be 

There is no burry. The contrn.cts now being fulfilled are limited en-~ done, and finally it was agreed that a separate building should be con- tirely to what is known as "Plan No.1," and neither the House no:r structed. But I 1·emember distinctly that it was stated time and time 

the Senate se~m disposed to interfere with carrying out that portion of again on this floor, and was embodied in reports made to the House by 

the work which has been contracted for. I may state that there are the select committee. on the subject, that the cost of the building upon 

two contracts to be carried out as to this Plan No. 1, one for the concrete careful and full estimates made by the commission who had the matte:r 

foundation and the other for the terra-cotta. pipes. The first contract in charge was about $2,300,000. 

for excavation has been already completed. Mr. RYAN. Two million three hundred thousand dollars with an :Mr. MAISH. I wish to propound an inquiry to the gentleman from ultimate addition of some $700,000. 

Indian a with reference to this matter. Do I understand that the propo- Mr. P .A YSON. Yes, $2,323,000, with a possible excess above that of 

sition of the House committee is to abandon entirely the plan upon some six or seven hundred thousand dollars, to be finally used for iron 

which considera Ie progress has already been made? shelving, etc., as it might be needed. 

Mr. HOLUAN. No; not exactly that. I will state to the gentle· Mr. HOLMAN. In some of them. The report made last Congress man that up to the time when 1\1r. Secretary VilasbecameSecretaryof and made to the Forty-eighib Congress, the whole amount, involving 

the Interior the building was being constructed upon the plan known as the $800,000 for years to come, would be little over $3,223,000. 

"Plan No. 2;" that is to say, it embraced the entire building. Mr. P .AYSON. I do not recollect about the report, if I unde1-stand 

The Honse understood, and the commission seem to have commenced the gentleman. 

on the same idea, that it would cost about $3,000,000. The excavation Mr. RYAN (to Mr. P .AYSON). That is exactly as yon have stated; 

of the entire site bad been made. .A contract for concrete foundation and it is correct. 

was entered upon, and also a contract for terra-cotta piping at the same Mr. P .A YSON. The whole cost of the building, according to the 

time; but when Secretary Vilas came to look into the matter he deter- Singleton report, was to be $2,300,000. It required an appropriation 

mined to confine operations to what is known as "Plan No. 1," which of only $500,000 outside of that required for the site the first session. 

is the west front of the buildin.g proper and the reading-room, other- The next session Congress was to appropriate $1,000,000, and the third 

wise knownastbe "rotunda." He restricted tbeoperationsofthecom- session thereafter $800,000, which, exclusive of the site, would com· mission to this limited building and the balance of the enterprise was plete the building for occupancy, finishing the rotunda. and central 

abandoned.. building and connecting rooms, leaving only some shelving to be added 

That action seemed to be within the scope of the law, and so at pres- as needed. Now; then, Mr. Speaker, we find from the reports which 

ent the contracts are being fulfilled to the extent of that plan known are now made, and upon the debates bad upon this amendment at the as No. 1, involving, as I have said, the concrete foundation and the otbe:.: end of the Capitol, that the lowest estimate that is made, and 

terra-cotta pipes. · The balance of the work is in what may be called the lowest opinion that is volunteered by anybody, is that it will r-ost a state of suspension. There will be some money to be expended yet, $10,000,000. Some high in authority think it will go up to as; m~ch 

because the proposition of neither the House nor the Senate repeals the as $18,000,000. 

appropriations heretofore made for that purpose or suspends existing Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman permit me? 

contracts referred to; but the effect will be to delay matters excepting 1\Ir. PAYSON. Certainly. 

in so far as I have already explained until the meeting of Congress again, Mr. KELLEY. To be expended within the next one hundred years 

at which time, if the provision of the House is accepted, new plans in the completion of the plan? 

will be submitted and Congress can determine then with certainty Mr. PAYSON. I am coming to that a little later. I am talking 

whether it will pursue this Plan No. 1 or adopt an entirely new plan. about the amount submitted at the other end of the Capitol by the 

I am not, as gentlemen know, in favor of constructing the building. gentlemen in charge of this bill, who fix the lowest estimate at $10-

I stand by the present Congressional Library in the Capitol, but I am 000,000 for the completion of the plan; and the assertion is not gai~­ assnming that, in some ~orm, Congre~ will go on with this :work: If 8aid and I have seen no statement made that it will not run up as high 

Congress acts upon the views of those m charge of the great hbranes of as $16,000,000 or $18,000,000 for the completion of this building. The 

the country generally I think it will adopt a pla.Ji materially different observations made by the gentleman from Indiana indicate that two 

from that in progress, but it may be without any material change in plans are now being considered-Plan No.1 and Plan No.2. But as I 

the character of the structure to be erected except as to costly embel- understand from what I glean in the newspapers and from what I have 

lishments. beard stated about it, Plan No. 1 is simply a portion of the plan proMr. HOOKER. Permit ·me to ask the gentleman from Indiana if vided for in this plan submitted by Mr. Smithmeyer. 

there is any proposition in the bill to interfere with the appropriation Mr. HOLMAN. Will my friend permit me? 

of $2,700,000 heretofore made by a former Congress for this work? Mr. PAYSON. Certainly. 

Mr. HOLMAN. There bas not been that much appropriated, $500,- Mr. HOLMAN. Plan No. 1 involves the west front; the reading· 

000, towards the erection of the building; the total amount to be ap- room and the rotunda, and will cover about one-third of the ground. 

priated for the purpose according to the plan as understood would be Plan 2- · about that sum, but only ~585,000 has been appropriated for the site, Mr. PAYSON. That is a portion of the general plan of Smithand I believe $500,000 towards the erection of the building; but there meyer. 

is nothing to interfere in either Senate or House proposition at least Mr. HOLMAN. This Plan No. 1 will cover aboat one-third of the 
8166 CONGRESSIONAL REOORDc==oHOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

ground and about one-half of the expense, inasmuch as the rotunda. is 

a very larp;e and costly construction. 

1\fr. P A. YSON. That is only one step in completion of the Smithmeyer plan. Now, it seems to me a proposition ought to be submitted 

to this Honse, and it ought to be settled whether or not the Honse of 

Representatives desires at this time to approve this proposition as it is 

presented. That is to say, the construction of this building confessedly 

will involve over the expense of the site upon which it is located an 

expenditure ofnotlessthan tenortwelvemilliondolla.rs, and mayrE'.ach 

sixteen or eighteen million dollars, and running through a period of 

years longer perhaps than an ordinary generation, as suggested by the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY]. 

Whether or not the Honse ought not to have information from gentlemen who know about this question, as I say I am giving information 

that I have got, a piece here and there from inquiry and from the public press. The conferees of this Honse in the next meeting of a conference shall reflect not their own views but those of this body, as a 

committee should express it, in order that there shall be a full explanation of this matter. What have we got for the amount of money expended here now, or attempted to be expended? We have got a hole 

in the ground with an immense expenditure in money that has gone 

into it. We have a magnificent fence there, built better than the average house in the country iii the State in which I live. One building 

on the northeast corner of the block has been reserved for the office of 

the a rchitect and those associated with him. That building has been 

.fitted up o~ the comfort and convenience of the architect and his corps 

of employes at an expenditure of about $2,000. I happen to 1."llow 

that building. Initatthetime ofitscondemnation there lived an old 

and valued friend of mine who for a number of years represented a 

prominent district in the State of New York on this floor,· a man of 

aflluence and means, and it was regarded as a first-class residence. 

In it has also lived for a number of years a distinguished Senator, and 

i t was regarded as sufficiently comfortable for him. But just as soon 

as it is purchased for this purpose it requires $2,000 to fit it up so as 

to make it sufficiently comfortable for Mr. Smithmeyer and his corps 

of employes. 

Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman permit me to inquire whether 

t he changes were not those whi~h would adapt this building, though 

it was comfortable as a dwelling-house, and make it a proper place for 

the scientific work necessary to be done in forming the plans <>fa great 

n ational building. 

Mr. PAYSON, The character of the improvements I do not know. 

Mr. KELLEY. Well, I do. 

Mr. PAYSON. Then the gentleman might be able to state what the 

mccssity for them was. 

Ur. KELLEY. Yon say they were suggested for the convenience of 

this man. I suggest that they were made for the exigencies of the duty 

required of that officer. 

Mr. PAYSON. Then, ifthe gentleman knows, I would be glad to 

have him state what they were. 

Mr. KELLEY. I would like to state to the gentleman that if he 

will go over to that building he will see in large rooms, made by breaking the partitions between small ones, tables on which have been drawn 

and prepared sdentific plans for the construction of the building, at 

which he may look and see the shape of every stone that iB to go into 

H, the size, the number which b:rin_gs it into precise relation to the 

stone below, above, and on either hand. He will see the preliminary 

work executed as thoroughly and as scientifically as it can be done or 

could have been done by any body of architects and engineers and their 

as::>istants on the face of the globe. 

Mr. PAYSON. I submit to the gentleman that is not shedding 

very much tight upon the precise point. 

Mr. KELLEY. It is shedding light upon the necessity for the 

changes and showing that they were not made for the indulgence of a 

Sybarite, but for the convenience of an architect. 

Mr. PAYSON. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it seemed tome that 

there was a good deal of public money being expended in this matter in 

::w extravagant and unauthorized manner. By looking at the same re- port I see that among other things thought necessary in the erection ot 

this public building was the purchase of a pair of horses and a coupe, 

at an expense, with some livery charges added, of $1,408. There are other things of like character, and it looks to me as though this entire 

'Scheme which the Honse of Representatives has been committed to by 

its action in the last Cougress is designed to fit up a "soft place" for 

an architect for the rest of his natural life. 

1 do not believe that any architect who ought to be employed to erect 

a stable, let alone a great public building, should be retained in any 

employ who presents to his employer a detailed plan fo.r a building 

which he asserts will cost at the utmost $2,300,000, and then, within 

a year, states that it will cost over $10,000,000. That is to me utterly 

and absolutely inexcusable. Other gentlemen may not regard it as I 

do; but we all know that the public Treasury is full to overflowing, 

and that the Government is regarded as a great goose which can be 

plucked by almost anybody who can get a Government contract from 

competent authority. When the bill for the erection of this building 

was presented to the House two years ago, I had a suspicion, which 

now amounts to absolute belief, that Congress was committing itself to a scheme the extent of which would never be known until it was thoroughly completed; and if in its infancy this kind of deve1opment is 

being made, what may we expect hereafter? It is conceded now that 

the building is to cost at least from ten to twelve millions over and 

above the site, and if any such estimate had been before the House 

when the bill was under consideration how many gentlemen who 

were members of the Forty-ninth Congress will now say that a dozen 

votes could have been had for such a bill, let alone a vote of two-thirds, 

to pass it under a suspension of the rules. 

This building will now confessedly cost more than the State, ·War, 

and Navy building; and who, sir, supposed we were voting for such a 

building when we passed this bill in the Forty-ninth Congress? No 

one, sir. I doubt if the bill would ever have been reported even, then. 

I remember very well the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, 

Mr. Otho Sin~leton-and a mo:~:e honest man I never had the pleasure 

of serving wi~h-asserting on numerous occasions in conversation with 

gentlemen on both sides of the Honse, that these estimates were carefully and guardedly made, and it was stated in the report which was 

subl!litted to the House in connection with the bill, that the estimates 

were of that character, and that the estimated cost, $2,300,000, would 

not be exceeded; yet we are now confronted with an official statement 

that $10,000,000 will be the minimum, and that the cost may run np 

to $12,000,000 or $15,000,000. Now, before the committee shall again 

go into conference I think it is due to the members· of that committee 

and to this Honse that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. FORNEY], 

having charge of this bill, as well as the gentleman from Indiana [.1\Ir. 

HoLMAN], who is upon a committee which has investigated this subject, and who doubtless has under his hands now details of all this information, shall communicate that information to the House. 

I think the House should be informed in regard to all these details, 

so that it may determinewhetheritwould not be wise policy even now 

to abandon everything that has been done up to the present time, and 

to start in with a clean sheet and with advice from somebody else besides Mr. Smithmeyer, the architect of the buildin~ now unde-r process of construction. We can cease operations now with a small loss, if 

thought desirable, and I certainly favor doing so. I trust the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HoLMAN] will give the Honse the benefit of 

whatever information he has on this subject and an explanation of the 

difference between the situation now and the situation as it was understood to exist a year and a half ago, in order that we may determine 

whether we shall go on with the construction of this building upon what 

is known as Plan No. 1, and, if we do so, whether it is possible to do 

anything else than complete the building, Plan No. 1 being an integral 

portion of the entire plan presented to us by this architect when the 

bill was passed. 

I am in favor of a building for this library....:.....One which shall be suitable for future needs of the country and appropriate in its architecture; 

. but, sir, I desire to know its approximate cost before I vote to build 

it, and feel that the agent of the Government is reliable in judgment 

and statement. 

This, thus far in this building, we have not in my judgment had, 

for it is, in my opinion, impossible to reconcile the immense co t of this 

building, as now asserted, with honest judgment and estimate by the 

architect who made the estimate for the committee two years ago. 

If these things be so, I think their connection with the building 

should cease. 

lrlr. HOLMAN. The committee appointed to make investigation in 

regard t<> the new Library has taken a .considerable amount of testimony, and would have been able to submit its report to the House at 

this time but for the absence of the Supervising Architect of the Treasury, whose testimony was deemed desirable. His testimony -I hope 

will be procured in a few days, and then I presume the commit tee 

will be prepared to submit its report. The facts, however, which in a 

general way are within the knowledge of members of the House and 

Senate, are the facts which h ve been substantially de ,·eloped. It is 

true, as the gentleman from illinois has said, the Honse entered upon this 

enterprise supposing the building was to cost about 3,000,000. Indeed, the different sums making up that amount are distinctly stated 

in the report made to the Forty-ninth Congress, aformer report to the 

same effect having been made to the Forty-eip;hth Congress, both reports to the same effect. The first appropnation for the building was 

to be $500,0GO; the second, $1,000,000; the third, $800,000; and th e~e 

srunswereto complete the building readyfor occupation; and $700,000 

would be required, at the rate of about 14,000 a year, during a long 

period of years, to complete the alcoves for books, the shelving, etc., 

making the entire expenditure about $3,000,000. 

A MEMBER. For the west wing? 

Mr. HOLMAN. For the entire structure. A snggestion was made 

on the floor of the Honse when the subject was under debate--

.A MEMBER. Was the estimate just mentioned by the gentleman 

given by the architect? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I will come to that later. A suggestion was made 

that that estimate was based upon what is now known as the reduced 

plan, "Pln:nNo.l; "butthatclearlywasamistake. At leastyonrcommission did notsointerpretthelaw, but instantly entered upon the con-
• 

. 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8167 

tracts for the excavation for the entire building, contemplating a struc· ask the gentleman w hetber ''Plan No. 2, '' to which the gentleman has 

ture much larger than the great edifice known as the State, War, and referred, is not a substantial portion of the original general plan. 

Navy pepartment building, which cost over $10,00U,OOO. So that the .Mr. HOLMAN. Plan No.2 was the original plan, the entire strnctimpression upon the minds of some gentlemen that the Honse was not ure. Plan No. 1 is the reduced plan, and is a part of the original Plan 

deceived in this matter is clearly a mistake; the House was assured in No. 2. 

the most unequivocal terms by one of the most honorable gentlemen .Mr. PAYSON. Then why does not that leave the Government com- then or ever on this floor, chairman Qf the Library Committee, that the mitted to the buildin~ of tuis ·entire structure under the "gigantic 

entire co~t of this struc~ure-not aecording to Plan No. 1, which con- scheme" of which the gentleman has spoken? 

templated a partial building, but the entire structure upon the basis Mr. HOL~AN. That is true. The reduced plan is a part of the 

of which contracts were entered into at once-would be $500,000in the original scheme. Just one word upon that subject, for it has been 

first instance, $1,000,000 next year,$ 00,000 the next year, with finally somewhat considered. 

$700,000, when the entire great structure was completed. Mr. PAYSON. Where? 

Now, the contracts, so far as I am able to speak on that subject from :Mr. HOLMAN. BJ the committee· of the House to which reference 

the testimony taken, seem to have been reasonable enough, and so far has been made. At least they h n. ve examined the subject as carefully as 

they have been reasonably well fa.l:filled. The delay, which ha.s been they could. The sta.tement made by the Secretary of the Interior be- a subject of some complaint, but which has produced no injury to the fore that. committee is very full and very much in detail and very pracGovernment, growing out of the controversies about cement, would re- tical, and I hope that before this matter comes up again it will be laid 

quire for full explanation too longast..1.tementto justify making it, and before the House. It seems to me that the views be has expressed are 

one which would n·ot be interesting or beneficial. Those contracts, how- entitled to great cnnsidemtion now that Congress has already invested 

ever, are being fulfilled, and are being fulfilled upO:tl the basis of this re- a million dollars in this enterprise. 

duccd structure. In this great ex:ca,vation which has been made there is, of course, an 

Before going further let me correct one mistake of my friend in regard immen e space which will not be covex:ed by that building. To conto the pair of horses and coupe. That statement is very nearly correct, strnct a building upon Plan No. 1, including the rotunda or reading 

but there W::J.S in fact only one horse and a coupe. When, however, the room, ample for the present and for twenty-five years to come- -

pres:!nt Secretary ofthe Interior, a very practical business gentleman, Mr. RYA~. Probably fifty. 

became the head of that commission, the coupe and horse were promptly Mr. HOLM A....~. Perhaps fifty years to come will cost S4, 000,000 or 

disposed of and the little money realized for their sale-of course the more. If this partial construction of the building be made, the banks 

Governmental ways buys dear and sells cheap-went into the Treasury. of this excavation being graded down as suggested by the Secretary 

That put an end to coupe business. and also by the Superintendent, a gentleman of intelligence, who was 

Mr. PAYSON. And then they had to make another purchase of the appointed after Secretary Vilas became Secretary of the Interior-if 

same kind. the banks be sloped down with a grassy surface an<) the ground planted 

Mr. HOLMAN. Oh, no. with shrubbery as that in front of the Tr~ury building, the structure 

Mr. PAYSON. It appears from the report that fourteen hundred might look well enough-will not be an unseemly affair. Such a plan 

and some odd dollars were afterward spent in that way. will, however, keep everlastingly before Congress the suggestion of a vast 

Mr. HOLMAN. Oh, no. expenditure to complete the building. That is one of the troubles in 

1\Ir. PAYSON. I beg the gentleman's pardon; tbati.s the fact; but a matter of this kind. Of course such a suggestion is always aggresit is a trifling matter. sive. But for the present nothing ought to be done, at least in the way 

Mr. HOLM:AN. I want io do justice to these men; for resisting as ofnew appropriations. 

I did for many years and to the last the entire scheme, believingatthe Mr. RYAN. Would that be the case if the law were repealed? 

time that the House was acting under a misapprehension, I do not feel Mr. HOLMAN. It would not. If the law is repealed you <',an 

any too kindiy toward this project, and must therefore be careful for commence any plan desirable and limit the cost. 

fear of doing injustice to these parties. But the horse and coupe were Mr. RX AN. Permit me to say that I do not ihink the idea entered 

sold as soon as Mr. Secretary Vilas became a member of the commis- into the mind of any conferee to agree to the Senate amendment withsian-sold at a loss, ofconrse; and that was the end of it. out a repeal of the original law. 

But I think the only real question now is whether we shall stop right .Mr. HOLMAN. I did not know that the Committee on Approwhere we are or not. The s~na.te proposition is that in reducing the priations or the committee of conference had reached that conclnplan we shall pe1·mit the Secretary of the Interior to ascertain the dam- sion. 

ages incun·ed by the contractors under the reduced two contracts- that Mr. RY A.N. I wish to say, and I think I can safely say, that no 

is, for the foundation and for the terra-cotta pipe, which seems to be a conclusion will be reached favorable to the Senate amendments withseparate matter-and that Sl, 000,000 shall be appropriated to go on out an additional amendment of that kind. 

with the work under Plan No.1. Mr. PAYSON. If the gentleman will yield for a question--

If you stop right now you will avoid the expenditure of the com para- Mr. HOLMAN. That would not be an amendment to the Senate 

tively small sum of money remaining of the $500,000 appropriated. amendment, but an amendment to the Honse proposition. 

The whole sum of money appropriated up to this time is $1,085,000, Mr. RYAN. The Senate amendment of course leaves the wholesnb-

$585,000 for"the site and$500,000forthestructnre. I snpposethattbe ject open, and upon that we have the parliamentary right to provide 

present contract carried out on Plan No. 1 will just about cover the for the repeal of the original law. 

amount of .money already appropriated, and will not justify going Mr. HOLMAN. Undoubtedly. 

further. Theamountsa.ved, therefore, wonldnotbeconsiderable,while 1\fr. FARQUHAR And pay damages. 

the damages of entire suspension might be consid~rable to the contractor. .Mr. RYAN. Hence I say--

It seems to me perhaps just as well, unless Congress is willing to aban- Mr. HOLUAN. The Senate amendment provides for damages. 

don the enterprise, to let the plan go on as it is now until the present Mr. RYAN. I do not think it has entered into the minds of any of 

contract for the foundation upon the reduced plan is completed and the the conferees on the part of the House to consent to the Senate amendmoney already appropriated expended. ment, except with such additional amendment as I have indicated re-

:M.r. PAYSON. What does the gentleman mean by the "recluced pealing the law. 

plau?" Mr. PAYSON. The gentleman will allow me for one moment. 

Mr. HOLMAN. The original plan covered the entire structure; Here is the position we occupy in reference to this building. W c ha•e 

that was Plan No. 2; the plan which was laid before the Honse and on contracted to erect a portion of that building. 

which the Honse voted. Mr. FARQUHAR. One-third of it. 

Mr. TAULBEE. And on which the estimates were given. ~Ir. PAYSON. And the entire structure when completed was not 

Mr. HOLMAN. Yes, on which the estimates were given. There- only going to astonish everybody who came here from abroad, but stir 

duced plan was suggested by the present Secretary of the Interior. He the patriotism of every citizen who came to look at it. We propose to saw that the scheme was more gigantic and expensive than perhaps take a fractional portion of the general plan of the building and then was contemplated by Congress and promptly reduced the plan to what repeal the law providing for the balance. What will be the ·result? 

is known us Plan No. 1. Even that will cost at least $4,000,000, I The result will be that you will have an architectural abortion. Everythin r 'much more. 1 body knows that as well as they can know anything. If we are to do 

Mr. PAYSON. Is there any "perhaps" about that? The gentle- away with the original plan we had better rub italloutand commence 

man speaks very guardedly. over again. If we are the victims, as we claim we are, instead of proJlfr. HOLMAN. The present Secretary of the Interior as soon as he viding for a fractional part of the plan for the Library of Congress, let 

looked into the matter, and acting apparently within the scope of the us repeal the law. Instead of putting up a part of the building and 

law, suggested the reduction of the plan so as to construct only the providing for the balance, as the gentleman from Indiana bas suggested, 

west-front portion of the building and the rotunda or reading-room, by planting some shrubbery to hide it from the people, and with a wall 

which, as I remarked, will cover about one-third of the ground. This on the other side so that also may be concealed from view: let ns repeal 

1·ecluction of the plan would save about one-half of the whole expendi- the whole law and commence over again. · 

tnre of construction. . I Mr.· HOLl\1AN. Let me say to the gentleman from illinois [i\I1-. 

1\fr. P A.YSON. In order to see whether I am accurate, I wish t o P .AYSOY] that I would gla.dly see the whole scheme aba~doned, but 

. .... 

\ 
' 

8168 CONGRESSIONAL. REOORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

the reduced building which is proposed would not be an architectural 

abortion in the opinion of architects aud those who understand such 

matters and are necessarily more familiar with them than most of us are. That partial building with a sloping down of the banks, it is said, 

would be a very respectable st.ructure. I know nothing about architecture. That is the idea of men who understand this matter as architects, much better than most of us do here. 

I wish to add· a word, and will then yield the floor to the gentleman 

from Wisconsin, who is a member of the committee to inquire into the 

Library building. , The one question is whether you will save by this proposition to expend the balance appropria ted on the foundation for the reduced plan. 

The amount under the control of the commissiol!l is not large. It is the 

balance of the :S500,000 already appropriated. Under tho House proposition suspending the work and inviting new pln.ns you will ha.ve 

Plan No. 1, which is now in progress, and Plan No. 2, the original 

pb.n which was before us when the House voted for the bill, and then 

we will have beside very Yaluahle matter, that is, full information on 

the whole subj ect. As to the balance of the $500,000--

Mr. PAYSON. That was used in putting in the foundations. 

Mr. 1\lAISH. I wish to ask thegentlemanaquestion before betakes 

his seat. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Certainly. 

Mr . .MAISH. The question has already been asked, but the gentleman has not answered it. It is in reference to l\Ir. Smithmeyer, the 

honorable and worthy architect, a gentleman of high reputation. I 

want to ask if it is true, as a matter of fact, as was alleged by the gentleman from illinois, that Mr. Smithmeyer, the architect, submitted 

an estimate that the entire structure would cost only $2,500,000? I 

think that was the amount stated. 

.Mr. HOLMAN. I ought to answer that question~ and yet do not 

wisll to do so without the testimony before me, and yet the testimony 

upon that point is neither satisfactory nor complete. .Mr. Smithmeyer 

states e.rnphatica.lly, states under oath, that he made no definite estimate. There is a paper which he submitted, perhaps to the Senate 

committee, which had the matter in charge for a long time, for it was, 

as gentlemen know, a Senate measw·e, in which there was at least a 

partial estimate; but I am not able to state, either on the authority 

of Gen eral Singleton or any other person, Mr. Smithmeyer knew the 

terms of General Singleton's report or was cognizant of the preparation 

of the report, or that he made specific estimates of the cost of the building. The matter is singularly obscure. 

Mr. KELLEY. I have always understood exactly to the contrary. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I have of course no personal knowledge on the subject, but I understand that this gentleman is a competent architect. 

Mr. PAYSON. Will the gentleman from Indiana permit me to read 

an extract from the report of General Singleton's committee? 

:Mr. HOLl\iAN. Certainly. Mr. PAYSON. Coupling it with the statement that this is a report 

on a bill providing additional accommodations for the Library; and it 

will be remembered that Mr. Smithmeyer was on the committee and 

was in constant communication with the members of the House engaged · 

in t hat service. 

1\Ir. STEELE. Was a member of what committ-ee? 

Mr. PAYSON. A commission which was appointed to look into 

the question of ihe enlargement of the Capitol for this purpose; and 

he was in daily communication with the members of the House who 

were charged with the work during several Congresses while they were 

engaged in that duty. 

This report goes on to state: 

The proposed building, as stated, will contain 3,000,000 volumes, with suitable economy of storage. It is not designed to fit up the whole interior at once with 

iron shelving, but to introduce it gradually, nnishing off the central portions, rot unda, and connecting rooms, and the entire exterior structurE~. The chief e lement of cost is in the iron alcoves of the interior; and in a building· so ex- tensive these may be finished in successive years as wanted for the increase of 

books. The most carefully guardedestimatesofcostcontemplatean expenditure 

of o nly $500,000 the first year, about $1,000,000 the second, and $800,000 the third, 

which will complete the building for occupancy in all its parts sufficient for 

shelYing 1,000.000 books and leaving space for the gradual introduction of ad- ditional iron a lcoves in the coming fift.y years, the ultimate gross cost of which will not exceed $700,000, or an average of less than $14,000 a year. When it is con sitl e~·ed that the copyright fees paid into the Treasury amount to over $?-0,000 a year, while the pecuniary value of copyright publications received annually 

is very much greater than this, the expenditure will appear moderate in com- parison with the great resulting benefits and the national importance of the 

work. 

That makes the total cost of the building, with the exception of 

the additional shelving required, about $2,323,000. 

Mr. STEELE. But Mr. Smithmeyer did not make any such report 

as that. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. And it was not a report on Plan No.2 either. 

Mr. HOLMAN. There is no question that some one estimated the 

cost of the whole structure at $3,000,000. I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [.Mr. CASWELL]. 

:Ur. CASWELL. Mr. Speaker, in t>rder that we may have a few 

moments' :.erious thought upon the subject which 'is now before the 

House, I will state what information I have been able to gain in con- nection with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] in this investigation. I have no object whatever in the statements I shall make/ 

except to inform the House of the exact condition of the question. We all remember that this question of building a public Library has 

agitated Congress for many years, and time after time we have rejected 

propositions that were submitted, because they involved an expenditure 

of too much money. Even $4,000,000proposed as the cost was rejected 

years ago, and within my own recollection, because it was deemed excessi>e. 

Two years ago we passed this law authorizing the construction of a 

building according to a plan submitted, that would cost $2,300,000, 

within the next three years, and ultimately $700,000 more money would 

be needed for additional work within the building, making a total cost 

of three millions. It was because of that low estimate that the House 

passed 1he bill at all. Unquestionably when we did enact that law it 

was with the understanding that this entire structure would cost but 

3,000,000 when completed. It was to be 463 feet and 8 inches long 

by 3321 feet wide. The construction was begun by the excavation for 

the entire site. It seemed the commission understood that we were to 

erect the whole building at a cost of $2,300,000 within the three years 

and ultimately $700,000 additional in order to make it complete for 

the purpose intended. As I have said, they commenced the excavation for the whole site of the building, and prepared a foundation for 

the entirestr~cture. The investigation discloses that t1is building, if 

completed, wlll cost at least $10,000,000, and we have felt it to be our duty to so advise the House. 

The number of square feet in the building entire will be 111,000, 

while the State, War, and Navy Department building, which bas grown 

up within our own recollections, embraces only 93,000 feet. Congress 

never contemplated the erection of a building far in excess of the War 

and Navy Department buil<ling, and we all understand that. \Ve were 

greatly deceived, perhaps by our own carelessn.eEB and negligence by 

not investigating the plans further; but certain it is that it was never 

unders~od that the extent and cost of the building, according to the 

plans which were laid before the House by this architect, would even . 

approximate these figures. 

I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a man on the floor 

of this House that will approve of the manner in which the building 

has been carried on for the first year. I concede with the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] that there are many fine tables and 

fine plans that can be found in the office of the architect; but when I 

tell him that if he looks at the report and sees that the entire expenditure for this service involved an outlay of some $97,000, he will understand w by these '' fine things'' may be found there. ·I do not believe 

that any gentleman would indorse the extravagant manner in which 

the business has proceeded, and, I repeat, we felt it to be our duty to 

inform the House of the way in which the work was being continued. 

I will say further that since the present Secretary of the Interior has 

had control of the building, had it under his own charge, an entirely ' 

different principle has been inaugurated. I have great confidence in 

his ability to conduct the building of this Library in a safer and more 

economic way than ever before. 

Expenditures that we can not approve, that were simply outrageous, 

for supernumeraries that were added in large numbers about the erec- tion of that building; and I want to say to you gentlemen that if this 

architect is responsible for these supernumeraries and these extravagant expenditures he is not the proper man to conduct the erection of 

such a building. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. I would suggest to the gentleman from Wisconsin that it is the commission that ought to be held responsible. 

Mr. KELLEY. He did not employ them. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. He had not authority to appoint any oue, and 

he did not. 

Mr. CASWELL. And yet he had almost the entire control of the 

erection of the building. As a matter of tact these commissioners were 

otherwise employed, and could not give their personal attention to this 

matter. If there is any man here on this floor who wants to champion 

the management of this architect and the conduct of that building, I 

have many things I could say to him which I do not now propose to 

do, but which would not sound very well. Mr. PAYSON. Why should you not state them now? 

Mr. CASWELL. I have not time. 

Mr. PAYSON. There is plenty of time. 

Mr. CASWELL. Can you tell me why it was necessary to buy a 

coupe at a cost of $611? And if it was necessary, why was it neces- sary when the present Secretary of the Interior discovered it that he 

should order it sold at an expense of $225? Can any man tell me w by 

he persisted in the purchase of a cement which caused a delay all along 

through the winter months at a cost of nearly $3 a barrel from foreign 

manufacturers, when it could be bought of our own manufacturers for 

about a dollar, and which ·was said by experts before this committee 

to be just as good. Can any man tell me why it was necessary for him 

to keep seven watchmen to guard that fence and hole which he had 

excavated in the ground? [Laughter.] Can you tell me why be needed 

five messengers on duty constantly? 

Mr. PERKINS. To watch the guards. 

... • 
1888. ·OON\lRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 8169 

Mr. CASWELL. 'l'o watch the guards, as has been suggested. No 

gentleman, as I stated on this floor, would approve this amendment. 

.Mr. BUCHANAN. Will the gentleman permit me ·to ask him a question? · · 

Mr. CASWELL. Certainly. 

Mr. BUCHAN AN. If these appointments were made, were they not 

made because of persistent urging by members of Congxess? 

Mr. CASWELL. I do not know how they were appointed. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. That might be. 

1\fr. FARQUHAR. I wish to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. · CASmLL] one question, and that is: Could he have employed one man 

even as a watchman or otherwise without the consent of this commission? 

1\Ir. CASWELL. I have no doubt they did consent to it, but I have no further doubt they approved whatever he recommended. 

1\Ir. F ARQUHA.R. Then let the blame go where it belongs. 

Mr. CASWELL. They supposed they b:td a man on whom they 

could depend. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. That is supposition .. Mr. CASWELL. I am not here with a. view to bring any censure upon him. I care nothing about him. He has -very excellent qualities and may have some skill; but I was simply speaking as to his administration; and you may pass yonr judgment as yon please. I have 

said there were a number of supernumeraries; and I will mention one. They had an accountant at a salaryof$2,500 a. year. I venture tosay 

that he has not an hour's work for him that it will be necessary for 

him tO do in a. whole year. Now, it seems for the reasons I have assigned that there should be a better understanding of this matter. In 

the mean time let me say to this House that you had better pause before you appropriate any more money for the erection of tllat bujlding 

and ascertain w bat is being done. 

Our proposition is to go on with one wing of the building. You all 

know what that is. It is a building 463 feet 8 inches long and 112 feet 

wide. That will be the size of the structure when completed, and the 

probable cost will be $4,000,000, including the rotunda. 

Now, it may be best to go on and put up 1bat wing. If we are to 

look one hundred years ahead it is possible that we may construct the 

balance of the building; but, sir, I for one could not advise the idea of 

that further construction or that it would be wise to put up just simply that west wing of the building and let it stand there at a cost of 

$4,000,000. Perhaps it may be necessary to change the plans, and yet 

considering the work that we have entered upon it may be best to do 

it. But for one I am not prepared to do it at this session of Congress. 

I think we ought t-o look further into the subject before we appropriate more money. I will not say but at the next session of Congress it may 

be the best thing we can do; but if we do it we propose that this House 

shall do it understandingly and not grope along in the dark, as they 

have heretofore. That is aJl I have to say, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. KELLEY. I desire, Mr. Speaker, without having any present official connection with this subject, to say a few words upon it. It was my privilege to be a member of the Library Committee many, many 

years ago. I remember two of the works completed w bile I was on that 

committee. One was the enlargement of the accommodations for the Library by giving it two wings, each of equal dimensions, with the space 

then appropriated to it. Another was the construction of the conserva- t-ories for the advancement ofbotany and general science, connected with 

the Agricultural Department. I have always had a love for and interest in public libraries, and have for many years studied library architecture. I owe my first impulses toward education to the fact that when a young apprentice-boy I was invited to membership in the Youth's 

Library Company of Philadelphia, and found enjoyment and instruction in its rooms, with its books and its intelligent and aspiring mem- bers, who were boys of my own age, its debates, its reading of essayspuerile enough many of them doubtless were-but we were but young 

boys. I owe, I say, to that association and its influences whatever 

power I may have since enjoyed of serving my fellow-man, and that a library building, a library room, or the contents of a public library 

have always had a charm for me. \ 

My attention was attracted to Mr. Smithmeyer years ago by t,he con- sideration of his plans for a Congressional Library, and I remember 

the delight with which I first saw and subsequently studied his plans 

for the magnificent gothic exterior in which he first proposed to incase 

the interior of the Library building. It stood there in front of the 

Clerk's desk through a whole session, and rivaled, according to my 

judgment, in beauty the finest gothic buildings I had seen on the 

other side of the Atlantic. I freely confess that I am an admirer of 

the genius of John L. Smithmeyer, and in a greater degree of the zeal 

with which he pursues, even now when he has passed possibly the 

prime of life, all the latest ideas of the highest authorities on architect- ure as the architectural publications in English, French, and German 

give them to the world. I speak whereof I know of tbis man, for his 

office has been a haunt for my leisure hours, and for eight years when 

I -have been in Washington we have messed together. If I know any 

living man I know this abused and reviled architect, w bo, without pay 

from Congress, for fourteen years compet~d with the world in preparing a plan for a national Library building which should be worthy of 

the grandeur of his adopted country and would therefore immortalize 

his name. 

1\Ir. CASWELL. I think the gentleman is mistaken on one point . 

I think there is an item of $1,500 paid to Mr. Smithmeyer for plans 

which were submitted but not adopted. 

Mr. KELLEY. There was a competition at one time in which 

prizes of $1,500, $1,000, and $500, respectively, were offered for plans, • and although the plan that Mr. Smitbmeyer submitted may not then 

have been adopted it was approved beyond any other elicited by the 

general system of competition; and it seems that it is to h}s great discredit in the estimation of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. CAsWELL] that hi~ plan wa-s so much better than the others that he got the 

$1,500prize! Now, speaking commercially, I repeat that for fourteen 

years this patient man of genius has, under invitations extended by 

consecutive Congresses, competed wit.h the architects of the world, 

those who submitted plans in thelatercompetitionsnumbering as high as forty-one, and has not received any pay for that work. 

And now he is made the victim of the fact that Congress established 

an impracticable executive for the construction of a library building, an executive for the expenditure of millions of dollars and the making 

of many contracts, consisting of three persons-a commission liable to 

constantly recurring changes in its personality, and by its terms to em- brace as one of its members, by virtue of his office, an architect, as if 

it were intended to fix a probable source of jealousy and disC{)rd in the 

executive department at its very inception. To the Library Commission, consisting of the Secretary of the Interior, the Librarian of Congress, and the so-called .Architect of the Capitol, was given all the ex- ecutive power involved in the construction of the building. 

:M:r. Smithmeyer was named in. the law only as t.he author of the 

plan which the commission were to follow; but, governed by common equity as well as by common sense, the commission, when it came to 

select an architect, naturally chose the man who had made the plans 

which had stood for fourteen years such competition, and which Congress had :finally adopted and ordered to be carried into execution. 

This is :M:r. Smithmeyer's- position; he is an employe with no more 

right to contract for the services of a person than yon, Mi'. Chairman, or I, who are entirely unconnected with the commission, have. It is 

not fair, therefore, for Congress to saddle the responsibility upon a gentleman who is devoted to his profession, and who, with no political 

experience, is unfit to contend with such combinations among contractors and politicians as the expenditure by the United States Government of two or three millions of dollars would inevitably effect. 

I tb4lk, sir, that the Senate in its amendment has struck the point. 

I favor the Senate's amendment because I have always thought the 

Library Commission an utterly impractical executive, one that must 

ruin any architect it might employ. The Senate amendment proposes 

to remove this jarring, discordant, ever-changing commission, and to 

confide t4e work to the Chief Engineer of the Army. What evidence 

have we of the fitness of this engineer of the .Army for the position? 

I will point you, sir, to two witnesses, either of which should be con- clusive as to this man's genius and training in construction as an engi- neer. He extricated from doubt and confusion the construction and 

completion ofthe State, War, and Navy Department building, which, 

nearly as large as the national Library building will be when, a cen- tury or a century and a half hence, it may be completed and be ready 

to receive the growing history embodied in all the forms of literatuJ?e 

and science that may be recorded by the graphic art. 

That was a master-work of execution. The breath of scandal never touched the honored engineer of our .Army who superintended its construction; and it will never reach him if the two Houses of Congress 

shall wisely adopt the plan proposed by the Senate to get rid of an im- , practicable commission and put the work of constructing the Librm·y 

building, unQ.er limitations adapted to the present necessities of the 

country, in the hands of a man who put new foundations under the 

completed Washington Monument. With stone-work 555feetin height 

the Army engineer to whom the Senate proposes to confide the Library 

building made that structure safe for all time to come by re-enforcing 

its foundations, a work of engineering not equaled in t-he history of man. 

This is the officer to whom the Senate proposes to confide the erection 

of this Library building. 

It is said that to put up the west front and the rotunda. will present an unseemly structure-an architectural abortion. That rotunda is by 

the plan larger, much larger, than the reading-room or rotunda of the 

British Museum, the most wonderful institution of its kind in the 

world. It is to be 4 feet greater in diameter than the space under the - Dome of this Capitol. 

~hen, more than thirty-six ye.'trs ago, I first visited the British 

Museum, it presented, as our Library building will do, one front, with 

the reading-room or dome in the rear. I have visited it often in the 

inte1·im and have marked from time to time the growth of the majestic 

building which now embodies so much of the history of the past in ita 

jewel cases, its coin cases, and its ruins brought from all classic lands 

and all the earlier homes of civilization. Rapidly us these have accumulated, it has grown to be able to accommodate them all. So our Library ought to have depositories for these s1ru1ll articles-gems cut; 

in various eras of the past, and ancient coins that our naval officers and 
8170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

travelers will gather from every land and bring to us, as English patri- gress -that when Congress passed the law the building would not cost 

otism has· impelled Englishmen to bring these contributions to the more than $3,000,000. 

British Museum. Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. It was the duty of Congress to make 

Let us proceed to complete the work we have so well begun. I do that inquiry in the beginning. -

not believe that the Congress which passed the law for the erection of Mr. CASWELL. They relied on him not to allow the cost to exceed 

this library wa.s either besotted or negligent. I believe that it acted the $3,000,000, which was the limit beyond which Congress refused to 

well and wisely. I believe that the action of the architect and the go. In the testimony ar witness on the stand, in answer to that very 

whole records of his office and of the commission will prove this. question, understood Mr. Smithmeyer to say to one of the commisBut it has been asked, why so many officers? I reply, why so sioners it would cot only$3,000,000, buthewasnotpositiveastothat. 

many commissioners to be bored for appointments and contracts by He knew Congress did not propose to put up a building costing a 

politicians "and personal friends? Again it is asked, why has that greater sum than that, and yet permitted it to go on, knowing the cost 

vast excavation been made and the stonework for the foundation been would be some $10,000,000. If there has been any victim at all, it 

contracted for? And agaip. I reply, why so many commissioners to certainly is not Mr. Smithmeyer. 

be solicited by so many members of Congress and other politicians for 111r. STONE, of Kentucky .. Who made the estimate if the archicontracts and appointments? Do not make a scapegoat of this schol- teet did not? 

arly man who has had no power to make contracts or bestow appoint- Mr. CASWELL. There wn.s the report of the Committee on the 

ments. He has honored our country by proposing to give it what the Library, submitted by Mr. · Singleton, of Mississippi, that there was 

• architects of the wor'd, save, I think, one librarian who claims to to he expended on the building in the next few years S2,300,000, and 

know something of library architecture-a gentleman whose name is then $700,000, which was to finish the building. He bad that informaPoole, and who, I believe, resides in Chicago-say is the most perfect tion as to what was the intention of Congress when they pas ed the 

building for this purpose that has ever been planned by architectural law. The chairman of the committee was not expected to make the 

genius, even when guided by the skill of a trained engineer; for en- estimate. He was not competent for that work. 'l'he commission was 

gineering was 1\Ir. Smit.hmeyer's profession before he devoted him.~elf not competent for that work. They relied upou the architect himself, 

to his·passion for architecture. but, as I have said, he stood by and allowed a building to be put up 

This gentleman having thus honored us, we should not disgrace and to cost 810,000,000 instead of ·3,000,000, which was the limit of Condegrade him, however much howling and ravenous contractors may gress when the law was pas_ed. 

strive to poison the Congressional mind against him. It is within my [Here the hammer fell.] 

knowledge that he is pursued as by a. band of hungry thieves, some of Mr. CLEMENTS. I will now yield for five minutes to the gentlewhom I know by fame; andknowil?g their fame I would in their pres- l man from Mississippi [Mr. HooKER]. 

ence put my hands in my pocketsif.there were coin in them. I know Mr. HOOKER. I desire to say only a single word, not with refersome of these men, and I know some of the members of the House ence to what has been said by the gentleman who has just concluded 

into whose ears they have poured their insidious poison against this his remarks, or to take issue with him or the gentleman from Pennalmost defenseless man who has thwarted their nefarious plans. sylvania [Mr. KELLEY] upon the points suggested, for I know nothing 

I say, therefore, send our conferees back for a. free conference. There of the conduct of this matter . 

. is evident doubt whether we would gain or lose by interrupting work Mr. CASWELL. Will the gentleman from M.ississippi yield to me 

on the building at this time. The Senate's proposition is to go on with for one moment? 

one front and to thus afford accommodation which will bring into use Mr. HOOKER. I will yield to the gentleman. 

our present library. This work is all to be done under an Army en- Mr. CASWELL. I only want to add a word further to whn.t I have 

gincer whose skill and courage, and, above all, whose integrity and said. The question comes down to this: The proposition by the Senpractical judgment are a. guaranty against the wasteful expenditure of ate is to go on with the building 463 feet in length by 112 in width, 

a dollar on any work of which he may have charge. more than four times the length of its width. Now, is it good policy 

l\fr. CASWELL. I ask the gentleman from Georgia [lli. CLEll- for us to construct a building which when completed at a cot of about 

ENTS] who holds the floor to yield to me for three minutes, in order $4,000,000 will be in that shape, nearly in the shape of this paper 

that I may reply to some suggestions which have just fallen from the which I hold in my hand? I ask if that would be good architecture, 

gentleman from Pennsylvania [~Ir. KELLEY]. or good policy for Congress fo adopt? I think not. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. I will yield to the gentleman for the time he has :Mr. HOOKER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Inindicated. diana [Mr. HoLM.A.N] and others, who ~ay that what was done by this 

!lir. CASWELL. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from House at a former Congress in the way of making the appropriation in 

Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] says that this House has made a victim question seems to have been done inconsiderately and without proper 

of this man Smithmeyer. I want to ask him wherein have we made information. I wish to show in opposition to that statement and on 

him the victim? Has he not been well paid? If hehasnotbeen paid, the contrary, as appears from the report and the debate on that queslet hlm present his bill, and let us compensate pim. tion, that the subject. matter-and I say this more for the purpose of 

M..r. KELLEY. Onemoment. Thereissomethingincharactermuch vindicating my friend, General Singleton, who is notnowbut was formore valuable than money. merly a member of this House and. chairman of the Committee on the 

Mr. CASWELl.. The gentleman anticipates what I have to say; he Library, not that anything has· been said in derogation of him, for I 

doc.<> not wait until he hears what I have to say in reply to his sugges- well understand that gentlemen do not mean any reiiection upon him, 

tions. but simply to show that the .matter was placed by him before the 

Now, will the gentleman say that we have cast reflection on his archi- House, and that the Hou e acted calmly and deliberately and after a 

teet or his plan for this building for the Library of Congress? Not in full presentation of the whole facts of the case by him. A controversy 

the least, for every one agrees it is a. magnificent plan on a grand scale. has now grown up with r egard to the expenditures for this work. 

No one has taken issue on that point. Everybody concedes, and it has been undisputed for years, that some-

! do not wish to detract from his ability as an architect in any re- thing must be done to increase the accommodations of the Congre sional 

spect whatever, but the simple question arises whether he has not made Library. It was the idea of some gentlemen to make additions to the 

a victim of Congress on a grander scale than it is possible for us to make building at present used, extending it east and west or in both dire ca. victim of him.. He stands by and wants that commission under the tions as was found available, in order to provide an additional space 

Ia.w to proceed to the construction-of a building he had planned that for the increased number of the volumes of our Library which are acwould cost this Government at least $10,000,000, well knowing that cumulating so rapidly and for which there is no room for their storage 

we voted and passed the bill under the expectation and with the un- or even their safe-keeping in the present bnildirl~. I repeat, th:lt was 

derstanding that it would cost only $3,000,000. Gradually step by the idea with some, and a controversy grew up as to whether that old 

step he has allowed a course to be adopted, so perhaps we can not now Library building could be extended to accomodate the vast accumulal'etreat without loss. tion of books, so largely now in excess of the capacity of the building 

I ask you, then, who has been made the victim? I concede it is a as to leave scarce room to walk in it, or whether we should con truct 

grand plan on a grand scale, and by the machinations and schemes of a new and separate building. When that matter was under considerathis architect the building has been prosecuted so that if carried out it tion in the House, Ur. Singleton mane a report on March 23, 1 G, the 

• will cost this Government $10!..000,000, when Congress had utterly re- House resolved itselfinto Committee of the Whole House en the state 

fuserl to go one dollar beyond ;:;3,000,000. of the Union, the entire bill and report of Mr. Sin~leton were read 

Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. Did the architect make an estimate it and published in the RECORD which is now before me, and that bill 

would only cost $3,000,000? was fully considered. At a subsequent time, after the members had 

1\Ir. CASWELL. The gentleman from Indiana asks me whether he had ample opportunity to read the bill and the report and study it, 

made an estimate en his plan. To whom do we look for estimates Mr. Singleton, in a. very elaborate speech upon the question, which my 

when we propose to erect public buildings except the architect? friend from Indiana, Judge HoLl\IAN, complimented most hi~hly at 

:Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. What was his estimate? the time and commended in the most favorable terms when givmg the 

:Mr. CASWELL. He claims that be made no estimate whatever. reasons which animated the committee to report in favor of a separate 

Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. Then he is not to ·be held to blame. building, used this language, giving his reasons seriatim: 

~ir. CASWELL. But he knew the report was submitted to Con- Sixthly. If cconom;o~· is to bC our watchword, a. separate building mu t Lo 

. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8171 

erected. Any extension of the Capitol heretofm-e proposed, affording adequate 

o.ccommodations for the Library1 even fm· twenty years, would involve an ex- penditure, according to the opinton of :Mr. \Valter, the former Architect of the Capitol, of $4,500,000, and according to the present Architect, Edward Clark, of $4,200,000, while the est,imate for the building proposed by the committee, made by J. L. Smithmeyer. who drew the plan, will cost ~,323,600, making a. differ- ence in favor of the Government, according to \Va.lter's estimate, of $2,_176,400, or a saving of nearly one-half, and according to Clark's estnnate o. d.ift'erence of $1,876,400. 

Further along in the same speech Mr. Singleton used this language: 

The appropriations asked forShowing what the bill contemplated, and that the amonnt proposed 

in the bill was for the erection of a building and was entirely outside 

and independent of the $600,000 appropriated for the purchase of the 

site-

'Ihe appropriations asked for will be !500,000 to begin the work, $1,000,000 at the next ~ssion to continue it, and $823,600 at the succeeding session to com- plete it. This, of course, does not embrace the purchase of the site. It is con- fidently believed that these sums will finish the building so far as needed a.t present and for many years to come; and no further outlay need be made ».. the Government, utilizing, as before stated, the fees from the copyright system to put in shelving, etc., to meet the growing wants of the Library. 

It will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Singleton's plan did not 

propose the entire completion of the building, but only a fragment of 

it, and $700,000 was to be appropriated for additional shelving and for 

the construction of the alcoves to contain the volumes to be accom- modated. This House understood, distinctly understood at the time, 

that in constructing a great edifice like this it was not natural to suppose that there was a Senate committee which would be able, or even the architect himself who would be able, to estimate the exact cost of 

the entire building. But this was not a proposition to erect the entire 

structure for this appropriation, but was a provision, according to Plan 

No. 1, to finish such portion of the edifice as was needed at that ex- pense, and of course contemplating subsequent increase as the vol- nmes accumulated. In other words, that the building could be added 

to from time to time as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said was done in the construction of that m.a~ificen t edifiee the British Museum. 

The House therefore could not have been misled or could not have acted 

unadvisedly and in the dark, but evidentlyhadfullinformation on the 

subject. 

[Here the f:tammer fell] 

Mr. PAYSON. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield to me a single moment to correct the gentleman from l'tfississippi? 

Mr. CLEMENTS. Certainly. 

l\!r. PAYSON. If the gentleman from Mississippi will read other 

portions of the report of General Singleton he will find the figures he 

gave contemplated the erection of the entire structure and ita completion, with the exception of the alcoves or iron shelving. That $700,-

000 was simply to put in furniture as it should be needed. The structure itaelfwas to cost $2,300,000. 

J\Ir. HOOKER. The exterior Of the structure. l\Ir. CASWELL. It would cost $8,000,000 to erect the exterior 

structure. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. I have nothing to say in the way of criticism or antagonism to the very splendid eulogy delivered by the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] upon his friend, 1\Ir. Smithmeyer; nor have I anything to say in contradiction of what he has said of the 

importance of a National Library and ·great libra-ries in general for the 

education of the people. I suppose there is no member on this floor 

that does not see the importance of our Library and the necessity for 

making early provision for ita proper preservation and use; nor do I 

believe there is anybody in this House at this time who antagonizes the 

proposition to erect a Library building separate from the CapitoL 

I am not here to criticise ~Ir. Smithmeyer, for the reason that I do 

not know the source of information upon which the Committee on the 

Library of the last Congress acted in making their report to this House, 

upon which the Honse acted. . 

l\1r. RYAN. Mr. Singleton, in the remarks that have just been 

read, stated that they were made by 1\!r. Smithmeyer himself. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. I thank the gentleman for the suggestion. The 

reading of that part of Mr. Singleton's speech escaped my attention. 

But we are confronted with a state of things with which it is our duty 

to deal; and it is due to ourselves as well as to the country that we should in a business-like way dispose of this question to the best interest of the Library and of the country. 

Now, the proposition nnder discussiOn is, first, the clause in the bill ns proposed by the Honse, which substantially is to suspend the work on the Library building nntil the next session of this Congress, and in 

the mean time ask for plans from eminent architects throughout the 

conntry, for which an appropriation is suggested of $10,000. This 

will give Congress time t-o consider these different plans and the mer- its of this whole matter as it now stands. It is only three months until 

the assembling of Congress again at the next session. Then we would 

have additional information and plans from which Congress could intelligently judge and make final decision. 

The proposition of the Senate is substantially to appropriate a million dollars in pursuance of the plan already on our hands. I-t is true 

that it is said this is with a view of completing only one part of that 

plan; but there is nothing that dispenses with the balance of that plan. 

,. 

This is simply a quiet way of acqmescing in a plan that was imposed 

upon the last Congress, and by which it was said at that time would 

involve a cost of only $3,000,0U0to finish ultimately. Now we are told 

that it will take at least $10,000,000. Is Congress ready to say that 

they will ratify this expenditure? I do not say who is responsible for 

it, for I am not informed as to the facts or as to the data on which the 

last Congress acted. · · 

Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. What evidence have younowthat it will 

cost !;)10,000,000? 

Mr. CLEUENTS. That seems to be an accepted statement; and it 

is in accordance with the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, as 

stated on this floor. Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. But there is no assurance that the building as now under contract could not be built for $5,000,000. 

Mr. RYAN. The part proposed by the Senate, which is perhaps 

about one-half of the whole, it is estimat-ed willcostnotlessthan $4,000,-

000. 

l\Ir. WHITE, of Indiana. I have known buildings that were estimated to cost $400,000 that were built for S60,000 . 

.Mr. CLEUENTS. It is very seldom that we hear of a building being 

completed for less than the estimate, especially public buildings as distinguished from private buildings. 

It is the accepted opinion on both sides ofthe Honse that this building is to cost in the neighborhood of $10,000,000; which is also the l:>elief expressed by the present Secretary of the Interior, as stated on 

the floor, nnder whose supervision this work is going on at this time; 

and it is to be taken for granted ·that that intelligent and responsible 

officer has given some practical business-like attention to this question. 

Now, is Congress ready to acquiesce in and approve what was done by 

the last--congress underamisrepresentation ofthe factaandmake haste 

to say that we will not take three months to make further investigation for intelligent action, but will go under whip and spur and adopt 

legislation that will involve the Government in the expenditure of 510,· 

000,000 instead of $3,000,000? 

Now, if any gentleman can say that $10,000,000 is necessary and 

proper for the preservation and use of the Library, then I am ready to 

vote for it; but I think we ought to exercise some practical judgment 

in the interest of economy, and that we ought not to lose sight, not- withstanding the beautiful sentences of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] upon the buildings in the Old World and the 

magnificence of these plans devised for this structure, but occasionally 

to recur to the fact that we live in America, and that we once boasted 

of a little J efternonian simplicity. 

A MEMBER. That is long ago. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. Yes, but it would be well for us to recur to it 

occasionally, at least. . There is no necessity for us to copy after the extrava.gance of oppressive countries in the Old World in trying to cope with them in extravagant magnificence of structure and grandeur at the expense of the phi.ill, 

tax-paying, honest citizens of the American Republic. Now, what- ever is necessary ought to be voted promptly. Fur~her than thn.t we ought not to go. There is hardly any room for controversy over the 

fact that the last Congress was made to believe that $3,000,000 would 

not only complete the outward structure, but would put in all the 

shelving necessary for the next fifty years. 

Mr. KELLEY. One moment. I meant to say, in the course of my 

previous remarks, but I believe I omitted it, that the last Congress_was not stupid or flighty, and therefore it could not have believed that a 

building covering so many more square feet than the State, War, and 

Navy Department building covers, and which should be fitted up for 

library purposes, could be built for less than one-third of what the State, 

War, and Navy Department building cost. That building cost over ten 

millions, nnder the wisest supervision. The Government building in 

New York cost over nine millions. The Government building in my 

own State cost about four millions, and my city is building a muhicipal building the estimated cost of which upon the contract is over eleven millions. I do not want to see the Governmel"'.t of the United 

States, in erecting enduring buildings for its capital city, shrink behind 

the villages that are scattered over different parts of the conntry. 

. 1t1r. CLEMENTS. Neither do I want to see this Congress vote one dollar of money less than is necessary for a reasonable and adequate 

building for the accommodation of the Library and for its proper pres- ervation and use. But we owe it to the people to see that their money 

is expended economically, fairly, and honestly. We owe it to ourselves 

that whatever plan we adopt we shall adopt it understandingly, openly, 

and without deception, knowing and making known so far as we can 

at the beginning what the building is to cost. 

This Congress owes it to itself to call a.·halt and to ascertain definitely 

what is necessary, and then to march up promptly and vote what is 

necessary. But to be asked to vote now in ratification of what must 

be conceded to have been a misrepresentation is not dealing properly 

with this question. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. KELLEY] 

says that the last Congress was not stupefied or indifferent, and therefore could not have been ignorant of the fact that this building must 

cost a great deal more than the aruonnt named in the report, and he 

cites by way of illustration other public lmil<lings in New York ru1d 

! ' 
8172 CONGRESSIONAL BECORD==HOTJSE. AUGUST 31, 

elsewhere which have cost more money, and also the State, War, and 

Navy Department building, which he says cost about ten millions or 

more. I suppose, sir, that there were not many members of the House in 

the last Congress who took it upon themselves to investigate the details of the matter so as to ascertain exactly and definitely the number 

of square feet which the building would cover; but they were con- fronted here from day to clay at this desk, while the Library bill was seeking consideration, with a d&;ign or plan of the building, showing 

what it was intended to be. The plan was aeoompanied by the report of the Library Committee, 

which was headed hy the gentleman f1·om Mississippi [11r. Singleton], than whom a more honest man never sat upon this floor, and in 

whose !Statements everybody had the utmost confidence, and from that 

report which accompanied the design members learn the estimated 

cost of the building. As I have said, I do not suppose there were many 

members who undertook to asc~rtain how much ground the building 

would cover, either absolutely or in comparison with other public buildings; but thBre was submittted to the House by that responsible com- mittee an estimate of cost which was doubtless based upon the statement of some architect, and which, from the.sta.tements made here to- d::~.y, came most probably from Mr. Smithmeyer himself. 

Mr. KELLEY. There was also a large lot of ground which the bill propo~ed to pmchase or to condemn for the erection of the building. 

That ground was before th!'l eyes of members of Congress, and certainly no man who bad ever built even a stable could have supposed that a building which was to cover those two squares and the intermediate 

street could be built for $2,000,000. · Mr. CLE~IENTS. It is not to be assumed that every building is to cover the entire area of the site on which it is to be put. According to 

the gentleman's own ideas of magnificence, there ought to be some room left for shade trees and lawns. It did not follow at all that this building was to cover the entire ground, nor is it at all likely that members 

went over the ground and measured its area and took "that as a meas- ure of what the building was to be. They bad before them the report 

of a responsible committee who had investigated this whole matter, 

who had conferred with several architects, among them Mr. Smithmeyer, whose plan they selected, and · the House accepted the state- ment which that committee made in their report as to the probable 

cost of the building, which statement, as it appears in two forms in the 

report, I now ask the Clerk to read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Any enlargement of the Capitol which would accommodate the Library even ns it stands, with room to arrange it, would cost much mor~ than a separate 

building, because it must necessarily be constructed in the same cofltly style, 

with carved Corinthian architecture. Mr. Walter, the former .Architect of the Capitol, estimated the cost of an extension of the west front at $4,500,000. The present Architect, Mr. Clark, estimates it to cost $-1,200,000, while the plan of a building adopted by the committee is to cost only $2,323,600. 

• • * * * * • The proposed building, as stated, will cQntain 3,000,000 volumes with suitable economy of storage. It is not designed to fit up the whole interior at once with iron shelving, but to introduce it gradually, finishing off the central portions, rotunda, and connecting rooms, and the entire exterior structure. The chief element of coat is in the iron alcoves of the interior, and in a building so exten- sive these may be finished in successive years, as wanted for the increase of 

books. - The most carefully guarded estimates of cost contemplate an expenditure of only $500,000 tho first year, about $1,000,000 the second, and $800,000 the third, 

which will complete the building for occupancy in all its parts sufficient for shelving 1,000,000 books and leaving space for the gradual introduction of ad- ditionn.l iron alcoves in the coming fifty years, the ultimate gross cost of which will not exceed $700,000, or an average of less than $14,000 a yea.r. When it is considered tha.t the copyright fees paid into the Treasury amount to over $20,000 a year. while the pecuniary value of copyright publications received annually 

is very much greater than this, the expenditure will appear moderate in com- parison with the great resulting benefits and the national importance of the 

work. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. The truth is the Forty-ninth Congress voted 

upon the design of Mr. Smithmeyer for that building · as presented in 

the Honse and as described in the report made at the time, and upon 

the estimates there set forth, the ultimate cost of which was to be 

$3,000,000, including all the interior work that would answer for the 

next :fifty years. The House voted on that question under a suspension of the rules when debate was not allowed for more than thirty 

minutes, fifteen minutes on each side. Acting in that way the Honse 

accepted the estimates which had been presented to their committee 

and the statements of that committee as reliable. I submit that it is 

jmpossible f1·om.the record for gentlemen to contend here to-day that 

the House voted upon any other proposition, or that it ever voted upon 

the idea of an expenditure of $10,000,000. 

In the report just read there is an· argument against the extension of 

the Capitol building to accommodate the Library, a work which it was 

estimated at the time by the Architect of the Capitol would cost $4,200,-

000. The report of the committee, read to the House at that time, 

and upon which it acted, makes an argument against an extension of 

the Capitol for that purpose on the ground of expense, because a separate building would cost less, the cost of the extension of the Capitol 

being estimated, as I have said, at $4,200,000. The plan of a separate 

building was deemed preferable, because for the present an expenditure of $2,300,000 would be sufficient, and ultimately only $3,000,000 

would be required. Is there any room for doubt as to the impression 

made upon the House at the time that bill was passed? Can there be 

any mistake as to what the understanding of Congress then was? . Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman allow me a single suggestion? 

The extract just read speaks of housing three million volumes. The 

library which it was then proposed to erect-the whole building-was 

with the vie· r of affording space for nine to eleven million volumes. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. The proposition was to erect a building which, 

when ultimately finished, would cost $3,000,000, and that an expenditure of$2,300,000 would provide ample room for three million books. 

The present Library contains far less than a million volumes-perhaps 

very little over half a million. - Mr. CASWELL. 1\fr. Smith meyer goes to work and draws the working plans for the entire building from its foundation, including the excavation. 

.Mr. CLEMENTS. Certainly. I thank the gentleman for that suggestion. 'l~he commission followed up the idea of the act of Congress 

aml what I claim was the expressed intention of that report. Mr. 

Smithmeyer drew the plan and superintended the work in pursuance 

of that plan under thL<> commission, and excavated for the whole building. 

Mr. HERBERT. And the very extract which has just been read re- fers diJ:ectly to the completion of the exterior, and goes on to speak of 

the cost of the iron shelving inside. The estimate is for the completion of the whole exterior and enough of the iron shelving inside to ac- commodate 3,000,000 books, which it was estimated would be sufficient 

library accommodations for the next fifty years. That is what is asserted directly in the extract just read. 

Mr. RYAN. I believe also that t.he contract for the concrete foundation was for the entire building. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Ob, of course it was. Mr. CLEMEl: -Ts. Ithank the gentleman for these suggestions. All 

of these facts conspire to show that there was but one intent and that was to complete the building, whatever it was. Here was the plan, 

here was the description of it in the report, based upon statements and 

estimates, as now disclosed, of Mr. Smitbmeyer. 

Mr. PAYSON. Permit me an additional suggestion. The excava- tions have been entirely made, the foundations have been contracted for 

and very largely put in, and the working drawings and everything of 

that sort up to the present time ha•e been made with one idea in view, 

the erection of the entire building as a whole. This was the idea down 

to tile time the agitation began in this House a,t this session. And 

those plans· were made under the direction of Mr. Smithmeyer.himself. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Allow me to correct the gentleman. The plan was changed as soon as the present Secretary of the Interior came to consider the work. · Mr. PAYSON. But all the work done by Mr. Smithmeyer has been 

in contemplation of the entire structure. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. PAYSON. There is no question about that aml never hns been 

within my knowledge until this session of Congress. 

Mr. KELLEY. The work may have been done under Mr. Smithmeyer's supervision, but be had no more power to contract for any work or insist upon its being done than had the gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. P .A. YSON. Of course not; but I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to remember that the point of contention is whether the House 

did what it did understandingly. 

Mr. KELLEY. No, sir; I understood the gentleman to be contend· 

ing that Mr. Smith meyer was responsible for this extension of the work 

according to the whole plan. 

Mr. PAYSON. My friend does not seem yet to apprehend the point 

of contention. _ 1\Ir. KELLEY. Yes, I do. You insist that while Mr. Smithmeyer 

proposed to put up a building which should be complete in itself and 

yet should constitute a part of a great building susceptible of enlarge~ 

ment so as to cover the whole ground purchased by the Gover.nment, 

be said the building would house 3,000,000 volumes and would cost 

only about $3,600,000. Mr. Smithmeyer never said that the building 

would cost $3,600,000, or any other precise sum. Mr. PAYSON. ~ut the chairman of the Library Committ-ee, at 

that time Mr. Singleton, said that be said so. In a speech a copy of 

which I now bold in my hand Jt{r. Singleton stated that this estimate was made by ?tfr. Smithmeyer, the architect; and upon that statement 

the House voted. The same statement was made repeatedly in the 

Senate. And Mr. Smithmeyer was in the galleries and about these cor· ridors; he visited members at their houses, as I happen to know, and 

he never disputed from that time until now what Mr. Singleton said 

be had stated. Mr. Singleton would go to anybody else 1or information; and the picture of the building, as designed by Mr. Smithmeyer, 

stood in this Hall for weeks in front of the Reporters' desk. The state~ 

ments made at that time by General Singleton were never contradicted 

by a,nybody. Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Smithmeyerisanaccomplished and experienced 

architect, and has built many prominent buildings in Washington and 

other parts of the country. Experience has taught him that it is impossible in a case of this kind to make a precise estimate; that a professional man should never stake :P.is reputation on anyt.hing else than au ap· 
, 

• 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8173 

proximate estimate; that by reason of changes in the cost of materials 

and rates of wages, and by reason also of the possibility of modifications in plans, no competent architect would undertake to make for a 

grea.t building of this kind anything more than an approximate estimate. 

Mr. PAYSON. Before the gentleman leaves that point--

Mr. KELLEY. Now, I say for the last time Mr. Smithmeyer was 

called upon to submit a whole plan for a great Library building for tho 

future-called upon to submit--a reduction of that plan so as to relieve 

the embarrassments of the Library for the present and to accommodate 

the accumulations by purchase and from the law of copyright for many 

years to come. He gave an estimate for the three-million-volume 

library. He never dreamed he was giving an estimate for an elevenmillion-volume library. . 

Mr. PAYSON. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania think that 

$2,323,000 is an approximate estimate for the con~truction of a building which is conceded after one year's delay the minimum cost of 

which will be $10,000,000? 

Mr. KELLEY. He has never conceded that the part of the building 

which we propose to erect will require $10,000,000 or even $5,000,000. 

Mr. PAYSON. But he has never denied that the whole building 

would cost $10,000,000. 

Mr. ULEUENTS. I will now resume the floor. Mr. Speaker, the 

qnestion·I was discussing when the gentleman interrupted me-and I 

am always glad to yield to him-was, what information the House acted 

on in the Forty-ninth Congress, and what it was supposed would be 

the cost of that building which it authorized to be constructed. The 

gentleman says it could not have been the entire :finishing of this building. I will read a few words more from the report, which is perhaps a 

repetition of what has been already stated: 

The proposed building, as stated, will contain 3,000,000 volumes, with suitable economy of storage. It is not designed to fit up ·thew hole interior at once with 

iron shelving, but to introduce it gradually, finishing off the central portions, 

rotunda, and connecting rooms. and the entire exterior structure. The chief 

element of cost is in the iron alcoves of the interior, and in a building so ex- tensive these may be finished in successive years, as want-ed for the increase 

of books. The most carefully guarded estimates of cost contemplate an ex- penditure of only &>00,000 for the first year, about $1,000,000 for the second, and 

$800,000 the third, which will complete the building for occupancy in all parts, 

sufficient for shelving one million books, and leaving space for the gradual in- troduction of additional iron alcoves in the coming fifty years, the ultimate gross co.st of which will not exceed S700,000, or an average of less than $14,000 a year. 

There is the information upon which this Honse acted and upon 

which Congress acted in the Forty-ninth Congress when it authorized 

the construction of this building, and, as will be seen by what I have 

read, it was the understanding that the cost of the building should not .exceed $3,000,000. _ 

Let me say the action of the commission and the conduct of the work 

under Mr. Smith meyer up to this time, and the excavation for the entire building, all go to show there was but one intention on the part of 

Congress and those who have construed and executed the law, and 

that was it was to be an entire building. 

Does the gentleman contend it is fair to the last Congress to say after 

the report which was submitted by the Committee on the Library, that 

this building was not to cost only $3,000,000, and that this architect 

was justified in proceeding to put up a building which would cost 

$10,000,000? If the information upon which we acted wa-s reliable, 

then certainly there is no justification for exceeding the limit under 

the law. If it is admitted the information was unreliable, then; of 

course, we are all at sea. 

If it turns out that the information upon which we acted was unreliable and that the work is going beyond what Congress and the country nndel9tood it would cost, then it should be stopped at once, and 

investigation should be had and anotherp1anfollowed so that we may 

be able to say to the country what approximately the building will cost. 

I do not say that it is necessary for us to follow the extravagant notions of the archi teet or act in accordance with the views of th"e gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY], and put up a building to cope 

in splendor with all the world for the purpose of taking care of the 

books belonging to the Library of the American Republic. 

Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. What was to be the material of the exterior of this building? 

Mr. CLEMENTS. I have not before me any specification of what 

the material was to be. 

Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. Was it not to be of marble!' 

Mr. CLEMENTS. Marble, I think. 

What arc the facts? There had been an expenditure of $585,000 for 

the site, and then there was an appropriation of $500,000 to carry on 

the work. At the meeting of this Congress $200,000 of that amount 

had been expended, leaving a balan:!e of money on hand for that purpose of $300,000. 

·Now, in conclusion, I will state again what the _issue is, and I wish 

to repeat that the proposition on the part of the Committee on Appropriations as adopted by the House a few weeks ago, after a much fuller 

discussion of the question than took place when the bill was passed in 

the Forty-ninth Congress, was to suspend the work, to in\estiga.te, and 

invite plans from eminent architects throughout the country, for which 

ilO,OOO was appropriated, and leave the matter open until the beginning of the next session of Congress, only about three months off; ari.cl 

then, with full information of the facts before us, we can adopt that 

plan which will not only be an honor to Congress, but which will meet 

the views of the American people as to what is right and necessary in 

this connection. There is not much delay about it. 

There is no proposition to abandon the idea of a commodious library. 

It is simply asking that we stop now, in view of facts that have been 

elicited, in view of the fact that we have been most egregiously deceived-at least the last Congress was-and inform ourselves of the true 

state of the matter, and then start out anew in the right direction. 

Mr. FELTON. That is right. 

Mr. CANNON. I wish the gentleman would yield to me for a few 

minutes. 

Mr. FORNEY. 1t{r. Speaker, I shall have to move the previous ques .. 

tion unless we can come to some understanding to limit this debate. 

Mr. JACKSON. Has the gentleman the time to yield? 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman fTom Georgia bad an hour, which 

he yielded to his colleagu~. 

:M:r. CLEMENTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CANNON]. 

Mr. CANNON. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what the merits or 

demerits of Mr. Smithmeyer may be or may have been. I bow one 

thing, tha:t I am willing to vote a liberal appropriation for the erection 

of a public library building; .and after listening to the gentleman from 

Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. CAsWELL], and having given attention to the matter and heard various 

suggestions in regard to it, I am willing, in view of the recommenda-· 

tions of the Secretary of the Interior, that this building, in his opin:-

ion, as I understand it, should be finished according to Plan No. 1, at 

an expense not exceeding $4,000,000. I am willing to go on and finish 

it. It is no objection to me that it can be added to fifty years from 

now when we may need such addition and we can spend more money 

upon it, or one hundred years from now, as the demand for increased· 

space arises. · 

I must confess that I heartily approve the clause of the Senate amend .. 

ment which places the construction of the building under the charge 

of the Chief of Engineers, General Casey. He has proven himself and 

his capacity in the State, War, and Navy Department buUding, and 

where an eminent architect failed, Mr. Mullett-at least the plan was 

severely criticised, and the construction of the south wing also. The 

north and west wings were successfully and economically constructed 

under the direction of General Casey at a cost of a very large sum less 

than it was supposed would be required according to the cost of the 

south wing. 

I am willing in this case to let the conferees go .back to the ~enate 

with such expressions of opinion as they have heard here, and with 

such knowledge as t-hey may have obtained from the views ofmembers 

on the floor 1.dded to the knowledge they had. I would be glad if they 

would bring in a report of an agreement to repeal the act which does 

more than authorize the construction of the building according to the 

Plan No. 1 for a Library of Congress, and according to the views of gentlemen who are familiar with the subject such a plan would be ample 

for forty or fifty years at least. I think now that we have just as much 

time to dispose of it as we will have at the short session next winter. 

Of course I have no defense to make for individual misunderstandings, 

including my own. I guess I ought to have known more about it, but 

I did not. 'Ve appear, however, to have struck upon a plan where if; 

does seem reasonable to expect that we can get a building inside of 

$4,000,000 which will answer the necessary purposes for fifty years, 

and may then be added to if needed. 

111r. FORNEY. I move the previous question on the motion to insist on the disagreement to the Senate amendment. 

1\fr. PAYSON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

Tb.e SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. PAYSON. Will it be in order to move an amendment to the 

motion to insist? 

The SPEAKERpto tempore. It will be if the previous question is 

not ordered. 

Mr. PAYSON. I desire to offer this amendment before the previous question is ordered. , 

Ur. FORNEY. I have no objection to the gentleman offering it 

with the understanding that the previous question is then to be moved. 

Mr. PAYSON. I do not want to debat~ it. I ask the adoption of 

this amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That the conferees on the part of the House, on Senate amendment No. llO, 

be instructed to adhere to the House provision in the bill, relating to the building for a Library of Congress. 

Mr. FORNEY. Well, that is my motion. 

Mr. PAYSON. Not exactly. 

Mr. COBB. I rise to a question of order. I wish to know if the 

demand for the :previous question embraces all of these amendments, 

or if it is only on the pending proposition? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. On1y on the pending question. 

1\Ir. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a parliamentary question. 

If I understand the proposition of the gentleman from Illinois it is 
1-

. 

81.74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORDc=zaHOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

that the House instructs the conference committee to adhere to the 

provision of the HoUBe bill? 

Mr. PAYSON. That ia it precisely. 

Mr. RYAN. The effect, of course, if that prevails, will be to leave 

the conference committee tied up on this question. 

A1r. PAYSON. That is it, sir; and I think it ought to be done. It 

does not lea>e any leeway to accept a proposition from the Senate in 

the line of the Senate proposition. . 

Mr. RYAN. The effect of the motion of the gentleman from Alabama [1\Ir. FORNEY], standing alone, would be to let the House con- ferees go back for a free conference, after further instructions, on the 

Senate amendment. 

Mr. PAYSON. I amend the Senate amendment with my proposition. 

Mr. RY .AN. But your proposition prevents them giving the Senate 

amendment any furthe1· consideration whatever. 

Mr. PAYSON. Precisely; and the House stands by the House proposition. -

Ur. FORNEY. I demand the previous question on the amendment 

of the gentleman from illinois [Mr. PAYSON]. 

Mr. HOOKER. I rise to a point of order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it. 

J\1r. HOOKER. This amendment, as I understand the proposition 

of the gentleman from Alabama [ Mr. FoRNEY], does allow the con- ferees of the House to go ba-ck and confer with the conferees on thepart of the Senate in this matter. - The previoUB question was ordered on the amendment. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. I think the motion of the gentleman from lllinois [J\Ir. PAYSON] contains more than that. Going back of it is the 

repealing feature of the old House proposition, and throwing aside all 

matters of detail in conference. I do not wish to discuss the matter. 

Mr. FORNEY. You can vote it down. 

lli. FARQUHAR. Certainly; it c:tn be voted down. 

.M:r. CANNON. Let it be reported again. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Can not the proposition of the gentle- man from Alabama be reported again? . The proposition of Mr. FoRNEY and the amendment offered by Mr. 

PAYSON were again reported. 

lli. CANNON. This is the last parliamentary step which ca.n be 

taken. 

Mr. KELLEY. .And it is premature at this stage. 

Mr. CANNON. I never knew of that motion being mad.e at this 

stage. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thinks it is in order. 

Mr. KELLEY. It may be in order, but it is premature. 

Mr. CANNON. I did not say that it was not in order. I said that 

it was unusuaL 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can not control that. 

The question was put on the amendment of Mr. PAYSON, and there 

were-ayes 12, noes 46 .. The SPEAKER pro tempore. On this question the ayes are 12, the 

noes are 46. The noes have it, and the amendment is rejected. The 

question now is on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 

Fo&..VEY], that the House insists upon its disagreement to the Senate 

amendment and agrees to the conference asked for. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The SPEAKERpro tempore. The Clerk will read the next amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 38,line 8, after the word" office," insert "and the Bu:reau of Education." 

Mr. COBB. Is this the section about the remo""al? ~fr. FORNEY. It is. 

Mr. BURNES. I make the motion that the House recede from its 

disagreement to the Senate amendment just reported. 

Mr. CANNON. What is the amendment? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

To exempt the Bureau of Education from removal to the Pension building ns proposed by existing legislation. 

1\fr. CANNON. I hope that it will not be receded from. 

J\fr. BURNES. I make the motion in order to bring the question 

properly before the House; and I also desire to say that I am in favor 

of it. The Secretary of the Interior advises us that at this particular 

time it would result in great inconvenience, and as his juagment has always been sound in these matters: I am in favor of receding. Mr. CANNON. I only want to say a word about it. Legislation 

was had in the last Congress which provided that there should be placed 

in the Pension Office the Commissioner of Railroads and his office; the 

Commissioner of Education with his office, and the General Land Office with all the records and the clerks. The gentleman from--

Mr. BURNES. And the pension agent. 

Mr. CANNON. And the pension agent besides. The gentleman 

who has led this House in connection with this legislation so far as it was concerned, now upon hll:r sick-bed [Mr. RAl.'"DALL], I know gave 

to thiswholequestion pertaining tothat building a very thorough ru1d 

exhaustive consideration along with the subcommittee--

MI. BURNES. I would remind my colleague that the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvani:l. [Mr. RANDALL] did not investigate this matter as thoroughly as the Secretary of the Interior, the 

gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LoNG], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. RYAN], and myself: We went through the Pension building and Bureau of Education, and the Secretary of the Interior was 

with us. We made a careful examin::ilion, and while we thought at 

the time, and while I still think, there is room enough for all these 

offices, yet the Colillllissioner of Pensions is very much opposed to it. 

He says it is taking room that he noeds. The Secretary of the Interior 

is opposed to it, and asks us to recede, believing it will cause a great 

deal of confusion; and he asks that for the present year, at least, we should not place the Bureau of Education in that building. In view 

of this request I think we ought not to move that bureau. 

Mr. CANNON. Now, my friend cut me off in the middle of a sen- tence, and I will have to go back and pick it up. The gentleman from 

Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] and his subcommittee gave this matter a very thorough and exhaustive examination last year. The proposition 

went to the Senate, and the Senate almost refused to consider it. They 

said it was a matter of administration. After considerable effoxt, as 

I am informed, the Senate subcommittee, Mr. ALLISON and Mr. HALE 

and, I believe, Mr. CocKRELL, went in person in connection with General Meigs, as I understand it, to the Pension building and gave a thorough e:xamination ofthe room in that building. When they came to a second conference they said, ''You are right; there is plenty of room iu that magnificent building," not only for the Commissioner of Education with his small office, not only for the Commissioner of Railroads 

and his small office, but for the Land Office and all the clerks and all 

the records. .And they wrote it in the shape of an absolute mandatory law that on or before the 1st day of next December all those offices 

should be removed into that building. 

Now the Land Office has dropped out; it is not to go. The law is 

modified in that respect. The pension agent has been dropped out; he 

is not to go. The law is modified in that respect. .And now it is proposed to further modify the law so as to let the Commissioner of Ed uca- tion, with his small clerical force, continue to pay $6,000 a year rent in 

his present location. They say that he has important books and materials for which he requires storage room. 

There is plenty of space for storage in the upper rooms, which are not occupied for anything else, and, so far as his clerical force is con- cerned, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [1\fr. RANDALL] was clearly 

of the opinion, and I am of the opinion myselffrom what little exam- ination I have been able to give to the matter, that there is not only room for that clerical force, but for a very much larger one. I think 

the House ought to understand this matter. The law, even after it 

has been modified as I have stated, provides that the Commissioner of 

Education shall go there, and I think he ought to go. 

With all due respect to the Commissioner of Pensions and to the Secretary of the Interior and all these executive officers-and I am not 

going to abuse or blame any of them-with all due respect to them I 

say that I have never yet found an executive officer in Washington 

who was willing to yield up room when he once got control of it. In 

the Forty-seventh Congress, when I had charge of the legialative bill, 

the Committee on Appropriations made a contest in which we had sev- eral conferences with the Senate. The proposition was that we would 

take out of some nine different buildings-fire-traps-in diffE:rent parts 

of this city, and condemned buildings at that, the official records of the 

war and place them in the south and east wings of the State, War: and 

Navy Department building. 

They told us there they had not room. We went throu,~ that magnificent south wing of the building, containing, as nearly 1¥3 I recollect, 

100,000 square feet of office spa-ce, atld there were fifty-one people employed .there-they appeared to be lost in space. We put on the amendment providing that these valuable records should no longer be exposed 

to fire, but should be deposited in that building. The Senate said it was a matter of administration, and the Secretary of the Navy objected, 

and the Secretary of State objected, but we put in the south and east wings of that building over five hundred clerks and thee records, and 

then they did not take half the space that the fifty-one people had occupied in the south wing. [Laughter. J I repeat, I never knew an executive officer ora bureau officer-and I suppose if I were one I would 

act in just the same way-! never have seen one of them, Cabinet officer, bureau officer, or executive officer of any kind, who was willing 

to yield space. They all want room. [Lau_ghter.] 

.rTow, thejudgmentot Congress has been deliberately expressed, crystallized into legislation, that all these offices should go to this building, 

and after the law has been changed and modified as I have indicated, 

allowing several of them to remain where they are, it occurs to me that we had better adhere to the law upon this point and let the eommissioner of Railroads and the Dommissioner of Education go into this 

building. 

Mr. FORNEY. Mr. Speaker, I desire to explain to the House the 

situation. In 1887 we passed a la.w which required thatAs soon as practica'ble after the eompletion ns provided for in the suuury civil 

. 

• 
• 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8175 

act approved August 4, 1886, and not later than December 1, 1888, the Secretary of the Interior shali cause to be removed to the Pension building the General 

Lnnd Office, the Bureau of Education, the offioe of the Commissioner of Rail- roads, and the Bureau of Labor, and vacate the buildings rented for and now occupied by said offices and bureaus or portions thereof. 

The Committee on Appropriations moved here to strike ontfrom this 

requirement the General Land Office, and the Senate has added the 

Bureau of Education. The Secretary of the Interior asks us to agree 

to the Senate amendment, for the reason that we have ordered that 

the city post-office shall be placed in the Pension building, and he desir e~ that we shall wait six. months and see what effect that will have. 

He requests, therefore, that the Senate amendment be agreed t o. 

In reply to the remark of the gentleman from illinois [Mr. CANNON] 

that the clerical force of the Commissioner of Education is small, I 

have to say that, while it is- small, only about thirty-seven persons, 

there is a large library, consisting of twenty-seven thousand volumes, 

which will have to be removed, and for which it is said there is not 

sufficient room. Two of the conferees have therefore asked that the 

House recede. 

Mr. COBB. 1\Ir. Speaker, it has been ascertained there is not in this 

:l!Ir. RYAN. The House, if I recollect aright, disagreed t o t his 

amendment at the instance of my friend from Indiana [Mr. H oLMAN], 

who stated at the time that he desired to give the conferees some inforl)lation on the subject. If he has any information, I would l ike him 

now to state it to the House, so that we may understand the reasons 

which actuated him in asking the Honse to disagree to the amendment. 

ML HOLMAN. 1\Ir. Chairman, it is well known we have districts 

where the public lands are covered with timber which is valuable, and 

yet not valuable as sawed and hewed timber, and which is manufactured not only into cordwood and charcoal, but is being very rapidly 

appropriated. The la.w is liberal as to the timber on the public lands. 

I find a statement published in The Globe, a leading newspaper of 

New York City, which seems to be copied from the New York Herald, stating what I understand to be substantially the facts in regard 

to the manner in which the public lands are being denuded of timber 

of a commercial value, and of {:.rreat consequence to the farmers and 

those engaged in carrying on mining operations. I ask the paragraph 

of that statement which I have marked be read by the Clerk. · 

The Clerk read as follows: 

bui !ding to which you propose to remove the Bureau of Education suf- nr THE n."TER.EST oF rucH coRPoRATIONs. 

:ficient room to accommodate the bureau proper. Such aecommoda- "The proposed legislation," says Mr. Stockslager, "is purely in the intm-est 

tions as can be there provided are exceedingly ineonvenient and unsuit- of large and wealthy mining corporations, foreign as well as native, and also in 

bl Th · 1 t t th · b t · th t f the interest of railroad corporations who have in many portions of the country a e. ere IS no P ace 0 pu IS ureau excep m e very 0P 0 monopolized the cord wood-cutting and charcoal industries. I am warranted in 

the building, where the thermometer in summer ranges, as I am credi- stating that it originated in the desire to prevent the prosecution of anticipated bly informed, up to 124°. suits which have since been ordered, upon the recommendation of this office, 

I h b r 1 tte fr th S ta f th Inte · h · h I against the Richmond Mining Company and the Eureka Consolidated Mining ave ClOre me a e r om e ecre ry 0 e nor W IC Company, owning mines in Nevada, for the recovery of $9,517.461. The total 

desire to have read for the information. of the House. In tbis letter it value of wood and charcoal derived from timber cut hy and for these companies is stated that t o sa.-e a rental of $4,000, not $6,0\JO, as stated by the upon the public lands aggrE>gates 1,305,964 cords of wood, from a portion ot 

gentlem;m, tl:era will be a loss of $25,000 of the appropriation for this which were derived 28,i04,662 bushels of charcoaL" 

bureau. I have aJso a letter from the acling Commissioner, giving an TnmER LANDs nm.-unED. 

itemized statement ofthe amount of room requirerl and showing that "These two companies alone have literally laid bare the hills, mountain ...., ranges, and cafions wit-hin a radius of 35 miles from. Eureka, not sparing the accommodations now proposed will be entirely inadequate. I ask the undergrowth, but taking everything from 3 inches and upward, not sim- the Clerk to read the letter which I send to the desk. . ply 'dwarfed and scrubby timbers,' but mahogany, cedar, and pine trees. The Clerk read as follows: Even the stumps of the trees have been removed. These depredatious are ren- dered the more aggravating by the fact that the Richmond Mining Company is 

exclusively a. foreign and British corporation, organized in London, England, having for its manager an alien, who is a British nobleman connected with the 

Duke of Northumberland." 

DEPART:IIEYT OF THE ITTERIOR, Washington, July30, 1888. MY DEAR Sm: I observe that. by the sundry ci vii bill, as it has been reported by the Committee on Appropriations to the Senate. the only repeal of the act 

of11larch 3, 1887, which required the removal of the General Land Office, Bu- reau of Railroads, and Bureau of EducaLion to the Pension building, provided for is so much as relates to the Land O.fftce. I do most sineerely think it will 

be a serious injury to the Educational Bureau and also to the Pension Bureau to . compel the removal of theform~r into the Pension building. It can not but prac- tica.lly strangle the Bureau of Education, for a considerable period atleast, and 

I can not see but that it must seriously interfere with its usefulness so long as it 

shall remain there. There are now nbout forty-three clerks and people em- ployed in the Bureau of Education, and they have a lanre collection of books, models, educational appliances, and bric-:\-bracof various character and all con- tributory to enlightenment. I have visited the Pension building a.nd can not see how this can be stored, except in great part in the fourth sto;:y. Practically, it becomes when placed there unavailable for use. The appropriation in the legislative, executive, and judicial bill on account of 

the Bureau of Education is, altogether, S>0,920. The rent of the building to be saved by this change is $4.000. In order to save this snm of $4,000 of rent I do not hesitate to say that this action will was~e $35,000 of the appropriation for 

the bureau. I have beard the idea expressed in casual conversation that the Bureau of 

Education was not an instrumentality of especial value, and I fear that th:iB idea 

has had something to do with the willingness to c1·ippie it by this removal. 

I do not concur at all in the sentiment; but if the sentiment is to have nny influence, and especially under the plea of economy, it should take an effective 

direction to accomplish the latter end; and this would reqnire that, in case of 

this removal being ino,~isted upon, a great pa.rt of the foroe should be disch&rgcd and the appropriation made for the conduct of the bureau diminished. I do not 

doubt that it could be diminished one-half, upon the theoryoftheremoval,and as effective work be accomplished as if the same number of officers and em- ployes shall be retained now provided for, because they can notworktoadvan- tage in such quart-ers as can be o.ssigneil in the Pension Bureau. 'l'be legislative bill bas made provision for the rent of the bui1ding now occu- pied by the Bureau of Education only until the 1st of Decem.ber next, appropri- ating $1,667 .for that puqJO e, one-third of the annual rental. The time is short 

and the pressure upon Congress, and especia.lly upon you, my dear sir, I recog- nize to be very great at this juncture. Is it not the part of wi!ldom to continue 

that bureau where it is for the remainder of this fiscal year, which will involve 

but $2,333 more (perhaps less than th"C cost of its removal), and review this sub- ject at the next session witb more attention than can now be allowed to it? 

If it be possible for yourself, or some m.ember of the committee, to give an hour or an honr and a half to a personal examination of the circumstances, I 

feel convinced yon will recognize by a survey of the buildin~ and the property involved the imperative urgency and wisdom of the suggestion I venture to 

make. 

The provision for the post-office within the :l.l'ea. of the Pension building will 

make that building as thoroughly occupied as almost any Government building in the city, perhaps quite as much. 

I llave tht. honor to be, my dear :Mr. Chairman, Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Hon. WILLLUr B. ALLisoN, WM. F . VILAS, Secretary. 

Chairman OommiUee on .Approp1·ia.tions, United States Senate. 

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. BURNES, that the 

House recede from ita disagreement to amendment numbered 116, it was decided in the affirmative- ayes 49, noes 14. 

.Amendment numbered 118 was read, as follows; 

Insert the following : "That no part of the money appropriated by this ae.t shall be used in the in- vestigation of any case or the prosecuti~n of any person in the mining region of the United States for cutting, for mining or domestic purposes, dwarfed or scrubby timber unfit to be sawed or hewed into lumber of commercial value." 

Mr. F ORNEY. I move that the House insist on itsdisagreementto 

this amendment. 

:Mr. HOLMAN. Whilst this purports to be an interview with the 

Commissioner of the General Land Office, I do not know that it is an 

exact report of what took place on that occasion, but I have n o doubt 

it substantially states the facts and the view he entertains and expressed. I will ask the gentleman from Kansas whethel' a letter of 

the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Mr. Stockslager, was not before the coJlierees? 

Mr. RYAN. The conferees had some information of it. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Other\'\ise I would have gone before the conferees 

myself. 

If this statement be true, and I think it is, as that is the info:rmation I have derived from the Land Office, if what has been read are the 

exact words of the interview on the part of the Commissioner of the 

General Land Office-,-and I do not know whether they are or not, except they substantially agree with the information which I have- if 

that be true, then this House can not upon that information agree to 

prohibit or suspend those prosecutions. 

Mr. WOODBURN. ImovethattheHouse recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment. 

Mr. Speaker, the sundry civil bill appropriates 350,000 to protect 

the public lands, to adjust swamp-land entries, and to guard against 

depredations of the timber on the public domain. This amendment 

simply provides that none of that money shall be expended in tho investigation or in the prosecution of any person in the mining regions 

of the United States for cutting dwarf or &crub timber that can n ot be 

hewed or squared into timber of commercial value. A Senator from 

the State of Nevada offered this amendment to the House bill. 

No matter whether the article just read at the request of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HoLMAN] be true or not. I say this amendment would never have been necessary except to prevent ther~petition 

of an order by the Commissioner of the General Land Office by rutue 

of which six miners were arrested in the arid regions of Nevada, and 

brought 300 miles to the capital at Carson, indicted and trled for misdemeanor in cutting the chara ter of timber described in the amend- ment. They were acquitted after trial in a court of the United States. To prevent the recurrence of such an order, because ot her prosecutions 

are threatened, this amendment was offered. . 

Every man in that mining r egion, as· well as every corporation, is, 

threatened with civil suits in order to r ecover the value of the scrnb 

timber cut in the last thirty years, as the statute of limitations does 

not run against the Government. 

If the Richmond Mining Company be liable for cutting this timber, 

if the Eureka Company is held to be liable, so also is every indi>idual 

in the entire arid region of Idaho and Colorado. The miners of that 

region, as well as the corporations, have for the last twenty years enioyed the right and privilege of cutting that kind of timper without 

a ny molestation from the Interior Department. They have been in 

the undisturbed and notorious possession of that right during all t hat 

period. Wit hout that right not a single fur ac~, quartz-mill, ormine 
J 

' t 

• 

81~16 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

in all this region can be worked at all. ~tis indispensable to the very 

existence of the miner, and the framers of this legislation, those who 

reported the act of 1878, which still stands on the statute-books, and 

for the violation of which these miners were arrested, when it came into this House from the Senate of the United States, accompanied it 

with a report which places upon it a construction entirely different 

from that of the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The Committee on the Public Lands of this House must have placed the same 

construction upon it. The members of the two Houses of Congress 

who Yoted for it must have understood it the way the Senate Committee on the Public Lands did. And what do they say? I read from the 

report: 

The committee, having carefully considered the subject of timber and timber 

lands, and after mature deliberation with a view of deviSing the best methods of 

preserving, cultivating, and disposing of the same, have come to the conclusion 

that n distinction should be made between such trees as grow upon the mount- ains in the mineral districts, and the forests of pine, oak, and other timber that 

grow in the more level portions of the country. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada will suspend. 

The hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, the House, in obedience to its 

previous order, takes a recess until8 o'clock p.m. 

EVENING SESSION. 

The recess having expired, the House, at8o'clockp. m., was called to 

order by the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. BLOUNT]. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the indulgence of the members present to permit me to call up this evening 

the bill (S. 2356) to provide a pension for Mrs. Adeline Couzins. I 

have had no recognitions whatever dur~g all of our meetings here to 

call up a bill. This is the first time that I have made a request in that 

direction. This lady was actually wounded on the field of battle w bile 

attending to our wounded soldiers. I simply a-sk recognition now to· 

take up this bill before going into the Committee of the Whole, and 

put it upon its passage. 

Mr. RYAN. There are other very meritorious bills, and I think we 

had better proceed in the regular order. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I hope the gentleman will not insist 

upon his objection to this bill. 

Mr. RYAN. I am not objecting to the bill. I am only insisting tbat we Cc:'tn get along a great deal better by proceeding in the regular way. 

RECOMMITMENT OF A BILL. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- sent th-at the bill (S. 2490) granting a pension to Nicholas T. Lawrence, 

be taken from the Committee of the Whole House and recommitted to 

the Committee on Pensions. I make this motion at the request of 

some of the members of the committee. 

The motion was agreed to, and the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. PAYSON. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands there is objection to the request of the gentleman from 1\fissouri. - Mr. PAYSON. I have not risen to object to the request of the gentleman from Missouri, but I desire t.o give notice that after his request 

is disposed of I will make a motion that the recognitions this evening 

be accorded to the members present, as was done on last Friday; that 

is, that the roll be called in alphabetical order, to begin from where 

the call ended on the last evening. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. That was the motion the committee intended t.o 

make. 

Mr. PAYSON. After the disposal of the motion of the gentleman 

from Missouri, I desire to submit that request. 

Mr. KILGORE. I demand the regular order. 

Mr. PAYSON. I make the motion I have indicated. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. I move that the House do now resolve itself into 

Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration 

of bills under the special order. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, 

Mr. DOCKERY in the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House is now in Committee of the Whole 

House for the consideration of bills under the special order. 

Mr. CHIP.l\IAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee resume the call of the roll where we left off on last Friday night, and that each 

member as his name is reached be permitted to call up one bill. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Where did the call end before? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that the call ended with 

the name of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. PETERS]. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Then I object. 

Mr. RYAN. Then let us have a vote on the motion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Objection being made, the Clerk will report the 

first bill en the Calendar. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman from Missouri will 

withdraw his objection. 

1\fr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I shall not insist upon it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will regard the objection as with· 

drawn; and if there be no fu ther objection that order will be pursued 

this evening. 

There was no objection. 

1\IARGARET GRAY. 

Mr. POST. I call up for present consideration the bill (H. R.11057) 

granting a pension to Margaret Gray. 

The. bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Margaret Gray, mother of Wilson 

S. Gray, deceased, late of Company G, Eleventh illinois Cavalry. 

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

Margaret Gray is the mother of WilsonS. Gray, who enlisted in Company G, 

Eleventh Regiment Illinois Cavalry, and was killed November 17, 18ti4, near McDonough, G1!.. Her claim for pension has been rejected by the Pension Bu- reau on the ground that the soldier was not killed in the line of duty. The report of the Adjutant-General shows that the soldier was killed at the 

time and place alleged by a pistol shot fired by a. comrade, J. W. Todd, who was tried by a general court-martial for murder, and convicted of the crime. 

It appears from the testimony produced before the court-martial that Gray on the day of the shooting received permission from the commanding officer, 

while on the march, to go from the road to forage. He was accompanied by J. 

W. Todd and two or three others of t.he command. Todd had been drinking, 

and when the rest of the foragers wanted to return to the regiment he refused unles~ he would be furnished another drink. 

After he was given a drink he again refused to go to the camp, and wheeled 

his horse in the opposite direction. Gray and one Thomas Conner, anxious to have him return to camp safe, followed up and tried to persuade him to go 

with them. While Gray was close up to Todd the latter pulled his revolver 

and shot at Gray, killing him almost instantly. It further appears from the 

evidence that up to that time Gray and Todd were intimate friends, and always, if possible, in each other's company. 

The captain of this company testifies that he detailed Gray to go out as a foraging squad under a non-commissioned officer. While at a plantation J. W. 

Todd, one of the party, got some kind of liquor and became crazy drunk, and 

would not leave the place with the others of the party. He was left, but fearing that he might be picked up by the enemy, Gray returned, and while at- tempting to persuade him to return, he, Todd, pulled his revolver and shot Gray through the body. 

The captain further states that Gray was a. splendid soldier, always ready for 

duty, and never intoxicated. 

The claimant was dependent upon the son &t time of his enlistment. She has no income from any source except that derived from her own labor and the 

labor of the soldier's father, which is inadequate to a comfortable support be- cause of his physical disabilities which have existed for many years past. There is nothing in the evidence in the case, including the testimony taken 

before the court-martial in the trial of Todd, pointing towards any personal difficulty between the parties up to the time of the firing of the fatal shot, or any misconduct or provocation on the part of the murdered man. On the other 

hand, it is clearly shown that he was in the act of attempting to keep out of 

difficulty one who up to that time had been a friend. 

The committee are of the opinion that this old and dependent claimant should 

have the relief asked for, and therefore report favorably on the accompanying 

bill and ask that it do pass. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

CHARLES HAHNEMAN. 

Mr. ROCKWELL. I call up the bill (H. R. 11021) to increase the 

pension of Charles Hahneman. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be i t enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, au- thorized to increase the pension of Charles Hahneman, late a private in Com· 

pany C, Forty-first New York Volunteers, and pay him at the rate of $50 pel 

month, in lieu of the pension now paid to him. 

The report (by Mr. FRENCH) wa-& read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

11021) to increase the pension of Charles Hahneman, have had the_ same under 

consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report: 

Charles Hahneman is now on the pension-roll at~ per month for right inguinal hernia under special act approved February 4, 1887. In addition to this 

unusual great disability he is a great sufferer from asthma, which, however, is not satisfactorily showu as chargeable to his military service, although its ex· istence ever since discharge is clearly established. The hernia was incurred in 

the service by being struck with a musket in the hands of a Confederate soldier. 

The increase to $24 by special act from $16 per month previously allowed by the Pension Bureau was based upon tho rating of the Albany, N. Y.~ medical 

board on October 20, 1886. The disability has much increased since tnat date, 

but inasmuch as the special act fixed a rate for the pension the Pension Bw·eau 

is estopped from granting a pension for this increased disability. . Pensioner has filed with your committee the affidavits of three reputable physicians who have given him careful examination, and who, in substance, 

make the following statement regarding the disability: "He has right inguinal hernia, descending into and distending the scrotum to a great size. The circumference at the largest part is 17f inches, and at Hs smaller part. close to the body, is 16t inches. The inguinal ring is 3 inches in 

its Jarge.st diameter and 1 inch in its shortest diameter_ · The hernia can not be 

entirely reduced, and constantly fills the scrotum, rendering him entirely help- less. The hernia totally disables him, and he has to be constantly waited upon. 

The care of him is unusually laborious and wearing. For the past two years 

he bas been unable to wear any truss; he can not sleep at night on account of 

the asthma; the cough increases the size of the hernia; heart disease also adds to his deplorable condition." 

A number of neighbors also testify to the pensioner's helplessness and the ne· cessity of constant aid and attendance of another person. From all the evidence before your committee they are of opinion that the 

pension now paid Hahneman is ent.irely inadequatt» to the degree of disability fl'Om his Army injury, and therefore return the bill with the recommendation 

that it do pass, amended, however, by striking out the word "fifty,' ' in line 6, 

and inserting therein instead the words" forty-five." 

The amendment recommended by the committee was agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, this bill will be laid aside to 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL BEOORD--HOUSE. 8177 

b~ reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, I will have to make a row about 

this bill. 

The CH.llRM:AN. What is it? 

Mr. KILGORE. My understanding of the history of this case is that 

this man was put upon the roll by a special act of Congress. He was nriginally put on the roll by a special act, and it is proposed now by a further special act to increase the pension from $25 to $45 per month. I 

think in such cases there is something due to the office, after an impartial and thorough investigation has once been made which has resulted in the rejection of the claim. There ought to be some respect 

paid to the department and to its judgment. 

Mr. ROCKWELL. MI'. Chairman, a special act was passed upon my 

presenting a. bill to the House for that purpose in 1887. At that time 

the committee thought that $24 a month was the proper amount to 

rat-e this man's disability. The committee now think it should be $45 

a month, as the applicant is utterly helpless. 

This man was injured while in the service, as the report which ba-s been 

read shows, by a blow from a musket in the bands of a Confederate 

soldier. The case as originally presented to the Pension Office lacked 

certain elements of evidence; so that that office, while it accorded him a pension of $12 a month, thought he ought not to have the $24 to 

which under the law he was entitled for that degree of disability; but 

while the bill was pending in the House he received the pension of $12 a month at the Pension Office. 

The reason some evidence was lacking originally in the case was be- cause the applicant was a member of a German regiment raised inN ew York. It was nearly cut to pieces, and it was almost impossible to pro- cure the evidence of any of his comrades. 

Mr. KILGORE': Was there au application made at the office? 

Mr. ROCKWELL. Yes, sir; and they granted him a pension of $12 a month. 

Mr. KILGORE. You say there was au application for an increase 

at the office? 

Mr. ROCKWELL. No, sir; you can not make an application for an increase of the pension at the office where a pension has been granted 

by a special aet of Congress. It takes it out of the category of claims 

which are considered by the office. When once a bill of this class has 

been passed by the House it takes it out of the jurisdiction of the 

Pension Department, and the man has got to come to Congress for additional relief. That is the reason that the application is not now made 

at the Pension Office. 

Mr. KILGORE. Put it at $25 a month and I will not make an~ objection. 

:Mr. ROCKWELL. I put it originally at $50 a month upon sug~estion from the committee. 

Mr. KILGORE. I know. 

Mr. ROCKWELL. And the committee have reduced it to the amount 

fixed in the bill. Although this man is on his death-bed, I would not 

consent to $25 a month. I know the case personally; I know the applicant. I will not stand as a Representative upon this floor and accept 

in a case of this kind what I do not regard to be just or right. I think 

if the gentleman from Texas will consider the matter he will himself 

understand the position hereand agree with me. The man is now getting $24 a month, and this only increases the amount to $45. Be js 

perfectly helpless, and will be on the roll but for a short time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the bill will be laid aside to 

be reported to the Honse with the recommendation that it do pass. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

'.rbe name of 1tfr. ROMEIS was called. 

:Mr. ROMEIS. The bill I intended to call up I am informed is in 

the House. · 

The CHAffiMAN. The bill the gentleman has sent to the desk is 

one on the special rolJ, and is not subject to consideration in the com- mittee. 

CARL III. SCHWANTES. 

Mr. RYAN. I call up for present consideration the bill (S. 2716) 

granting a pension to Carl :M. Schwantes. 

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be il enacted, etc., That the Se.cretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Carl 1\I. Schwantes, late private 

Company K, Fifty-third Regimentlllin.ois Volunteer Infantry. 

The report (by Mr. MORRILL) was read, as follows: The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2716) 

•granting a pension to Carl M. Schwantes, submit the following report: The report of the Committae on Pensions in the Senate sets forth clearly the facts in this case, nnd is hereby adopted, and the passage of the bill recom- mend';)d. 

[Senate Report No. 127t, Fiftieth Congress, first session.] 

The claimant under this bill enlisted August '1:7, 1861, and served until July 

25, 1865, when he was honorably discharged from the service of the United States, and mustered out under General Order No. 26, at Louisville, Ky. On July 12, 1881, he made a.pplicatio~ for pension, alleging as a. basis for his claim ''that while on guard February 3, 18&5, from cold and exposure his system suffered severely, and he has never recovered his health." In a. subsequent affidavit, filed November 20, 1882, he claims pension on account of "chronic inflammation of kidneys." 

XlX-512 

The claim was rejected March 14,1 3; by the Commissioner of Pensions, on the ground of "claimant's failure, after a reasonable time and due notification, to furnish the necessary evidence to establish it." The records of the War Department furnjsh nbthing to support the allega- tions of the claimant. The claimant in his original declaration explains that on the 3d day of February, 1805, while in the service and line of duty, in obedience to the orders of his superior officers, he waded through some twenty-four streams·of water during the march; that the weather was cold, and th::\t he was chilled through; that on the night of February 3,1865, he was detailed for duty with his company on picket line, and that he staid on picket duty all night; that his clothing and person were wet and cold, and through the exposure thus caused and other exposure suffe red on the same campaign * * * be con- tracted the disabilities alleged in his declaration, and that he is now entirely disabled and unable to altend to his business, that of a farmer. He further states he is unable to furnish medical testimony of treatment in service, for the reason "that no physician treated him for said disea e of the kidneys, a.s he was not always near a. physician, and used such household remedies as he could obtain." Capt. D. H. 1\IcFaddeiJ, commanding the company, says: "Probably resulted in the injuries he sustained." Captain McFadden fully corroborates the claim- ant as to the march through the swamps and subsequent duty on the picket line. This is also set forth in the affidavit of J. M. Jones, private of Company 

G, same regiment, but only knows of the disability "by the statement of the claimant." Same statement substantially is made by Comrade E . R. Hay, of Company G, who says tha.t claimant" claims to have taken cold, so he was dis- abled thereby." William H. Throckmorton and George W'. Keever swear 1\ray 7, 1881, to an acquaintance of twenty-five and twenty. two years, respectively; that he was physically a. sound man prior to enlistment; and that at date of discharge they knew he was broken in health and unable to earn a Jiving by manual labor: that his disability has continued from date of discharge to present time, and that they believe his sickness and general disability was caused by exposure while in the service of the United St-ates, and in the line of his duty. A. W. Jones, January 4, 1882, swears to an acquaintance of eight years last past; that he was sick and unable to work for a considerable portion of the time, * * * physically unable to do a. full man's work:. '!'he credibilit-y of affiants is fully established by the certificates of postmasters. The examining surgeon at Burlington, Kans., March 1, 1882, gives him a rat- ing of one-fourth total for colds and other disabilities, and that the disability is probably permanent. The board of surgeons at Emporia, Kans., rate him at the same, one-fourth total, on "claimant's statement, which we believe h> be ti·ue," for kidney dis- ease. The incurrence of the disabilities alleged in the service and llne of duty is not very clearly estabHshed, except by the sworn statements of the claimant himself; and, taking into consideration his excellent character for truth and veracity furnished by leading citizens of Burlington, Kans., his present abode, and his present financial and physical condition, your committee feel justified in recommending the passage of the bill. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to 

the Hvuse with th~ recommendation that it do pass. 

SYLVESTER STEARNS. 

l\fr. SENEY. I call up for present consideration the bill (H. R. 

7516) to increase the pension of Sylvester Stearns. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: 

B e it ena-cted, etc .. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, di- . r ected and authorized to increase the pension of Sylvester Stearns, of Fostoria., 

Ohio, late a. member of Company K, Forty-ninth Regiment Ohio Volunteer In- fantry, to 50 per month. 

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

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7516) 

granting ani ncr ease of pension to Sy Ivester Stearns, submit the foil owing r eport: Sylvester Stearns, private of Company K, Forty-ninth Regiment Ohio Vol tin• teer Infantry, enlisted September 5, 1861; discharged November 30, 1864; filed his application for pension in the Pension Office January 17,1865; granted a pen· sion of $l5a. month to date from June6, 1866; S18amonthfromJuue 4, 1872; $20 a month from l\Iarch 3, 1883, for a gunshot wound of the left shoulder, received at the battle of Chickamauga. Creek, September 20, 1803. Hospital report showe gunshot wound, left humems. His captain states on oath that claimant wal! wounded in the left shouluer joint at the battle of Chickamauga. Ex-surgeon J. II. H aer, December 10, 1S64, reports him totally disabled by reason of g un. shot wound in left shoulder, fmcturing head and n eck of t-he humerus, ent-ire u e of the left arm losG. The last board of examining surgeons, composed of Thomas I. Lewis. George L . C:reg, and James F. E . Fanning, a t 'l'iffin, Ohio, July29,1885, testify to his total second grade d isn.bility on account of gunshot wouud, left shoulder joints, and results, a nd that the disability has increased. He has pain of neuralgic charac· ter in bota shonlders, which is so seYere that he can not sleep at night. He is weaker and has more pain in the left shoulder than when present rating was granted. They further said that upon examining the applicant they found in relation of height to the weight, emaciation and atrophy of the muscles of the left shoulder, and that he does n ot follow or gratify any vicious habits. After a careful examination by your committee of this case we are satisfied that his disabilities areoft.he progressive nature and constantly increasing, and • according to evidence on file that his entire system has been affected as to ca.use partial paralysis, and that he is clearly entitled to an increase of pension, and r econunend that the bill do pass. with an amendment, by striking out, in lines 6and 7, "$50," and inserting "$36" in lieu thereof. 

The amendment was agreed to. There being no objection, the bill a-s amended was laid aside to be re- ported to the House with the recommendation that it do pa-ss. 

ELIZABETH G. SCOTT. 

.Mr. STEELE. I call up for present consideration the bill (S. 944) 

increasing the pension of Mrs. Elizabeth G. Scott. 

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Beit enacfed, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior b e, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the limitations and provisions of the pension IR.ws, the name of Elizabeth Goodn.le Scott, widow ot Robert N. Scott, deceased, late lieutenant-colonel Third United States Artillery, at the rate of $50 per month, in lieu of the amount now received by law. 

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

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred tbc hill (S. 944) increasing the pension of Mrs. Elizabeth G. Scott, would report as follows: The committee recommend that the bill pass, and adopt the report of tl.te Senate Committee on Pensions, a.s follows: The late Robert N. Scott, lieutenant-colonel Third Artillery, euterPd the 
' 

8178 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AuGUST 31, 

service as second lieutenant, February 21,1857. During the war of the rebellion ten by the postmaster at 1\Ionticello, l'l!o.,tn re~ponse to an office letter w1·itten he was transferred to the Adjutant-General's department, rendering service by the Commissioner of Pensions asking information as to claimant. The post- therein and in the field, which was rewarded by two brevets and honorable master did not know the cmimant, but hewrotethathehad IearnedfromoLhers mention in general orders. After the war he served as aid-de-camp ou the that claimant and his father and brothersa.nd sisters had all been afllicted with staff of General Halleck untill872; profes.ilor of military science and tactics at sore eyes before the war; that it was a sort of sore-eyed family. 

Faribault, Minn., until 1873; commander of his battery until 1877; and from \Ve are of opinion, however, that this hearsay and unverified statement of the . that date until his death, in 1&7, he was engaged in the compilation and publi- postmaster ought not even t.o be considered, much less prevail a...""!l,inst the ~worn 

cation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. Added to statements of eight or ten reputable witnesses. these duties ne was, during lff17 and afterwards, variously employed in the \Ve think, then. there can be no controversy over these two propositions: 

compilation of Army regulations, as secretary to a Congressional commission L That claimant had good, sound eyes at the date of bis enlistment. on the reorganization of the Army, and as a member of the Army Regulations 2. That at the date of his discharge his eyes were in a. disea ed condition, and 

Board. have so remained ever since, growing constantly worse, until he is now De:' rly The work of compiling and publishing the records of the Union and Con fed- blind. erate armies, on wh1ch Colonel Scott was engaged during the last ten years of The remaining question is the important one. Is this diseased condition of his life, was probably the most involved and difficult ever imposed upon a mili- his eyes the result of his military service, and, if so, in what way? 

tary compiler. To cull and arrange out of the confused and sometimes chaotic The claimant alleges that in April, 1864, while out with his company, or a. part mass of Union and Confederate reports a full, just, and intelligible history of of it, under orders, and while marching, a comrade by the name of Hart, who events, and omitting therefrom the vast body of superfluous or irrelevant rna- was riding dil-ectly in front of claimant, caught hold of a limb and let it fly 

terial, required industry, patience, and metnodic intelligence of the highest back, and that it struck claimant across his nose and right eye, inflicting a. order. These qualities Colonel Scott manifestly pm1sessed, for his labors re-. se'>·ere and painful Injury. ceived the highest commendation of his superiors and military critics at home The claimant says that he continued to suffer from the injury during there- and abroad. He prosecuted the work with a zeal which surpassed enthusiasm, mainder of his service, and ever si)lce. He did not go to t.be hospital, nor and amounted to an utter absorption of time and faculty, for during .all these abandon his command, but was treated by Dr. Taylor, the regimental surgeon. years it is certified that he never took a holiday, nor spared time for a midday Dr. Taylor was killed in 1866, and his comrade, Hart, who held the limb, is lunch; and that when office was closed he carried papers home with him and dead. No commissioned officer was sworn in the case. The captain of the remained engaged on them, as a. habit, until after midnight. This continuous company and the major of the x·egiment were asked for statements. but were labor, without recreation, wore out his strength until, when he was attacked by unable to recall the circumstances or give any information. The affidavits of a slight cold, he had no vitality to resist it, and died. Surgeon O'R-eilly, of the six or eight comrades were obtained, however, and fil.ed. None actually saw Army, who was for years his physician, states: • the limb strike the claimant, but they swear that they saw the claimant imme- ,, I look: on his death as being~ much caused by his entire devotion to the diately afterwards, observed his injuries, heard him complaining of great pain, Government service as thoug-h he had been killed in battle." I and heard both claimant and Hart describe how it had happened. Services of a quasi extraofficial character like these by Colonel Scott, and of Unless the statements of the claimant and six of his comrades are to be dis- equal difficulty and importance. performed through a series of years and with I credited, there won. ld seem to exist no 1·eason for doubting that claimant was so total a disregard of the limitations of prudence and duty, are not compen- injured as he aUeges. His comrades also testify that he continued to suffer sated for by mere pay and allowances. Nor, while the country neither exacts from said injury during the remainder of his service and to the day of his dis- nor desires of its agents unreasonable service, can it afford to allow patriotic charge. · sacrifice to go unrecognized. It is plain that this officer, in his enthusiastic de- We think the testimony sufficiently shows- votion to duty, the performance of which he felt could neither be shared nor 1. That claimant had sound eyes when he enlisted. delayed, went down to his grave before his time, depriving the country of su., 2. That he was injured in his right eye while in the line of duty and in tho perior talents especially t.rained and prematurely removing from his family way described. their protection and support. The committee, having just appreciation of Colo- 3. '£hat the injury was continuing at the date of his discharge, and that bo h - nel Scott's labors, and believing that excessive devotion to duty is not likely to eyes had become affected. grow into a habit so common as to become a burdensome precedent, think it As to the continuance of the disability since his discharge the evidence is not reasonable that the pension to his widow should, as asked, be increased to the as satisfactory as might be desired. He never had his eyes treated by any phy- moderate sum of 550 per month: and they recommend the passage of the bill to sician, except one traveling oculist, whose whereabouts are unknown. The that end. testimony is that he treated himself the best he could. There is testimony of 

l\ir .. CHEADLE. l\.fr. Chai:man, this bill is one of the same character ~!ilfsh~Y~ha~:eai~qr;:.ta&~~ <5r:!~.c~~;~h~:~r~f:i!haen~~~PJ~ ~~~ ~ to whJCh I hnve heretofore obJected unless acted upon by a quorum. knowledge claimant had been suffering fl'Om his injury ever since December, 

Mr STEELE I a.T\l perfectly content that the bill shall stand upon 1864. The claim was filed in 18i2. • • · • dl t h H · t 't. DavidR. JonesandJoh.nN.Brighttestifythattheyhudcmployedandworked 1ts own ments, an e t e ouse ac ~~n 1 . . wit,h claimant at different times for six years prior thereto, and "throughout Mr. CHEADLE. I am perfectly willing that thiS bill shall take the that period he hD.d labored with great difficulty on acceunt of his eyes." 

same course which hns been pursued in similar bills· that ill go over to There is other testi~ony oft~e~me rmpo~t. The following is the judgment, 

b d · f" ll H ' so to speak, of the reVtewer rejectmg the clatm : e vote upon In a U ~use. . "No record, commissioned officer, or medical treatment in or out of service, Mr. STEELE. That Will be sn,tlsfactory to me. nor sufficient proof of contracting in service and line of duty." 

1\Ir. CHEADLE. Let the bill and report be printed in the RECORD It ~s true the claim .is not p~oven by th~ testimony of a commissio~ed officer1 

d to f ll H DOl' lS there any med1cal testimony. It IS proven, however, that claimant was an go over 0. U ouse: . • . . treated in the field by the regimental surgeon, who died, or was killed, in lb66. 1\Ir. STEELE. There will be no oppos1tion to thlS bill. I am en- Upon a careful review of all the evidence your committee is of opinion that 

tirely satisfied that the bill shall stand upon its own merits. This the claimant is entitled ~o pension, and the bill is accordingly reported wilh a. 

o fficer was literally worn out in the service. He leaves a widow with favorable. recomme~dati~n. • 

five daughters surviving him, and they are entirely dependent. The ~ill was l~1d aside to be 1·eportcd to the House With the recomI ask that the bill be reported to the Honse with tbe recommendation men datiOn that It do pass. 

that the previous question be ordered upon it, with the right of fifteen ELIZABETH G. sc6TT. 

minutes' debate on each side, and that its consideration be postponed Mr. STEELE. I understand that the Committee on Foreign Aftairs 

until to-morrow morning, immediately after the reading of the Journal. has the right of way immediately after the reading of the Journal to-

:Mr. WASHINGTON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. morrow, and I ask that the recommendation to the House that the bill 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. granting a pension to Elizabeth G. Scott be taken up in the House for 

1\Ir. W .A.SHINGTON. Can this committee make an order which consideration immediately after the Journal to-morrow morning be 

will bind the House? modified so that it may be taken up after thab matter is disposed o1. The CHAIRMAN. No; the committee only makes a recommenda- The CH.AlRMAN. Is there objection? 

tion, which must be ratified by the House. M.r. SPRINGER. If it is merely a difference between ''before 

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? taking and after taking" I will not object, but if I had been present 

There was n o objection, and it was so ordered. "before taking" I would h:we objected. 

NELSON J. CROOK. There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

:Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I ask consideration of the bill (H. R. SICKNESS OF CHAIRMAN. 

3801) granting a pension to Nelson J. Crook. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. DocKERY). The Chair will request the genThe bill was read, as follows: tleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] to take the chair, as the present 

Be u enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- occupant is unwell and desires to leave the House. thorized and directed to place the name of Nelson J. Crook, late a. member ot h . Company D, of the Third Missouri (,"avalry Volunteers, on the pension-roll, 1\ir. SPRINGER took t e chm.r. 

subject to the provisions aud limitations of the pension laws. JUATHE1V o. rtEG.A.N. 

The report (by Mr. WALKER) is as follows: Mr. THOMAS, of Wisconsin. I ask consideration of the bill (S. 3118) The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3801) for the relief of Mathew 0. Regan. granting a. pension to Nelson J. Crook, make the following report: Th b "ll ~~-1 fi 11 The bill is to grant a pension to Nelson J. Crook, private in Company D, e cl was rt:.U>U, as 0 ows: T hird Missouri Cavalry. The claim for pension is based on an alleged injury Be it enacted, etc., That the Secrclary of the Intc1·ior is hereby authorized and to lhe eyes received in line of duty during the military service of the claimant. directed to pay to Mathew 0. Regan, late of Company E, Third United States The evidence clearly shows that the claimant's eyes are in bad condition. lie Artillery, now on pension-roll for los~ of his right nrm at elbow-joint, the swears that the vision of his right eye is so defective that he conld not with that amount aUowed for loss of ::U'lll at or above elbow where artificial limb can not eye distinguish a. man from a horse at a distance of 25 feet, nor with the left eye be worn, accord1ug to provisions of act increasing pensions approved AugustA, at a distance of 100 feet. 188fi, inlitead of the rate ho has been receiving. 

There is an abundance of t-estimony, apparently of the most creditable kind, The report {by M:r. SAWYER) is as follows: showing that claimant's eye sjght ifl practically gone. 

The examining surgeon st(l.ted in liSSl that he found both eyes in a state of chronic inflammation and ulcerated, and estimated his disability at not less than one-half. The only question is whether this disability is the result of an injury recf'lived in the line of duty while in the military service of the United States, as the claimant alleges the fact to be. · The claimant himRelfswears that his eyes were sound and his sight good prior t o his enlistment. That statement is corroborated by the affidavits of his brother and his acquaintances, a well, alsol. as by several of his comrades, who swear that he had good, sound eyes when ne enlisted and until he was hurt. The only contmdictory testimony on this point is a letter, not sworn to, writ-

\ 

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3118) for tho relief of Mathew 0. Regan, have examined the same and report: Mathew 0. Regan was a. private in Company E, Third United States Artil- lery. He lost his right arm iu 1863, for which he was pensioned o.t the rate pro- vided by law. He was afterwards pensioned by special act at the rate of$30per 

montb, on the ground that the amputation is so near to the elbow-joint that it · is not possible to use the stump or to attach to it any artificial appliance, S? t~nt 

the disability is equal to an amputation above the elbow-joint. Under cx:Istmg 

general law he is entitled to the peusion he is now receiving, $30 a month. - The law approved August 4, 18SG, provides that all persons now on the pen-
1888. CONGRESSIONAL BEOORD-HOUSE. 8179 

eion-rolls, and all persons hereafter granted a. pension, who shall have lost e1ther an arm at or above the elbow, or a leg ali or above the knee, or been to- tally disabled in the same, shall receive a pension of $36 a month. The com- mittee is of the opinion that the disability is equal to an ordinary amputation above the elbow, and there can be no doubt of the fact that the arm is totally disabled. 

The bill is therefore reported favorably, ·with a recommendation that it do pass. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

SM:ITH BODKINS. 

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. I ask consideration of the bill (H. R. 

6022) granting a pension to Smith Bodkins. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Beit enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- ·thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Smith Bodkin.s, late a private in Company E, Twenty-fifth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, who is now blind, at the rate of ~0 per month. 

The report (by Mr. THO)IPSON~ of Ohio) was ren.d, as follow&: . 

Smith Bodkins enlisted in Company C, Twenty-fifth Ohio Voiunteers, United States Army, on June 10,1861, and was discharged June 14, 1865. While at Camp Chase he claims that he contracted measles, which produced sore eyes. having been expo ed to cold and wet weather during his illness. The soreness of his eyes continued after he had recovered from the other effects of the disease, and be is now totally blind. He was excused from duty on account of this disa- bility, and by some error was marked as a deserter, which charge was afterward removed. 

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that blindness was not due to military service; that claimant had measles shortly before entering the service, and that he only suffered a relapse. Bat the evidence on file proves that he was n. stout, hearty man when he entered the service; that be suftert'd with sore eyes after his discharge, and that he has been totally blind for rrumy years. He is also badly ruptured, caused by a fall on account of being unable to see. He has a family to support; is totally blind, and is in great die- tress on account of po~·erty. Your committee be ieve he is entitled to the aid be a ks for, and reeommeud that the bill be ainended by striking out the word "fifty," in the last line of the bill, and insert in lieu thereof the word" forty," 

and, when so amended, that the bill do pass. 

The amendment proposed by the committee was agreed to, and t.he 

bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with the 

recommendation that it do pass. 

SA..RA.H F. HA WK.INS. 

J.Ir. THOMPSON, of Ohio. I call up for consideration the bill (H. 

R. 508) granting a pension to Sarah F. Hn.wkins. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Ile it enacted, etc., "lJ:'hat the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place upon the pension-roll of the United States the name of Rarnh F. Hawkins, widow of Martin J. Hawkins, late of Company .A, 

Thirty•third Regiment Ohio VolunteeJc· Infantry, and who was one of the so- called "Mitchell raiders" sent out inl862 by General 0. ~L Mitchell, for certain hazardous military purposes, at tb,e rate of $24 per month, in lien of the pension now paid to her. . . SEc. 2. This act shall take effect as of the date of July 1, 1884. 

The report (by 1\!r~ Tao~soN, of Ohio) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Inva_lid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 508) granting an increase of pension to Sarah F. Hawkins, having considered the same. report as follows • Martin J. Hawkins, the husband of the beneficiary of this bill, was a sergeant of Uompany A, Thirty-third Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He enlisted August 27, 

1861; re-enlisted January l, 1864; was mustered out July 12, 1865, and died Feb- ruary 7, 1886. About April7, 1862, General P. W. Mitchell sent a. secret expedi- tion into Georgia along the Atlanta and Chattanooga Railroad, well known in history as the "l\1itchell raiders." The party was made up of volunteers from different regiments. l\1artin J. Hawkins was one of the volunteers. Prisoner of war records show that he was taken prisoner April 12, 1862; was con fined at Atlanta, Ga., June 19, 1862, where he petitioned that his life might be pared. on- November 18, 1862, he escaped. On May 19, 1869, he applied for a pension, and on December 23, 1869, was granted a pension at S8 per month from July 13, 1865, the date of his discharge, for "scurvy and debility and other results of prison life." Afterwards, on July 7,1884, his pension was increased by special act to $2-! per month. His death was caused l:;y the disease for which he was pensioned, and on the 29th of January, 1887, a pension was gmnted to his widow, the beneficiary of thi!' bill. By special legislation each one of the survivors of the party known as the "Mite hell Raider·s" has been placed on the pension-roll at $24 perinonth, · and Rachael 'Javins, widow of Samuel Slavins, deceased, who was one of the party, has also been placed on the pension-roll at the same rate, and we believe that it is only fair that this widow should be pensioned at that rate. '\' e therefore recommend the passage of the bill, with an amendment striking out the second section of the bill. 

The amendment was agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid 

aside to be reported to the House with the recoyunendation that it do 

pass. 

WILLIAM THIELDS. 

:Mr. TUR~ER, of Kansas. I ask consideration of the bill (S. 3035) 

to grant a pension to William Thields. · The bill was read, as follows: 

. Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, and hereby 

d1retted, to _Place on the pension-roll, subjectto the provisions and limitations of the pens10n laws, the name of William Thields, late a private of Company 

H, Eighth Regiment l\fichigan Volunteeriniantry. 

The report (by Ur. MORRILL) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3035) to graut a pension to 'Villiam Thields. submit the following report: 'l'he report· of the Committee on Pensions in the Senate contains a full and complete !'<tatement of the case, and your committee adopt that report and rec- ommend the passage of the bill. 

SENATE REPORT. 

· This bill proposes to place on the pension-rolls.the name ofWilliain Tbie1ds, 

late of Company H, Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. The so~­

dier enlisted August 16, 1861, and was discharged July9, 1862, on a surgcon'scer- tificnte of disability, "becaul"e of a tendency to consumption, resulting from an imperfect recovery from typhoid fever."· On July 27,1879, he mad.e application for a pension, alleging "that at Hilton Head, S.C., November 20, 1861, he con- tract.ed typhoid fever, from the results of which disease of lungs, eyes, and legs 

ensued, and said diseases still exist." · The Commissioner of Pensions rejected the claim November 24, 1885, on the ground, after a special examination- " That the disease of lungs and eyes did not originate in the United States service, but existed prior to first enlistment. and that the evidence does not show that disease of legs originated while in the service, or has continued to exist since discharge, or has disabled the claimant in a pensionable degree since the date of filing his claim therefor." The Adjutant-General's report shows that the claimant was present wit.h his company during September and October.! '61, and that he was absent on a three months' furlough from December5, 1861, and same report unt.U discharged, July 

9, 1862, upon surgeon's certificate, as before stated. The Adjutant-General also reports a second enlistment by this claimant as follows, namely: "William Thields, a private of Company A, First Regiment 1\Iichiga.n Light 

Artillery, was enrolled on the 30th day of August, 1864, at Grand Rapids, 1\Iicb., 

~ic~!~ year, and was mustered out with company July 28, 18&5, at Jack5on, 

The complainant furnishes in support of his claim t-he affidavits of Charles H. ~Iiell, J. VanHouten, Adilene Van Houten, Sophia Thields, and Emma. A. Thields, all witnesses of established credibilit-y, who testify positively to the soundness of claimant prior to enlistment. Joshua V. Noah swear<~ that his health was good; knew of no disease. This witness is strongly biased against the claimant. llenrietta Wood swears his health was good. 

Orange P. Noah "has no knowledge but that he was sound." Dr. C. M. Slawson " knew claimant since 1854; * * * was in good health; has no recollection of treating him." Da~id R. Goodman first knew claimant at enlistment in Company H, Eighth 

Michigan; thought him in average health then; heard of no complaint. Chal'ies Cross, acquainted with claimant fifteen or twenty years before enlist- ment; .was sound; was present and saw claimant examined by Dr. Shanks, and beard him pronounced sound. Dr. Herbert B. Shanks, late surgeon of EighU1 Michigan, examined all the men of that regiment who·enlisted in August, 1861, and did not accept any men affii9t~d with permanent disease of eyes or lungs. Believes from conversations witlfl claimant that he examined him and passed him as all right. 

Margaret H. Spencer, Lewis Mann, Mary Buller, Calvin L.l't1ann, John H. Van Ness all swear to prior soundness. llezekiah Fish, a close neighbor, swears claimant was able-bodied and above the average in physical strength, an expert rifleman. Maranda Fish, Lucy 

Gilmore, Samuel Gilmore, and Ira W. Barlow, in all twenty-two \vitnesses, swear to prior soundness. Mary McCabe swears that claimant had sore_and watery eyes prior to enlistment and coughed some. L. D. Kughn and John P. Kughri swear to weak and watery eyes before en- listmenthbut no recollection of cough. Claimant swears "that he did not know tbe Kug ns prior to first enlistment, and says they could not have known his condition before service." This is corroborated by T. J. Van Houten. R. 'V. Vantress knew claimant since 1855; saw him often; WW:! very stout, 

tough man; recollects no cough, but thinks his eyes had a. watery appearance; health remarkably good. Noble H. Gilmore knew claimant since 1857; worked with him; heard no com plaints, except as to his eye; eye was watery; no knowledge of co ugh. - ElizRbeth Flake swears claimant always had sore eyes and cough; eyes looked red and pimply around edges; can not be mistaken about claimant'.s condition prior to August, 1861. ('l'bc special examiner reports l\1rs. Flake as strongly biased against claimant, and unreliable.) Charles E. Wood swears that at the time the special examiner was investigating tl.tis case he heard 1\Irs. Flake boast that she had stopped claimant's pension, and was glad of it; she could not get one herself and did not propose to pay taxes to pay them to others. Joshua H. Noath: ''No recollection of claimant's having a had cough; can not say whether or not he had sore eyes, but his 'impression is' he had sore eyes before enlist- ment." 

William Nooh: ';Has no recollection of cough or lung disease; on reflection it does seem as if he had weak eyes prior to enlistment, but can not say." .James L. Mann: '' Claimant· had hacking cough, and had weak, watery eyes-was wiping them almost all t.he time. Remeinbers distinctly these disabilities existed before en- listment." 

Rev. Van tress,. comrade: " Thinks clainla.nt hltd fever on board the Vanderbilt. Saw him la.st at Hilton Head; sat up with him. Had diar:r:hea. at Annapolis soon afterep..listment, sore eyes and cough, too; fever afterwards on the Vand~rbilt; Dr. ·wooster said so. Do not think his eyes any worse in the service than before." - David R. Goodman, comrade: - "Claimant remained in good health until about a monthB.fterarrivalatHilton Head. *. * * No knowledge of sore eyes and cough while in service." Charles Coon was in claimant's company, and believes his disease was con- tracted in service and line of duty. T . .r. Vanhauten swear<~ "that he saw claimant in January, 1862, when here- turned home on furlough; he was ~ciated, had sore eyes aad weak lungs." This affiant is fuJly corroborated by the affidavits of Adeline Vanhauten, Hen- rietta 'Vard. Sophia Thield, Emma Thield, L. D. Kuhn, John P. Kuhn, and Margaret Rpence. Claimant and wife swear that he was not examined for enlistment at second service, ani! that hA enlisted to ss.v~ Jraft. • The claimant explains that he was informed that his discharge from former service would not exempt him from military duty, and rather than be drafted he volunteered, but was not examined. His wife swears that she sent claimant medicine for eyes and cough in second service ,and that she received ninety-six letters from him, in which he would speak of his condition . The condition of claimant since discharge in 1862 is fully shown in the tes- timony on file in the case, and shows that he has been disabled fo.r the perform- ance of manual labor for one-half.of the time. · Dr. W. D. Jenkins, examining surgeon at Kirwin, Kans., under date of Feb- ruary 20, 1881, rates claimant at "tot.al, and thinks he should be allowed $8 per montn for disability resulting from typhoid fever.': C. J. Holmes, examining surgeon, Gaylord, Kans., rates him at one-half total, 

$4, for disease of eyes. The case was specially examined by examiners in the field. Henry A. Peed, 

special examiner, is of the opinion "that the cln.im, so far as relates to disease of eyes, should be reject~d. and that for disease of the lungs is without merit,'~ 

but recommends further examination. - 1\I. G. Wright, special examiner, .. thinks the claim for diseuse of eyes should be rejected." • 

--
8180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. · AUGUST 31, 

0. H. St. John, special examiner, "believes claim one of merit, and recom- mends submission for lung disease, resulting from typhoid fever." C. W.Akey,special examiner: "The claimant seems to be a very worthy man, and tells a straight story and a very probable one, 111 "' * and every person with whom I talked about his case fully sustains the evidence. * * "' I believe the case to be a worthy one, and recommend further examination." C. E. Foot, special examiner: ''The case seems to be meritorious as to dis- ease of lungs," and recommends further examination. Your committee are of the opinion that lung disease as a result of typhoid 

fever is clearly established, and recommend the passage of the bill. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass, and the House bill of similar title was ordered 

to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it lie on the 

table. 

ELLEN KELLY. 

ltfr. LANE. I o.sk unanimous consent to take np the bill (H. R. 4820) 

granting a pension to Ellen Kelly. This is a bill of Mr. SPRINGER, 

who being in the chair had not the opportunity to call it up when his 

name was reached. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etr., That the Secretary of the lnteri~r be, and is hereby, au- thorized and required to place on the pension-roll the name of Ellen Kelly, 

widow of Jobu Kelly, late a private in Company F of the Nineteenth illinois Volunteer Infantry, and grant her a pension according- to the provisions of the pension laws of the United States. 

The report (by Mr. LANE) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

4.820) for the relief of Ellen Kelly, beg leave to report: , The committee have considered the same and find, from the evidence in this case, that John Kelly, the husband of the cotnplainant, enlisted August 10,1862, in Company F, Nineteenth Regiment Dlinois Volunteers. and was honorably 

discharged June 18,1865, because of injuries received in the service, and he died of his injuries September 26,1806. It appears from the evidence that the soldier was wounded in battle on two different occasions, and for which wounds be was receiving a pension at the time of his death. '.rhe claim of the widow for a pension was rejected by the Pension Department on the ground that the death of the soldier was not due to his military service. This is a case of disagreement among doctors. Alexander Moore testified that he knew the soldier; that he was in the same rifle-vit when the soldier was wounded; that the soldier came home by reason of his wounds and was greatiy disabled by said wounds; that the direct cause of the soldier's death was the wounds so received in battle. 

Charles Murray, also a comrade of the-soldier, testified to the same facts, and that the cause of death of the soldier was the wounds received in the service. Rose Murray testifies to the same facts, and this testimony is sustained by many otl1er facts in the record. Dr. B. F. Stanly, of Springfield, Ill., a physician of tbirly-six years' standing, on his oath states that he knew the soldier, and gives it as his "medical opinion" that the death of the soldier was caused by 

wounds received in the service. The testimony of Charles Ryan, the attending physician of the soldier, tends to support the testimony of Dr. Stanly, aforesaid. _ It is !Luther in evidence that on one occasion, wheu the soldier wRS returning to his home from his company on a furlough, he was injured in a collision of his train on the Lafayette and Indianapolis Railroad, and in the opinion of R. W. O'Ferral, M.D., this injury was the cause of his death. Dr. Stanly has filed a subsequent affidavit in which he materially modifies his former statement in regard to the death of the soldier. Yet the fact remains that the soldier died from injuries, and he received injuries in the service in battle for which he was receiving a !)ension at the time of his death, and the testimony fully shows that from the time he received these wounds he was in continued failing health, 

which would eventually result in death. The injuries that it is claimed he received in the collision with the train were received about two years prior to his death. Now, the committee in consider- ing the caUI!le of death of the soldier would be required to. take into consider- ation all the injuries received by the soldier that might cause his death. While it is true that he was returning home on a furlough, which it is shown was grante<i for the purpose of permitting the soldier to go home in order to vote, there is also some testimony tending to show that the furlough was granted on account of sickness, and that the soldier understood that the furlough wa.s so issued; but whether that is so or not, it is certain this furlough could prop- erly have been issued on the J;:round of sickness of the soldier, for testimony 

shows that the soldier was severely injured prior to the issuance of this furlough, and was then suffering from the same, and the commttee think that the family of t-he soldier should not suffer because the furlough was issued on one ground and not on another; and if the furlough had been granted on the ground of sickness, upon which it could have been granted, then there would be no ques- tion but that all the injuries received by the soldier would be received in the line of duty, and such injuries having caused his death, the widow would be entitled to a pension. -The comm1ttee therefore think that the i.qjuries from which the soldier died were received in line of duty, and are the result of military service of the sol- dier, and therefore report the bill back with a recommendation that the bill do pass. 

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan (during the reading of the report). We 

know from whom this bill emanates, and I move that the further reading of the report be dispensed with. 

Mr. KILGORE. I think we had better have the report read. 

The reading of the report was concluded. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

RICHARD JOBES. 

Mr. VANCE. I call up for consideration the bill (H. R. 8748) to increase the pension of Richal"d Jobes. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enaded, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and be is hereby au- thorized and directed to increase the pension of Richard Jobes, late of Company 

D, Sixteenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteers, and to pay him a pension at the rate of $36 per month from and after the passage of this act. 

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

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8748) to increase the pension of Richard Jobes, have had the same under consid- eration, and beg leave to submit the following report: The beneficiary named in the bill, while serving as corporal of Company D, 

Sixteenth Regiment Connecticut Volunteers, lost his left fore-arm in the battle of Antietam. At t_he.first a!fiputati~n a nerve was tied in with the ligatures so as to ca_nse excrumatrng pam, and 1n a year afterward 9: second operation was determined upon, and the nerve was cut out for some d1stance above the point of amputation. This operation, however, failedtogiveany relief. and, as shown 

by the medical evidence on file, the pensioner has since then suffered very great pain on account of said wound, and is for a greater part of the time unable to !-ake any exercise or do anything that tends to create heat without great sufier· lD~. 

Recognizing this aggravation of the loss of the arm, Congress po.ssed a bill, 

which was approved July 5, 18154, increasing Jobes's pension to 1130 per month, the amount then provided by law for the atnputation of an arm at or above the elbow. Since that date the pension for the last-named disabilities has been in- c~eased to $36, the amou~t asked for in the accol!l-~a.nying bill. As the pen- SIOner can not be further mcreased under the proVISions of the general pension la~s, and as with in?r~asing age his. condition becomes m<;>re serious, your com- mLtte~, full.Y reco~mzmg the propr1ety of the former ac_t10n of Congress in in- crea.smg h1s pensiOn beyond the rate fixed for uncomplicated amputations re- port favorably on the bill, and recommend its passage. ' 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

ELIAS H. HALL. 

Mr. SHIVELY. My name was passed over as I could not find in the 

House the bill I desired to call up. I would now ask unanimous consent to call up the bill (H. R. 10224) granting a pension to Elias H. 

Hall. 

The bill was read, as ioliows: 

Be. it enacted, ~tc., That the Secretary of th_e Interior be, and he hereby is, au· thor1zed and duected to place on t.he pens10n-roll the name of Elias H. Hall late a private in Company F, Seventy-third Regiment Indiana Volunteers, su~ ject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws. 

The report (by Mr. MATSON) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. l02U) granting a pension to Elias H. Hall, have considered the same and now report: 

The claimant enlisted as a private in Company F, Seventy-third Regiment Indiana Volunteers, August ll, 1862, and was honorably discharged February 

1, 1863. He filed application for pension April 8, 1877, alleging that between 

Nashvl!-le and Ga:llatin,_Tenn., in D_eceJ;tlber,l852,_while D;larching by an engine some cmders gotmto h1s eyes, causmg InflammatLOn, which caused loss of sight; of left eye and partial loss of sight of right eye. Subsequently he filed declara- tion alleging diarrhea and sunstroke. - The claim was rejected for piles, diarrhea, and sunstroke on the ground of no record. The claim as to the eye trouble wa.s rejected on claimant's state- ment to special examiner that all his trouble in the service was a little cold, and the eye t~ouble for which the claim was undergoing special examination, says the Pension Bureau, "creates a strong presumption against the present claim." The evidence shows conclusively that the claimant's eyes were sound prior to and at the time of enlistment. · Matt Boyd, who was lieutenant of claimant's company, and was present at the t.ime th accident occurred, testifies that" claimant got some cinders in his eye, causing loss of sight of left eye and partial loss of sight of right eye." 

Regimental Sur~eon Brenton testifies to treatment a.t that time for intlamma,.. tion of eyes, and, if recollection correct, was sent to convalebcent camp at Gallatin, Tenn. Samuel Barrett, a member of claimant's company, who was with him at the time, says that- " Some time in the month of December, 1862, near· a place called Gallatin, 

Tenn., cinders from a locomotive blew in his eyes when in the line of duty. This I know by being with him at the time, and took a handkerchief and wiped his eyes." 

Lewis Lemert, a member of said company, testifies from personal observa,.. tion while in the service that" he (claima.nt) sustained an injury to his eyes." There is much other testimony as to the incurrence of the disability of claim- ant's eyes, and as to the continuance of said disability up to the present time. After a cmeful examination of the voluminous evidence in the case, we are of the opinion that the preponderance of the testimony is favorable to the claimrh!'blll~ we therefore subm.it a favorable report, and recommend the passage of 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

MRS. SHERIDAN. 

Mr. LYNCH. In the absence of Mr. MoRRILL, who reported the 

bill, I ask unanimous consentSe,,eral JI.IE1'r1BERS. Oh, no; regular order. 

Mr. LYNCH. Let me finish. To take up bill (H. R.lll13) ~ranting a pension to Mrs. Sheridan, widow of the late General Sheridan. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. I object. 

The CHAIRMAN. The regular order is demanded. 

PHILLIP KOPPLIN. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. I call up tor consideration the bill (U. R. 

2556) for the relief of Phillip Kopplin. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roiJ, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Phillip Kopplin, late a private in Company A, First Regiment Missouri Cavalry Volunteers. 

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

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2566) for the relief of Phillip Kopplin, have had the same under consideration and submit the following report: 

Claimant enlisted August J, 1861,as a private in Company A., First Missouri Cavalry, and was discharged September 17, 18rt. In application filed Decem- ber 22, 1885, he alleges that while in line of duty, at Hlack Water Creek, Mise souri, about December, 1861, he incurred hernia of right side by being thrown 

forward upon the pommel of his saddle while his horse was jumping said creek. ·The claim was rejected on the ground of no record and insufficiency of testimony. 

Prior to cnlistmentthe claimant's soundness and freedom from hernia. is fully proven. 

Louis Kolb, who was a pri'"ate and corporal in claimant's company, says: "Tfiat claimant became disabled by being thrown on the pommel of his saciJ 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 81.81 

dle, as he was informed: that he rema.ined in company quarters two or three mouths. For about three weeks after be became disabled he wait-ed upon said soldier, taking his meals to him and cooked for him. He did not know what his trouble was, but learned that it was hernia of right side, and he has every reason to believe that the soldier's statement was correct, as heal ways regarded him as a truthful and reliable man." Jacob M. Gruen testifies- "'.rhat he served in the same company and regiment, and knows that claim- ant, in an attack by guerrillas, was thrown forward against the pommel of his saddle by an unexpected jump of his horse, receidng injuries which disabled him to such a degree that he b,ad to be conveyed in the company team for the rest of the march of his command from Black Water Creek, Missouri, to Fort Leavenworth, Kans., where he was confined in his company's quarters for months, totally unfit for any kind of duty." 

Joseph Ibach and Henry J. Sterlin, members of said company and regiment, 

testify substantially to the facts stated above. The medical examining board found right inguinal hernia extending into scrotum as large as a goose egg, and gave him a total rating for hernia of right 

side. 

Chru:les Schlufferth testifies- " That he sold claimant a single truss March 17, 1874, and several years previ- ous had sold him a single truss, but he can not fix the date, as it was sold for cash, and no account was made of the time." The committee believe that the evidence is sufficient to establish the fact that the disability was incurred in the Army and in line of duty, and that it contin- ues to the present time. We therefore submit a favorable report, and recom- mend the passage of the bill. · 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

ELIZA N. AIKEN. 

Mr. WE.A VER. I desire to call up for consideration the bill (H. R. 

10856) granting a pension to Eliza N. Aiken. I want to say that I 

call up this bill, which is Mr. MASON's bill properly, although she 

served in that part of the Army that I had the honor to serve in. This 

lady is very old, about seventy-one years of age; and I call up the 

bill for Mr. 1\f.Asox, as his name was passed. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That a pension is hereby granted to Eliza N. Aiken, at the rate of $100 per month, to commence from the passage of this act, and the Sec- retary of the Interior is instructed to place her name upon the pension-roll in accordance with the provisions of this act. 

The report (by 1\fr. L.ANE) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on In\"alid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H.. R. 10856) granting a pension to Eliza N. Aiken, submit the following report: Mrs. Eliza N. Aiken, aged seventy-one years, a resident of Chicago, Ill., served 

throughout the late war as a. Government nurse. She entered the service in connection with the Sixth Regiment Illinois Cav- alry Volunteers in the fall of 1861, and served with it until January,1862. From January to July,1862, she was on duty at St. 1ark's hospital, Padu- cah, Ky. From July to November, 1862, she was at the hospital of her regiment, Sixth Illinois Cavalry, stationed at Memphis, Tenn. In November and December, 186~1 she was on duty at the Ovington general 

hospital, Memphis, Tenn. From January, 1863, to January,l865,shewason duty as matron at the Adams general hospital, 1\femphis, Tenn. From January to June, 1865, she was on duty at the Washington general hos- pital, Memphis, Tenn. Throughout her service she was most untiring in her efforts to 1·elieve the sufferings of sick and wounded men, and took care of them as if they were her own children. She soon became known as "Aunt Lizzie" among the soldiers, and thousands of the men who were nursed back to life by her never knew her correct name. Mrs. Aiken was not only a skillful nurse, but was fully as helpful to the men under her care by her cheerful and hopeful manner and by inspiring them with new courage and ambition. She sacrificed her own comfort, from the beginning of her servil-e to the end, to secure that of the disabled soldiers, and her effort-'> in their behalf were never relaxed until all had been done that possibly could be <1one, or until she was obliged to cease work from physical exhaustion. Thousands of men who were e.ble to return to their homes or to resume their places in the field owed their lives to her devotion. In J une,l865, she returned to Peoria, Til., and immediately upon being relieved from duty and from the responsibilities she had borne, was taken sick and for months was confined to her room, completely worn out by hard service in the hospitals. 

Though her health was never fully restored she has devoted herself inces- santly to works of charity up to the present time, and goes about relieving the unfortunate and distressed, notwithstanding her advanced age, daily. In view of the facts of this case the committee recommend that said bill be amended by striking out all after the second line of said bill and inserting the foJiowing in lieu thereof: "That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and di- rected to place upon the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Eliza N. Aiken, late nurse of Sixth Regiment of Illinois Cavalry Volunteers, and pay hera pension of$25 per month." And that said bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment was agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid 

aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do 

pass. MRS. R. S. HORTON. 

Mr. WHEELER. I call up the bill (H. R. 8) to restore Mrs. R. S. 

Horton upon the pension-roll. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, ~tc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, em- po~~red and directed to repla~ or restore M.rs. R. S. Horton, widow of Capt. 

William .H. Seaton, late of Company D, Twenty-sixth Ohio Volunteers, upon the pension-roll. 

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

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to who:n was referred the bill (H. R. 8) to restore Mrs. R. S. Horton to the pension-rolls, have carefully examined and considered the same and the papers connected therewith, and find that the pro- posed b~n~ficiary of:t.he bill, the said Mrs. R. S. Horton, was lawfully married to Capt. Wllham H. Seaton, who was duly enrolled as captain of Company D Twenty-sixt~ Ohio Volunteer Infan~ry, on the 8th day of June, 1861, and w~ bonorably discharged from the serv1ce on the 6th day o! December, 1862, having resigned,on surgeon's certificate of disability occasioned by chronic diarrhea. contracted in the service and in the line of duty, from which diseru~e he ulti- mately died on September 28,1864, at Jackson, Mich. That in the mean time, to wit, on the lOth day of December, 1863, said Capt. W. H. Seaton filed with the Pension Office his application for an invalid pension. After his death his widow, Rachel Seaton, tiled an application for pension in her own right, completed the same in due conformity with the requiJ:ements of the Pension Office, and was pensioned from t.he 11th day of December,1863, at S20 per month, under certificate 63644. That on the 14th day of August, 1866, said Rachel Seaton remarried with one Jrunes H. Horton, and by reason of said remarriage her pension ceased on said day. That there was, as the fruit of the former union, a minor child, Sarah L. eaton, who was pensioned at S"!2 per month from the date of her mother's remarriage, to wit, August 16, 1865, to the 18th day of August,1877, the day on which Sarah L. Seaton became sixteen years of age, when all pensions on account of the services and death of said Capt. 

William H. Seaton terminated under the law. The committee find further tbat the second marriage of said Rachel Seaton- known thereafter as Mrs. R. S. Horton-was not so happy or fortunate as she had expected it would be; that her husband, James 1\f. Horton, finally deserted and abandoned her, having for seven or eight years prior to said abandonment failed / to provide for her support and maintenance, and during all of which time was left dependent upon her own exertions as a milliner and the assistance of friends, for the maintenance and support of herself and her minor son, whom she bad borne to said James 1\I. Horton: that after said abandonment had continued for more than four years, said 1\Irs.·R. S. Horton applied for and obtained a divorce from said James.l\I.Horton, under the laws of the State of Alabama, as will fully appear from the copy of the decree of the court., which the committee incorpor- ate with and make a part of this r eport. _ 

Decree of di\"orce. The State of Alabama, Morgan county. In cl1ancery. Sixth district, northwestern chancery division. March term, 1887. RachelS, Hor- ton, pm ami Lelia S. Wilder, vs. James 1\I. Horton. No. 220. 

This cause coming on to be heard at this term, was submitted upon the bill or complaint, decree pro confesso, and testimony as noted by the register; and upon consideration thereof the court is of the opinion that the complninant ia entitled to the relief prayed for in her said bill. 

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the bonds of matl'i.mony heretofore existing between the complainant and defendant be, and the same are hereby, dissolved, and the said Rachel S. Horton forever divorced from the said James 1\I. Horton for and on account of voluntary abandonment, and that she have-the custody1 maintenance, and education of the child the re- sult of the marriage and descnbed in the bill. No alimony is prayed for in the bill or allowed, it not appearing that the defendant has any property: on the contrary itappearing from the proof the complainant has been for years supporting herself and children. lt is further ordered that the said RachelS. Ho1·ton be, aud she is hereby,per- mitted t.o again contract marriage. It is further ordered that Lelia S.Wilder, t.he next friend, pay the costs herein to be taxed, for which execution may issue. 

March 10, 1887• THOMAS COBBS, Chancello1·. 

The State of Alabama, Morgan County. In chancery, at Somerville, Ala. 

I, William E. Skeggs, register in chancery for the sixth district of the north- western chancery of the State of Alabama (composed of said county of Morgan) do hereby certify that the above and foregoing papers, from 1 to 17 inclusive, contain a true and complete copy of the record in a certain cause pending in court of chancery for the district and division aforesaid, wherein RachelS. Hor- ton by next friend, L. S. Wilder, complainant, and James 1\f. Horton, defend- ant. Decided at the March term, 1887, of said court as the same remains of rec- ord in my office. In testimony whereof! have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of office this the 11th day of March, 1887. WM. E. SK.EGGS, Register. 

The committee find further that the said Mrs. R. S. Horton is now in extremely straitened circumstances, forced to support herself, the daughter of tiri!t hus- band, the hereinbefore mentioned Sarah L. Seaton. now a widow, and her minor son, the fruit of her second marriage ; and that, believing that the before-recited decree of divorce from said James M. Horton re:;:toted her to all the rights and privileges she enjoyed as the widow of Capt. William H. Seaton, she applied to the Pension Office to be restored ta the pension-rolls, as will more fully appear from her application to the honorable Commissioner of Pensions, which the committee desire to incorporate in and make part of this report: 

"DECATUR, ALA., March TO, 1887. 

"Sm: The undersigned, formerly borne on the United States pension-rolls un der No. 63614 an<1 name of Rachel Seaton, as the widow of 'William H. Seaton, late captain of Company D, Twenty-sixth Ohio Volunteers, at the rate of ~20 

per month. 

"That she was dropped from said pension-rolls on or about the 14th day of Au- gust. 1866, for the reason of subsequent marriage of the undersigned. "That said subsequent marriage has been declared null and void, and a decree of divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, has been granted the subscriber, and a certified copy of which said decree is herewith forwarded, and to which reference is made. 

•• That the undersigned now applies to be returned to the pension-roll of the United Smtes and for all the benefits of the acts of Congress in her case made and provided. "RACHEL SEATON HORTON. 

" To the Hon. COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS, 

" Washington, D. C. 

"THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Morgan County: 

"Before me, William E. Skeggs, register in chancery in and for said county, 

personally appeared RachelS. Horton, w bo, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say that the facts hereinbefore related are true, and that. she makes this application for the purpose of restoration to the pension-rolls of the United State:o; and I certify that she is the identical person she represents her- self to be. 

''Given under my hand and seal of office this March 10,1887. "WM. E. SKEGGS, Register." 

The committee find, finally, _that the said application of said Mrs. R. S. Horton to be restored to the pension-rolls has been rejected by the Pension Office upon the ground that the cohabitation of the second marriage precludes the office from entertaining the proposition. . After careful and impartial consideration of all the facts connected with the case, the committee are clearly of the opinion that, in point of fact, the divorce of said Mrs. R. S. Horton from her second husband, James M. Horton, bas the e.ffect of restoring her t«> the position she was in before the said second marriage was contracted; and that, while the strict construction and rigid administra· tion of the laws which very properly obta.in in the Pension Office may justify the action of said office in refusing to restore the said Mrs. R. S. Horton to the pension-rolls, she ishin equity, entitled to such restoration as the effect of her lawful divorce, and t e committee therefore report the bill back without amend· ment, with the recommendation that it do pass. 
. 

• 

8182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD==HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pasa. 

HE~RY .IJ... RAMSAY. 

Mr. WILKINSON. I call up the bill (H. R. 11197) for the removal 

of the political disabilities of Henry A. Ramsay. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted bv the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates oj 

.America in Conuress assemhled (two-thi1·ds of each Bouse concurri11g therein), Tbat all political disabilities imposed upon and incurred by Henry A. Ramsay, of Maryland, by virtue of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, be, and they are hereby, removed: 

The Clerk proceeded to read the following report: 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11197) for the removal of the political disabilities of Henry A. Ramsay, imposed by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, report as fol- lows: 

The committee recommend the passage of this bill. Henry A. Ramsay was an officer in the Navy of the United States and after- wards accepted service as an officer in the navy of the Confederate States. He asks Congress to remove the political disabilities imposed upon him by. the fourteenth amendment. 

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan (be-fore the reading of the.report was concluded). I ask that the further reading of that report be d.iepensed 

with. Nobody objects to the removal of these disabilities. 

By unanimous consent, the further readi,ng of the report was dispensed with. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

1\I.ATILDA SPANGLER. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 

10106) to place the name of Matilda Spangler on the pension-rolL 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Matilda Spangler, widow of John E . Spangler, deceased, late a private in Michigan Battery, Captain Lam- phier, commanding. 

The report (by 1\fr. YoDER) was read, as follows: 

John E. Spangler, late private of Captain Lamphier's battery Michigan Volunteers, enlisted January 17, 1862, and died in the hospital at Louisville, Ky., 

while in the service, May 6, 1862, of typhoid fever. John Spangler was married to Matilda Anderson September 4, 1860, which is proved by <Jopy of the record of marriages in Hancock County, Ohio. She applied for;penslon in the Pension Department, which was grante<!' October 23,1872; was dropped from the pen- sion-roll July 21, 1877, by reason of remarriage. 

:Hy her own affidavit and those of other <'.reditable witnesses, which are made and appear in this report, your committee are satisfied that the marriage was contracted through misrepre entation and fraud. On October 22, 1872, she mar- ried tichael Zellers, who told her immediately after said marriage that he mar- ried her to cut herout of her pension; that her brother had done some business for him, had charged him too much, said he robbed him, that he was bound to get even with him, and that immediately after said marriage said Zellers was guilty of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty towards her; that shew s afraid of her life to live with him, and said marriage contract only lasted three months, when she procured a divorce, and that Michael Zellers soon after mar- ried another woman, and that she has never been remarried since and is unmar- ried still. 

1\Iichael Zellers had put all his property out of reach of law, which deprived her of alimony and left her de lltute. She is now old and entirely destitute, 

helpless, and without any means of support. The precedents are numerous where pensions have been allowed by special act of Congre s where the former husband had died in the service, and your committee after a full investigation and carefully considering the evidence here- with submitted and all the circumstances connected with this case, have come to the conclusion that justice demands that she shall be restored to her former pension, and therefore recommend the passage of the bill. 

STATE OF OHio, Hancock County. ss: Before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said county, person- ally came Matilda Spangler, who, being first duly sworn, says: That she resides in Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio; that her age is forty-four years, May 15, 

1888; that she is the widow of John E. Spangler, who was a private in Captain Lamphier'~ (Michigan} battery during the war of 1861 and 1862, and while in the Union service he died at Louisville, Ky., on :\lay 6, A. D. 1862; that on ac- count of the services of the said John E. Spangler she, as the widow of John E. Spangler, was pensioned about September, 1864, at the rate of S8 per month ; that while !iring with said John E. Spangler there was born to them one child, E:ffa Spangler, who is now married, and with whom affiant now Ih·es, but she being in poor circumstances, said affiant is obliged, although in poor and very delicate health, t-o earn her living by her own work. This affiant received said pension of S8 per month from 1864 t-o October 22, 1872, at which time she wa.s married to one Michael Zeller, and her pension at that date, to wit, October 22, 

1872, went to her daughter until said daughter was sixteen years old, which was July 22, 1877, after which no pension was received. Affiant says that after said marriage with Michael Zeller, he, said Zeller, told her immediately after said marriage that be married ber to cut her out of her pension in. order to spite o.ffiant's brother, W. H. Anderson, who is a lawyer. Affiant says that said Zeller told said affiant immediately after said marriage that affiantls brother bad dooe some business for him, and had charged him too much; said he Jlad robbed him, and he was bound to get even with him; and affiant says immediately after said marriage that Zeller was guilty of extreme cruelly toward her, and gross neglect of duty, and his conduct toward her was such that it was dangerous to live with him; that she only lived with him three months; he said he had accomplished his purpose, cut her out of her pension, 

got even with her brother, and that her brother might now support her, and other terrible treatment. Affiant onJy lived with him three months and tnen brought suit for divorce, to which petition for divorce said Zeller put in no answer or no appearance, and o n H1e 28th day of May, 1873, in Findlay, Hancock County. Ohio, she was di- voroed from him, and had her name changed back to Matilda. Spangler by de· cree of the court. '.rbis occurred about seven months after marriage. This Michael Zeller shortly married another woman near Blu:fft.on, Allen Cou nty, Ohio, and shortly after died. Affiant has never been married since, and is now, assaid before, an unmarried woman. Affiant furth er says that im- m ':}dia,tely after said marriage to said Zeller h e p ut wha t little prope rty he h ad 

in his father's name, so as to cut her out of alimony. Affiant had not been ac- quainted with him hut a few weeks before her said marriage, and be represented that be was well off and would care for her and her child. Aftiant ays she has nothing in the world to support beT except her own exertions. Affiant says she is in delicate health, poor and needy, and that said marriage w ns fraudulently made on the part of said Zeller to wrong her, and has done so . . Affiant says her parent!-! are both dead and left her no property. Affiant says: (1) In short, that she is an unmarried woman ; (2) she was left a widow by the death of John E. Spanfr:'ler, a loyal soldier of the Union Army 

while in the United .__ tates service. He died in the service at Louisville, Ky.; 

May 6, 1862; (3) that slle received a pension from 1864 to October 22, 1872 ( bow- ing she was entitled to same); (4) that she was· by fraud deprived of her pen- sion, etc. ; (5) affiant s:1ys she thinks it the duty of the proper authorities to rigllt a. wrong. MATILDA SPANGLER. 

Sworn to and subscl'ibed before me and in my presence this251hday of May, A. D . l888. 

[sEAL.] ORl\1 A. BALLA..Rt>, 

Notary Public. 

STA.TE OF Omo, Hancod; Catmty, ss: 

Before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said county, person- ally came Mary Ullery, who, being first duly sworn, ays she is the sister of ~Iatilda. Spangler, widow of John E. Spsngler, who was a. private in Captain 

Lamphier's (Michigan} battery, and who d ied while in the Army, at Louisville, Ky., on May 6,1862. Affiant says she is a widow and resides in Findlay, Han- cock County, Ohio, and is aged fifty-six years; that her circumstances are such that she is not able to take care of her si ter, M.atilda Spangler; that Matilda. 

Spangler drew a pension of 58 per month from time of her husband's death un- til from May 6, 1862, to October 22, 1872, at which time she was married to Michael Zeller; that she lived or tried to live with him about t.hree months and on account of his treatment toward her was obliged to separate, and ~ about seven months after her marriage obtained a divorce from him. Affiant says that immediately after said marriage of her sister to said Zeller, affiant asked Zeller why- he treated her sister so cruelly, and said Zeller re- marked be never expected to live with her when be married her. He had g ot even with Bill (meaning my brother, W. H. Anderson) and he might ta1ie care of her. He said my brother had swindled him once, and he married her to cut her out of her pension, so my brother might take carE' of her. He said a great many otller things about her and my brother which I can not now recollect. Affiant says her sister was never married afterward, and now is an unmarried woman; that he is poor in health and circumstances, and while she lives 

with her daughter has to work for her support. Affiant says she thinks that her sister ought certainly to be restored to her pension out of which she was defrauded. 1\IARY ULLERY. 

1

:SV:orn to and subscribed before me and in my presence this 25th day of May, 

[sEAL.] ORM A. EALL~llD, 

Notary Public. 

STA.TE OF OHIO, Hancock County, ss : 

Before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said county, person- ally came William H. Anderson, who, being first duly sworn, says: '.rhat he is the brother of Matilda. Spangler, who is the widow of John E . Spangler; that aid John E. Spangler, with whom affiant was well acquainted, was a pr·vate in Captain Lamphier's (Michigan) battery during the rebellion. Affiant resides in the city of Findlay, llancock County, Ohio, is fifty-one years old, and a law- yer by profession. That shortly prior to the marriage of my si ter, l\fatilda 

Spana;ler, to .Michael Zeller, in 1872, said Zeller came to my office and counseled me in reference to his former wife's estate, the said Zeller being a. widower at time of his marriage to my sister, Matilda Spangler. I charged him for counsel and he paid it, but said he would get even with me for same before he died. He was an eccentric fellow and I had to watch him. He at one time followed me and drew a hatchet on me ; of cour e I retreated. The marriage to my sister was unknown to me until it was afterward consummated. A.ft.er his marriage he told me he had got even with me, that be had succeeded in cutting my sister out of her pension. He was guilty of extreme cruelty and failed to provide for her, and damned me to get her a divorce (which I did). 

She was receiving $8 per month as pen ion, as the widow of John E . Spangler, who served his country from some time in 1861 to 1862, and died in the service, for which she was receiving pension. And that this eccentric man, by his fraud practiced on her, only lived with her three months, and stopped her pension. Affiant says it \s a wrong that, in his opinion as an attorney, ought by Con- gress to be rhrhted by bill to restore ber to pension-roll. Affiant says his said sister is an unmarried woman, has never manied since divorced from said Zeller. That she is poor, needy, and anx.ious that Congress 

will take favorable action in her case. Of course I could detail further, but deem it unnecessary. - W. H. ANDERSON. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me and in my presence this 25th day of l\lay, A.D.1888 . [sEAL.] OR!I A.. B.A.LLABD, 

Notary Public. 

P. S.-For her character and standing in comm unity, I refer to Hon. E . S. Williams, Hon. George E. Seney, and Hon. S. S. Yoder, of House of Representa- tives. W. H. ANDERSON. 

The bill wa.c:; laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

MARY CALVERT TRUXTUN. 

1\Ir. WL.'\E. I call up the bill (S. 2275) granting a pen ion to Mary 

Calvert Truxtun. 

The bili was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc. , That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on tbe pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the nrune of Mary lvert Truxtun, widow of the late Commodore William T. Truxton, of the United ::>tates Navy, and pay her a pension at the rate of $50 per month; said pension to be in lieu of her 

present pension. 

Mr. CHEADLE. In order to save time, I ask that this bill go over to 

be considered along with the bill which has already been postponed this 

evening. Mr. WISE. What is the gentleman's objection to this bill? 

Mr. CHEADLE. I object to all these cases where it is proposed to 

pension persons at a greater rate than that authorized by law. 

Mr. WISE. Have you read the report? 
1888. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8183 

Mr. CHEADLE. It does not make any difference about the report. 

1\lr. WISE. You intend to object to the bill anyhow? 

Mr. CHEADLE. I object to all of them. 

Mr. WISE. Then I ask unanimous consent that this bill take the 

same course that was agreed to. in regard to the bill of the gentleman 

from Indiana [Mr. STEELE]-tbat it go over until to-morrow with the 

understanding that it be considered in the House. 

Several M.El\1.BERS. All right. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia asks unanimous 

consent that this bill be reported to the House with the recommendation that it be made a special order in the House to-morrow immedi~ 

ately after the bill increasing the pension of Mra. Elizabeth G. Scott, 

and under the same conditions. Is there objection? The Chair hears 

none. Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 1 wo.u1d like ·to understand the effect of the order just now 

made. 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill was laid aside with a recommendation 

that it be reported to the House with the understanaing that it be made ·a special order for to-mOITow, immediately .after the bill of the gentle- man from Indiana [Mr. STEELE]; thatihe previous question be con- ,sidered as ordered and that there be fifteen minutes' debate on each 

side. 

"'Mr.l3RECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. On whnt day 'is ·the biD to 

come up? 

The ·CHAIRMAN. 'To-mOITow. , '1\fr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Xentuch.:y. i do not like to object where 

'there seems to be unanimous consent---

The CHAIRMAN. When this bill is reported to the Rouse the gentleman will have an opportunity t-o object. The recommendation of 

the Committee of the Whole can not control the action of the House. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. What I wish to suggest is 

that as Friday night is given to pension bills and the day session of 

Friday to private claims, it seems to me the time of the House on other 

days should not be taken up with private business. To-morrow we may wish to consider the sundry civil ap.J>ropriation bill. 

A 1\IEMJIEB. We did not consider the P:ni vate Calendar -to-day. 

The C H.A.IRM.A.N. The ·committee of the Whole simply 'l'eports its 

recommendation to the House; and when this bill comes "Qp .in the 

House it can then be determine(J. what order shall be made. 

:REMOVAL OF POLITICAL DISABILITIES.. 

1\Ir. WISE. As the bill called u:p by me has not been acted upon, I 

take the liberty of asking the consideration of the bill (H. R. 10621) 

to remove-the political disability of John H. Parker, of Virginia. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vir,ginia asks to call up a 'bill for the removal of political disabilities. What is the number of 

'the report? · 

1\'lr. WISE. We do not need any Teport in this case. I will :aend 

up the bill iri a moment. 

Mr. WHEELER. While the gentleman is :finding his bill, I ask 

consent to call -up another bill for the-removal of political disabilities. 

.ulr. CANNON. I have staid here now two or three nights waiting an 

opportunity to call up a bill-. -

1\lr. WHEELER. It was stated on -the other side that there is no objection to passing these political disability bills. 

ltfr. CANNON. I will not o~jectifi can have the rignt also to call 

up a bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama asks to call up 

for consideration a bill for the remo-val of 'Political disabilities the title 

of which will be read. 

The Clerk xead as follows: 

A bill (S. 3178) to remove the political disabilities of William L. Bradford. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the present consideration 

of this bill? The Chn,ir hears none. 

The bill wns read, as follows: 

JJe it enacted, elc., That-the political disabilities of William L. Bradford, late an officer in the Na'-y of the United States, arising under the fonrteenth amend- ment to the Constitution of the United Stat-es, be, and the san:te are hereby, re- moYed. · 

The report (by Mr. CULBERSON) is as follows: 

The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered the Senate bill No. 3178, to remove the political disabilities of William L. Br11dford, recommend that the bill tlo pass. 

The bill. was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

l\Ii. CANNON. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a little bill--

Several MEl\IBEBS. Regular order. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Some of us have been waiting here a long time to 

have our bills considered. 

Mr. CANNON. Why did you not object in the case of the gentle- man from Alabama? 

.Mr. ~ER. I got my bill in during a hiatus. 

BETSEY A. 1\IOW.ER .• 

Mr. YODER called up the bill (S. 2838) granting -an increase of 

_pension to Betsey A. 1\iower. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary ofthe Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized nnd directed to increase the pension •of Betsey A. 1\Iower, widow of the late Joseph A. 1\Iower, a major-geneTal of United States Volunteem in the late war for the Union, to the Tate of $75 per month. -

The I'epo.r_t (by Mr. FBE.J."cn) was re.:'l.d, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2838} 

granting a.ninerease of pens.ion to Betsey A. :1\Iower, have had "the same under consideration and beg leave to submit the followingTeport: The r eport of the Senate Committee on Pensions is as follows: "The applicant is the widow of lUaj. Gen. J ames A. Mower, who died in 1870 of disease contracted in the service. The widow was pensioned at $30 per month and this was increased to S50 by a special act of Congress. She has two childr~n dependent upon her, one of which has been an inmate of an insane asylum for many years. ·• The widow's husbandJeft .her no estate whatever, and she therefore asks Congress to increase her pension to $100 per month. "In view of all the facts the committee recommend an increase "to $75 per month." 

The meritorious services of Generall\Iower, who served his country for nearly a quarter of a century in all grades from that of a private in the war with Mex- ico as well as the dependent condition of his widow, afford ample justification for'concurrence in the recommendation contained in the above-quoted report. The committee therefore retnrn the bill with the Tecommendation that it do 

pass. 

Mr. YODER. As iili.ere will be objection i;o this hill, I ask that it - take the same coUTSe with the two bills which are to be considered the 

first thing in order on Tuesday morning ned, after the reading of the 

Journal, _fifteen minutes to be allowed for debate on each side. 

Several MEMBERS. The other bills went over until to-morrow. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not object to Saturday, 

but I do object to the bill being set fur Tuesday of next week. 

Mr. YODER. Let the bill be Teported to the Rouse with the rec- ommendation that :it be postponed until to-morrow immediately after 

the special order is disposed of, fifteen minutes to be devoted to debate on either side, :w ben the previ01IS question is to be considered as ordered. ~Ir. BRECKTNRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not object :to Saturday, 

but I will object, as I have already st:rled, to any day being set apart 

nex.t week until after the·sundry civil _appropriation hill has been disposed of. ~ 

There was no objection, anc1 it was ordeTed .accordingly; and the bill was laid aside to be reported to the Rouse with the recommendation 

that it be called rup Saturday immediately after the special.order is disposed o~ fifteen minutes of debate being .allowed on either side, when 

the previous question is to be considered ns ordered. 

ORDER OF BUSIYESS. 

Mr. NICHOLS. I was not present when my namewas called, and 

I ask, by unanimous consent, to call up a bill. 

.Mr. CANNON. I demand the regular order. 

JOHN GERMAN. 

Mr. ADAMS called up the bill (H. R. 3504) for -the .relief of John 

German. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary offue Interior be, and that he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the peusion-roll, subject to the provisions of the pension laws, the name of John German, father of Philip G~an, deceased, 

formerly of Company G, Twenty-fou:rth illinois Infantry. 

The report (by M:r. LANE) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on In valid_Fensions, to whom was :referred the applicntion of John German, father of Philip German, deceased, late of-<Jompany G, Twenty- fourth Illinois Volunteers, for father's pension (No. 26.i515), submit the folio winy 

~~: - '£his case was .rejected May 18, 1886, upon the ground that at the date of the soldier's death the claimant was not dependent upon him for his suvport. This soldier enlisted June 30, 1861, and died in .Andersonville prison May 24, 

1864 (grave No.l3!(:)), Tbe1irst wife of claimant and mother of soldier died in 

Germany, April 1, 1813. In 1855 1he claimant was living in Chicago in a little house of his own on leased ground, on Korth Franklin street. He exchanged this house for a piece of sandy land in Lake OouL ty, Indiana, in 1863, where he made a home unt.ill878, when he sold it and bought a small house and lot in the village of Dalton, Cook County, Illinois, where he :is now living. He had one horse, a wagon. o.nd two cows in 1878, a. few farming utensils, this being all the personal property he owned. Claimant had three boys in the war of 1861, all of whom died. Philip did more toward the support of his father than any of the other children. He was a finisher ina fw:nitnre store in Chicago before the war, earning about $7 per week, one-half of which he gave to his father for his support and tb.at of the family. While in the war Philip sent money from time to time for his supportr, at one time a $20 gold piece by express to Ainsworth Station. Ind.; at another time he sent $50 to his father 1"rom Centerville, Mo., by Lieut. George Wolf, of Company C, Thirteenth Illinois Ca-valry, and also sent money tobis!ather at different times from Murfreesborongh, -Tenn. John German, son of the claimBL.t and brother of Philip, formerly of Com~ 

pany C, Thirteenth Tilinois Cavalry, died of lung disease con.tracted in the serv- ice. Carl, another son of the claimant and brother of Philip, who was in tho servioe,iB dead. Claimant's second wife is dead. Dr. A.. J. Sparks, of Kensington, Cook County, Illinois., testified in 1883 that the claimant was old ,and feeble and unable to snworLhimself; that he had at- t-ended him as his phy ician at different times; that he had a. small house and a lot of from J.OO-to 200 :feet in the village of Dalton, bnt did not think, from the · appearance of things, that he had any means for his suvport. Carl Sprink, of Riverdale, Cook County, .illinois. testified in 1884 that claim- ant's income, while he lived in Lake Connty, Indiana, was not over $:'5 per an- nnm. Henry Weatherman i.e tilled to the same effect. Other witness.cstestified 

that after claimant .moved to Dalton, Cook County, Tili no is, he ,e:uned a scanty 

living by working in his garden and by hauling swill to the !neighbors from the distillery in his one-horse wagon ; that part of i.he time he was too feeble to work; that his neighbors were in the _habit of plowing his garden for him every spring without charge. 
8184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 31, 

'This old man furnished three boys for service in the late war, all of whom are dead; the claimant's second wife is dead. He has eked out a miserable exist- ence since his helpmate and children have been taken from him; is now sev- enty-seven years old, in feeble health. The only question presented by this record is the dependence of the father on the son, the soldier, for support. It is not material now to know whether or not at the time of the enlistment the father was depending on the soldier for support or not, but it is certain from the evidence now on file that if the soldier was now Jiving the father would be depending on him for support, and this being within the rule adopted by this committee,.we therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to 

the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

LUCY WAGOR. 

Mr. A.LLEN, of Michigan, called up the bill (H. R. 10256) to place 

the name of Lucy Wagor, of Hillsdale, Mich., .on the pension-roll. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secre tary of the Interior be, and is hereby, author- ized to place the name of Lucy \Vagor, of Hillsdale, 1ich., mother of l\lartin 

Wagor, deceased, late of Company I, First 1\fichigan Sharpshooters, on the pen- sion-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws. 

'.rhe report (by Mr. CHIPMAN) was read, as follows: Tb~ Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10256) to place the name of Lucy ·wagor, of Hillsdale, Mich., on the pensionroll, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to submit the fol- lowing report: 

Lucy Wagor is the mother of Martin Wagor, who enlisted in Company F, First Regiment Michigan Sharpshooters, November 15, 1862, promoted to sec- ond lieutenant of same company June 3, 1863, and was killed in battle before Petersburgh, Va., June 25,1864. Her claim for pension has been rejected because the soldier left surviving him n. widow, who wa-s entitled to and did receive a pension until her· remarriage, about two years subsequent to the soldier's death. The soldier left no minor child surviving him, and therefore all pensions on account of his death ceased with the widow's remarriage. The endence shows that upon the death of his father the soldier had the care of the claimant and her other children, and continued this charge after his mar- riage, about n. year before his enlistment. Aft-er his marriage the claimant con- tinued to live with him, and ever thereafter until his death recei ~ed her support from him. She has no income, and is therefore dependent upon others for sup- port. Her age is now seventy-five. 

Congress has on many occasions granted relief to the old and dependent par- ents of soldiers who are excluded from the provisions of the pension laws by 1·eason of the son's marriage, and believing from the evidence before us that this is a highly meritorious case, entitled to favorable consideration, your com- mittee return the bill with the recommendation that it do pass, amended, how- ever~ by striking out all after the word "late," in line5,and inserting therein in- steaa the words "second lieutenant Company F, First Regiment Michigan 

Sharpshooters, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws." 

The amendment of the committee was agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. · 

MARY HOOPER. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa, ca11ed up the bill (II. R. 10504) granting a pension to Mary Hooper. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, author- ized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limit- ations of the pension laws, the name of Mary Hooper, widow of the late Isaac llooper, lieutenant Company I, Eighty-fourth Pennsylvania Volunteers. 

The report. (by ltlr. YoDER) was rea-d, as follo~s: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

10004) granting a pension to Mary Hooper, submit the following report: 

Mary Hooper is the wife of Isaac Hooper, late first lieutenant of Company I, 

Eighty-fourth Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. Isaac Hooper was mustered into service December 7,1861, and resigned or was discharged February 28,1862. 

He filed his application for invalid pension April 3, 1871. but died before it was completed. He died January 17, 1884. The widow filed her application for pension November 17, 1887. Isaac Hooper was discharged from service for chronic rheumatism and pulmona1·y consumption, from which he suffered for the past four months, as stated in his discharge. • Claimant alleges that he contracted typhoid fever in the service; that it was followed by weakness and numbness in his limbs, which continued to increase until his right leg has become almost useless. The fact that t-he disease was incurred in the Army and in line of duty has not been controverted. The claim bas been specially examined and the reports of special examiners are on file, and was finally submitted to the board of reviewers, and was rejected on the groond of alleged cowardice. It appears from the evidence on file iliat the com- mand wus !'Uddenly attacked and fired upo n by our own troops in the night. The sudden attack caused a stampede among the men, and that this officer jumped into the water and made his way to a small island in the river , where he remo.ined all night, and it is claimed contracted the disease of which he af- terwards died. The evidence of prior soundness, of the contraction of the disease in the Army from which he died, and in the service, is not disputed. The case was r ejected 

St>lely on the ground that because this soldier, who had only been in service a short time, and whose men were raw recruits and had never been under fire, were suddenly fired upon in the night-time by our own men, his men were stampeded and became demoralized, not knowing where the fire came from or what forces they had to oppo e, and among the rest this lieutenant attempted to save his life by jumping in the water and making his way to the island. That he suffered from the disease he contracted in the Army, subsequently and constantly , is not denied, a.nd that his death was caused by the disease con- tracted in the Army is plainly shown. That there WllS a g reat deal of dou bt existing with regard to the justice of this claim by the board of reviewers is 

evident by the voluminous testimony and three or four special examinations that have been made on the case, and it is, to say the least, a grave d oubt, as it is expressed by a majority of those who have e:xa.m.ined into the case, both special examiners and reviewers, as to the justice of rejecting the claim. A.fter a due investigation of the evidence on file your committee have come to the conclusion that this is a case of merit and that the widow is entitled to a pension, and recommend the passage of the bilJ. 

The.t:e being no objection, the bill was laid a."!ide to be reported to the 

House with the recommendation that it do pass. , 

SHADRACK W. :BROWN. 

Mr. BACON called up the bill (II. R. 8993) for the relief of Shadmck 

W. Brown. The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it e1tacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, snbject to the pro,·isions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Shadrack W. Brown, late of Com- pany D, One hundred and seventy-sixth Regiment New York Volunteers. 

The amendment of the committee was read, as follows: 

m~~'thl:~,after the word" volunteers," in line 7, the words" at the rate ofUO per 

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

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8993) for the relief of Shadrack W. Brown, having carefully examined into the sa roe, do respectfully report: That the said Brown was duly enlisted and mustered into the service of the United States as a private in Company D, .One hundred and sev-enty-sixth New Yorl!: Volunteers, in October, 1862, and was honorably discharged t 'ovember 1&>3, at the expiration of his term of service; that he was captured at :Bro.shea~ City_, La., in 1\Iay, 18'.3, when his compan:v was in action, and was paroled andre- stored to duty in Aug ust, 1863, and continued to serve until he was di charged. The claimant testifies that at Bonnet Carre, La., on October 15, 1863, while at target practice under orders from his officer, he was injured by a piece of a cap which struck him in the left eye. This statement is corroborated by the affidavits of several of his comrades who were present when the accident occurred. The statements of members of his family and reliable neighbors show that he had no impert: ction of vision at the time of his enlistment, and that immediately upon his return and uniformly thereatler and for many years before he applied for his pension, he staled that he had escaped injury in the war exc.ept from a piece of a cap striking him in the eye, which had impaired his sight. 'l'his injury resulted in the loRs of the sight of his left eye shortly after his return, and later on in the loss of the sight of his right eye. He is now and has been for years entirely blind, and is poor and dependent upon relations and friends for his support. His case was rejected at tho Pension Office because there was no record or the accident in the ''var Department, ami because the coromandin~ officers of his company do not remember the accident. The report of the AdJ utant-Gen- eral shows that his company and regimental record are not on file for October, 1863. 

The medical examiners nnd"medicnl referees report hi mas totally blind. The disease which occasioned tWe blindness is stated by them to be traumatic cata- ract, not senile or congenital catar ct. 'l'his establishes that the cataract was the result of a direct injury of such a kind as he testifies to. The claimant has always been estimated by his neighbors as a hard-working, truthful man who faithfully endeavored to support himself and his family by his own labor. Your committee are satisfied that he is entitled to a pension, as asked, and report the bill back with the recommendation that it do pass, amended, how- ever, by inserting after the word" volunteers," in line 7, the words "at the rate of S40 per mouth." 

Mr. BACON: I ask tha.t that amendment be disagreed to, as I am satisfied it is a clerical error both in the bill and in the report. The 

bill provides that the man shall be placed on the pen ion-roll subject 

to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, and I do not see why :ilo should be required to take any less. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. This report was made by me, and I am somewhat 

surprised at the conclusion of it. I think the amendment ought not 

to be adopted, but that the man should be remitted to the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws. 

The CHAIRMAN. The report sta.tes this man is totally blinu, and 

under the 1aw he wou1d be entitled to a larger pension. 

.Mr_ BACO~. I do not knowwhether toalarger or smaller pension, 

but it is evidently a clerical error. It is not in the same handwriting 

with the bill, and has evidently gotten in there by mistake. The gen- tleman from Michigan [Mr. CHIPMAN] is of the opinion that it is a clerical error. The amendment was disagreed to. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to 

the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

IRENE RUCKER SHERIDAN. 

:M:r. BINGHAM: called up the bill (H. R. 11113) granting a pension to Irene Rucker Sheridan. The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, el.c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitn.- tions of the pension Jaws, the name of Irene Rucker Sheridan, widow of tho late Philip H. Sheridan, General of the United States Army, and to pay her n. pension, from the passage of this act, at the rate of $3,500 per annum, 

The amendment of the committee was read, as follows: Strike out "$5,000" and insert "$3,500." 

Mr. CHEADLE. I wish to ask the gentleman in charge of the Invalid Pensions Committee whether or not the claim of Mrs. Sheridan 

has been sent to the Pension Office and rejected? 

Mr. CHIPMAN. Of course not. Mr. CHEADLE. I shall object to the consideration of this bill tonight; and I object to it especially for this reason, that two weeks ago 

I called up a bill in this House which had been considered by the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. It was reported adversely because of 

the fact that the claimant had not gone to the Pension Department, 

when the pensioner showed by bis affidavit that the injury occurred 

when he was alone and that it was physically impos ible to obtain the 

legal status that was required in the Department. The House refnsed 

to grant that old veteran-more than seve~ty-two years of age- ·a pen- sion. Now, I want to know whether in this Congress there shall be one rule established for the poor and another and different one for the 

rich; whether the humble pensionel'S in this country are to have on• 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8185 

rule by which their pensions are to be granted and the rich and those 

high in official life are to have another and different one? 

Mr. BINGHAM. I have no disposition to enter into any kind of 

controYersy with the gentleman from Indiana as to this claim. But 

under a general statute of course the only way that Congress can consider the claim of an officer who has died from wounds, or injuries, or 

disease contracted in the line of duty in the service of the United 

States, is first its rf'jection under the pro j01·ma rules of the Pension 

Office, and after the party has fully complied with the pension laws. 

That is where the claim has been rejected. 

I am not familiar with the particnl:ars of this case to that extent as 

to be able to determine that in all respects the general principles laid 

down by the law have been positively carried out; and that the heirs 

or the widow of General Sheridan have fully complied with the statute, 

which, however, is fully and thoroughly familiar to all of those who are 

identllied with the regular service, and after the rejection of the claim 

by the Department to come to Congress as the dernier ressort. But I believe that to be the case here. , 

I have no remark or reflection to make upon the case the gentleman 

from Indiana cites. I have only to state that this bill has gone through 

the Pension Committee; that all the requirements of the statute have 

been complied with, and that it is before the Honse to-night on an 

amendment to grant to the widow of the distinguished soldier the pension named. I trust the gentleman will znak~ no objection to the passage of the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that under the rule 

adopted this evening it is the privilege of each member, when his 

name is called, to ask for the consideration of a bill. The only question is upon the motion to adopt the amendment recommended by the 

committee. 

M:r. CHEADLE. I feel compelled to object to the bill, unless a 

quorum acts upon it. I want to say that if the1·e is in this tribunal of 

the people, this court of dernier nsaort, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania terms it, to be established one mle to govern us and by which 

we are to grant pensions to the widows of the musket-carriers and an..: 

other and different rnle to the widows of the officers of the regular 

Army and the officers of the volunteer Army, then I want to know it 

and to know it right here and now. 

There never was a greater outrage perpetrated in the history of legislation by the American Congress than w ben this Honse of Represen tatives refused to grant a pension to Joseph W. McConnell, who must 

have been at least forty-five years of age in 1861 when he enlisted in 

the Fifteenth Indiana Regiment at the very outbreak of the rebellion, 

and incurred a disability when he was alone, and he set forth the facts 

in an affidavit, his character being certified to by the leading citizens 

in the county in which he lives, and I stated here under the solemnity 

of the oath, administered to me in that area, that I had been acquainted 

with him since 1862; that he was a man of the very highest integrity 

and personal character, and the Honse denied the rigb t that he claimed 

and that he bad a right to claim, to cure the defect in his testimony, 

and send him to the Pension Office.to be pensioned according to his 

disability at the rate fixed by the general law. I repeat, therefore, 

that if there is in this country one system of procedure to be applied 

to officers of high grade and another and different one to be applied to 

those who carried the musket, I want to know it. 

Mr. Chairman, in this country we claim that equality before the law 

is the birthright and inheritance of all our citizens. If this mle ot 

class legislation is to apply and if we shall have another and a different rule for men in whatever rank or grade in the service, then let us 

clearly and definitely settle that question now. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Why can not yon call up the bill to 

which you refer and pass it now? 

Mr. CHEADLE. Because the House rejected it upon the request 

of a gentleman who is now a candidate for the office of governor of 

the State of Indiana. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me ask the gentleman if he thinks he remedies that wrong by objecting in this case? 

Mr. CHEADLE. I say this, sir, that if there is one rule by which 

we are to judge of the pensionable qualifications of one citizen and another rnle for another citizen, I ask this House to establish that rule 

now. Let us, and let the country, know what it is. I want to say 

that it was not the major-generals, nor the brigadier-generals, nor the 

colonels, nor the captains that saved this country in the time of itR 

trouble. It was the musket~carriers, the men of the muskets and 

knapsacks, who did the work. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. I rise to a question of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. What is before the committee? The gentleman 

has objected to the consideration of the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the only question before 

the committee is the motion that the bill be laid a~ide to be reported 

favorably to the Honse, the first question being on the amendment. 

1\Ir. CHIPMAN. Is that the pending motion? 

The CHAIRMAN. It is. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. Does the five-minute rule apply in this case? 

The CHAIRMAN. It does not. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. It seems to me that we are occupying the entire 

time of the session with this discussion and doing nothing. I hope 

the bill will be allowed to go over if we can not have it acted upon tonight. 

Mr. BINGHAM. I want to say to the gentleman from Indiana that 

I take no issue with him upon the question that he raises; all I ask is 

that this bill shall have a fair hearing before the Honse on its own 

merits. 

Mr. CHEADLE. I object to the considetltionofthe bill in the absence of a quorum. I have no objection to its going over to a full Honse 

with a reasonable time granted for debate and for. the consideration of 

the bill, at which time I wish to be beard upon the question of special 

pension legislation. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow the bill to go through 

this evening? 

Mr. CHEADLE. Not without a constitutional quorum. 

M~r. BINGHAM. Then the gentleman is to call no quorum? 

Mr. CHEADLE. I shall do so if necessary. 

Mr. BINGHAM. That being the case, I am perfectly willing to ac--

cede to the gentleman's request that the previous question be considered ordered and the bill go over to be considered i.n the House 

immediately after the reading of the Journal to-morrow morning, with 

fifteen minutes allowed on each side for debate. 

Mr. COX. I would not ask for debate; nobody will object to the 

WL • 

Mr. KILGORE. I want to enter an objection here. I will not 

agree to fixing any time out of its regular order for the consideration 

of the bill. 

Mr. BINGHAM:. Does the gentleman object? 

Mr. KILGORE. I will resist the passage of the bill, and intend to 

do it. If you want to call it up to-night let it take its course. I will 

not agree that it shall be fixed by this committee to-night for consideration to-morrow or on any other future day. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas o_bjects. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Is the purpose of the gentleman to block all legislation in connection with the matter? As I understand it, this is not 

a question for present consideration, but that the matter shall go over 

to a full Honse. The gentleman from Indiana calls a quorum, and the 

purpose is to reach the consideration when a quorum is present. For 

that reason I have asked that the bill go over until to-morrow morning, because we never have a quorum at these evening sessions. What 

is the purpose of the gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. KILGORE. My purpose is to beat the bill, and there is no misunderstanding that language. 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill is before the committee for consideration. Objection has been made to the unanimous request asked by the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. CANNON. ! 'understand the gentleman from Indiana and the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania can agree that it shall go over to a full 

House, but that the gentleman from Texas gives notice that he desires 

to beat the bill and will make a point of no quorum. If it is to be 

considered here to-night a quorum will be demanded. If the gentleman from Texas deSires to take that position evidently we all understand there is no quomm present. 

Mr. WISE. fr the gentleman will allow an interruption, I understand the gentleman from Indiana to demand a quorum. 

Mr. CANNON. He is willing that it shall go over to a full House. 

Mr. BURNES. So is the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. CANNON. If the gentleman from Texas is willing to agree t-o 

thatMr. BINGHAM. In view of that, will the gentleman from Texas 

indicate any time, any reasonable time, when he is willing to have it 

considered? 

Mr. KILGORE. Take your own course with it. 

M:r. BINGHAM. I would request that to-morrow morning, or any 

other morning that the gentleman would name, be fixed for its consideration. I want the matter to go to a full Honse. I am sure the gentleman will not object to a full discussion of the question before a quorum 

of this bodv . 

.Mr. KILGORE. The legislation is not so very important, I take it, 

that it can not pursue the regnlar course. If the gentleman in charge 

of the bill prefers to submit it to the House to-night, I give notice that 

I will employ all the methods that are placeu at my command by the 

rules to defeat it to-night, and I will not agree that this body shall refer 

it to the Honse to be considered to-morrow or any other day. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. I move that the bill be passed for the present, and 

that it retain its place on the Calendar. 

M:r. KILGOH.E. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if that will 

leave it just as it was before it was called up to night? 

The CHAIRMAN. It will leave it in statu quo. 

Mr. KILGORE. Then I have no objection. 

Mr. BINGHAM. I am perfectly willing that it shall remain as it is. 

The CHAIRMAN. 'fhe gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CHIPMAN] _ 

asks that this bill be laid aside wit.bout being acted on anu retain its 

place on the Calendar. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 

it is so ordered. 

, 
8186 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD=HOUSE,, AUGUST 31, 

CHABLES JUNOT. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I ask consideration of the 

bill (H. R. 10687) -granting a pension to Charles Junot. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted. etc., ~hnt the Secretary of the Interi01· be, and he nereby is, au- thorized and directed to place on the peDBion-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Charles Junot, of Louisville, Ky., who served in the Florida. war under the name of Tom J()nes. 

The report (by Mr. BL:a;s) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill(H. R. 10687) grant- ing a pension to OharlesJunot., have considered the samennd t·eportasfollow-s·: The claimant, under the name of Thomas Jones, was a privatein Capt . .Alexander Jernigan's company of Florida Mounted .Militia from March 2, 1840, to November 14, 1840; and the regiment did duty in the Florida Indian war. A land-warrant was allowed this claimant for the services rendered, his identity being established in that claim. 1 He is now sixty-six years of age and in needy circumstances, being also phys- ically disabled. 

His case would fall within the provisions of the general-service pension bill for the survivors of the lndian wars from 1832 to .1842, favorably reported by 1 this committee at the present session of Congress. ' 

Your committee .recommend the allowance to the claimant of a. ser:vice pen- sion, and therefore report the bill back recommending its pa sage, amended, howe>er, by triking out, in lines 4 and.J>, the words" subject to tlle provisions and limitations of the pension la~" und inserting a.t the end tDf the bill the 

words" and pay him a. pension at the rate of $8 per month." 

Mr. KILGORE. Do I understand the report to state that this soldier served in the Indian war of 1840? 

:Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentncky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KILGORE. My recollection is that there was no war going on 

in 184.0. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDG E, ofKentuc1:y. The gentleman should know, 

he is old enough. 

Mr. WHEELER. He is not .f.am.ilia;r with ihe history of the country~ 

Mr. CARUTH. I do not know the motiv.e of the gentleman from 

Texas in objecting to this bill. This old .man, who is now upon the 

verge of the ,grave, very aged and decrepit, ~erved the country in the 

gress bas ever granted n. pension to a person who was not in tho service 

of the United States. · ' • 

Several MElllBERS. Oh, yes. 

J\lr. GUENTH.E.R. I rise to a pa,rliamentary question. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

1\Ir. GUENTHER. Has objection to the considemtion of tills bill 

been withdrawn? 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill is before the committee for consideration, and the gentleman can only make his objection effective when 

the motion is made that this bill be laid nside to be reported to the 

House with a favorable ,recommendation. The question is as to the 

adoption of the amendments. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. T.he question is now on 1ayina the bill aside to 

be reported to the Honse with the recommendation that it do pass. 

'l~he question was put; ancl the Chairman stated tbat the ayes seemed to .have it. 

Mr. KILGORE. l: call for a division. 

The committee divided; and there were-ayes 26, noes J. 

.Mr. KILGORE. No quorum. 

Mr. CARUTH. I desire to say from this action here to-night that 

so far~ the gentleman from Texas is concerned his objection does not 

proceed from that pure motive whicb ought to inspire a member of this 

House; and because he 'has the advant.age of me in the fact that there 

is no quorum 'here to-night I will withdraw the bill with the consent 

of the House and let the responsibility of the loss to this poor soldier 

of the United States rest where it belongs. 

Mr. XILGORE. When I desire to be specially lectured for my conduct as a member of Congress [cries of "Regular order!"] I will call 

on somebody to lecture other than the gentleman from Kentucky. If 

1 want.bim to l ecture me I will invite him to do so. I am re ponsible 

for my .action; and if any gentleman wants to object to it and make it 

a personal matter he can do so. 

The motion to witbdmw the bill for the present was agreed to. 

Florida war; the eport of the ~ommittee-shows that fact. And after J.A.COB PITNER. 

we have given ·pen ions to those w.ho carried the .flag of their conn try M.r. BROWN of Ohio if tCa1J up ;the bill (S. 2371) granting a :pen- ill the recent war of the rebellion and in the war with Mexico, why ·sion to Jacob Pitner · 

a .poor old soldier who ~erved the country anterior to that time should ' The bill was read · as follows: 

be .denied this eha::ity in his ·Old age is a thing W:hich I can not under- Be itenaded, etc,, T~at the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is he1·oby, au- stand. I know this man well. I have known hrm for years. I .know thorized and directed to place on the pension-mlls the name of Jacob .Pitner, his condition. I know that as an act of charity he deser>es this pen- late primte in C~mpa.ny K~ O?e l;lunru·ed and ~in~ty-second Reg~ent of Ohio 

sion; and he deserves it for his services-to the conntry. · Volunteers, subJect to the llmitatiOns and res~ICtJOns ·of the pensiOn laws. 

Now, this .report shows that this ca e has been regularly through the The repo:t (by .Mr. THO :UPSON, of Ohio) was read, as follows.: 

Pension Office. The soldier served in that war. His claim and his ~he comm1tt~e adopt and make part hereof the repo~t of the Senate Com- . b 1 fr T sh uld b" t nnttee on Penswns, and recommend the passage of the bill. pai_>e~s .are ap nght, and why t e gent eman om exas o . o aec '.Dhe Senase report is as follows.: 

to 1t IS a thing tb.at ~can not :nn~erstand.. I ask the reason wny there [Senate Report No. !:GO, Fiftieth Congress, first session.] 

should be any obJeCtlOn to t~:ns bill for ~IS poor old m~n. . . . The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (8. 2371) granting Mr. KILGORE. I take 1t, Mr. Cha.l.TIIlan, that this discusSion IS a. pension to Jacob Pitner, have examined the same. and report: · out of order The claimant was a. private in Company K, One hundred and ninety-second 

Th CHA.IR. ""'A ·N It 18• not. The bill is b'efore the .committee for Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 1t appears from the evidenee of an eye- e . .l\.LL\. • witness that about the 15th of 1\lay, 1865, be was kicked by a. mule in the head consideration. and,breast; was knocked -down and. trampled upon; remained d.n.sensible for 

JIJ.r. KILGORE. I say if the soldiers who served in that war and s~veral hours .. ~e ~as tre~d in the quarters of the regiment, b~t not in ho.s11 th ars reVl'ous to the late war deserve a pension there ought to p1tal, for such ~nJuries, partially Tecovered from them, buli was discharged m a e We P . , September, 1865, as unable to perform duty. be a general law applJing to all of them. A few men ought not to be He suffered much pain, and the wound in the crown of the bead, occasioning 

singled out and .~mecial favors "ranted to them in ~ch a way. Be- a deep scar, was the cause. of much ner~ous dera:ng":ment. He was not.able~o . • ~r . . b h Ind' · lB40 · 't do manual labor of any kind from the time of hts discharge. He rema.med In s1des! I am ill earnest ill saYJllg t ere was no tan war ill ' 1 this condition until1873, when he. was attacked by partial paralysis ofthe leg'S, was ill 1836. and shortly afterwards became blind. 

Mr. CARUTH. I am willinO' to give the gentleman his way about . ~oth lay and medical testimony trace the dis~ase of the li~b~ to the.original ~1- "fi t , 0

d · t , ' 1..~-ty · , [L ht J InJury as the probable cause. As to the loss of s1ght the phystma.n certifies that that, and S~Ll.l>..e out o: Y. ~n m.ser t~ -.SIX. aug er. it must be caused by some "intercrania.llesion," as there is no evidence of any :Mr. KILGORE. I Willlll.SlSt upon my obJectiorr. externaldiseaseoftheeyes. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Kentucky. As I understand the facts I A.lthough there mal" not be techni~Uy or med~cally a tra~ea~l~ .connection 

k , h' t' f b H I kn th' shown between the dtsea es of the cla.J.mant and hts present dtsabtlittes, the rea- do not want to~ e up t e Ime 0 t e ouse. ow ~o mg spe- son of objection, yet we conclude from the whole history of; the caBe that these 

cially about thiS case. I took advantage of my name bemg called to disabilities are the result<~~ of the injury received by him in the service and in 

do an act of courtesy to a colleague who is vigilant in the interest of the line of duty. He is now nearly sixty years old, very poor, can not walk · · I think ·r f: · d fr T will think without assistance, and totally blind. Tile di.'!ability is perma.nent, and he is .his con t1t":lents. . ~ m_y n~n. om ex as ' a mo- very nearly as helpless as when he was first injured in 1863, in the Army. ment be Will see that this lS a JUSt C1.aun. We recommend the passage of tile bill. 

Mr. KILGORE. Let it go over .for the present, and I will look into The bill was laid aside to be reported t.o the House with the recomthe .case. mendation that it do pass. 

Ur. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. The facts are that the Committee on Pensions have reported a general bill which covers this case. 

There was a war going on in Florida ever since the gentleman was 

born, and that was long before 1840, until the Indians who were not 

got rid of by being killed were transferred to the West. Now, this 

soldier ser>ed in that war and will come within the terms of the general law if that bill is pas ed. The po ition of the gentleman is simply this: that an Ret of justice to a cla s of persons not being performed 

ought to prevent an act of justice to a single person in that class. I 

nardly think that my friend will take the position that because we do 

not do justice to one hundred and fifty persons we ought not to do 

ju tice to the oue hundred and :fifty-first persOD. Mr. ADA.M . I notice from an examination of the bill that this 

party was n. pr.ivate in "Capt. Alexander Jernigan's company of Florida mounted militia." It does not state that be was in the l"ervice of 

the United States. He might have been, as I am not familiar with 

the history of that Indian war, anq neither do I know ~Whether ConCYRUS MILLINS. 

:Mr. BUNNELL. I askforthecon iderationofthe bill (B;. R.l0258) 

to place the name of Cyrus 1\1illins, of Ogden Centre, Mich., on the pension-roll. 

The bill was read, as foTiows: 

Beit enacted, etc., That the Secretnry of the Interior is hereby authorized and 

directed to place the name of Cyrus .Mill ins, of Ogden Centre, Mial.l., late a pri- vate of Company B, Fourth Michigan Infantry Volunteers, on llie _pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws. 

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

Claimant alleges that in July, 18G2, he contracted h emorrhoidg, His claim 

bas been rejected on the ground that the certificate of disability, upon which 

discharged, sets forth the existence of the disability prior to enlistment. 

The record shows that claimant enlisted May 16, 186l, in Company B, Fourth 

Regiment Michigan Volunteers, nud was dischnrged for disability us above 

stat6d April 11, 11163. The captain of the company certifies under last-given date that Cyrus .Mill ins 

is a brave man and has been a. good soldier. but has become un.fi.~ted for military duty. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8187 

Lieut. Orrey S. Bnrrett, in April, 1866, testifies that soldier was attacked with camp life, and in an affidavit filed December 11, 1886, he testifies substantially bleeding piles a.t Harrison's Landing, and soon after sent to hospital; was more as above. or less disabled therefrom after his return from hospital until discharged. A transcript from the records of Edgar County, Til., shows that the cause of 

The same officer, in subsequent affidavit, states that he was very intimate the soldier's death was general paralysis, and this certificate is signed. by Dr.. with 1\Iillins be fora enlistment, and knows that he was sound at that time; did H. S. Bell. . not complain of any disease dur.ng the first year of his service, and was an In her petition praying t.hat a pension be granted her claimant states that her 

able-bodied and active man from time of joining the command to the close of claim was unjustly rejected on the ground that her late husband's death was not the Peninsula campaign. due to his military service, for he was severely wounded in the left leg, causing Dr. A. l\1. Wilber testifies to prior soundness, his enlistment with claimant, amputation of said limb, and was also wounded in the right leg and through b.i.s 

and the latter's disability from dysentery while in the service. body; that a few years before his death his right knee seemed to have become 

There are a number of affidavits, in addition to those above referred to, of disjointed, and that he was unable even to dress himself; that she is dependen~ 

neighbors and cozru·ades, showing conclusively that claimant. was free from upon her own labor for support, and is paralyzed in her right side. 

hemorrhoids at enlistment; that he contracted diarrhea about the time of the This claim was recommended for admission by the legal examiner and re• battle of 1\Ialvern Hill, which resulted in the disability for which the pension is viewer of the Bureau of Pensions, but was rejected by the medical referee. 

claimed. The affiants are persons of unquestioned veracity, and many are of From all fact-s in the case it .appears there can be no doubt that the soldier's 

ltigh social standing. death was caused by di5abilities incurred in the service, and that his widow is 

!;urgeon French, who made the adverse record in the case, makes oath that entitled to a pension. 

he was not acquainted with the soldier prior to his enlistment; in fact, did not Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill. 

know him until a short time prior to his dis barge. Th bill 1 'd "d t b t d t th H "th th The committee regret that the claim can not receive favorable consideration , e was a1 as1 e 0 e repor e 0 C ouse WI e recomby the proper bureau because of the record adverse to the same, The evidence mendation that it do pass. 

filed in rebutter is unusually strong, and fully convinces you.r committee that Mr. CHIPMAN. I move that the committee rise and report its an injustice has been done claimant by the surgeon who, according to his own t" h · b"lls h H 

affidavit, knew nothing of the case until within a few weekB prior to the date of ac IOn on t e various 1 to t e ouse. 

his certificate. The motion was agreed to . 

. The bil~ is therefore reported fav-orably t~the House, with the recommends.- I The committee acco·rdingly rose; and Mr. CLEMENTS having taken 

t10n that lt do pass. . ihe chair as Speaker pro temp01·e, Mr. SPRINGER reported that the ComThe ~ was ~ aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mittee of the Whole House, having had under consideration the Private 

mendation that 1t do pass. Calendar, had directed him to report sundry bills with various recom-

:1\IRS. SARAH J. 1\I.A.RTIN: mendations. . 

1tir. BURNES. I call up the bill (S. 2871) granting a pension to Mr. CARUTH. Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a parliamentary inMrs. Sarah J.1tiartin. quiry. Just now, in Committeeof the Whole, having called up a bill 

The bill was read, as follows: for consideration, I withdrew the call. Of course the bill retains-ita 

place on the Calendar, does it not? Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the- pension laws, the name of 1\:lrs. Sarah J. Martin, widow of 

Samuel Martin, deceased, late of Company H, of the Sixty-fourth Regiment Dli- nois Volunteers, who was pensioned under certificate numbered 43906. 

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

The committee beg leave to repott that they have considered t-his casa, and 

adopt the report made in this case by the Senate committee as the report of this 

committee, and recommend that this bill do pass. 

[Senate Report No. 1541, Fiftieth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2871) p:ranting a pension tol\Irs. !;arab J. Martin, have examined the same, and report: 

Claimant is the widow of Samuel 1\Iartin, who enlisted as a private in Com· pany H. Sixty-fourth Illinois Volunteer Infantry, February 3, 1864, and was dis· 

charged on certificate of disability February 28, 1865. 

The records of the War Department show that be was wounded in battle near Atlanta., Ga., July 22, 1.864, causing amputation of left thigh, and that he was also wounded in right thigh and hlp and contracted typhoid fever in the 

service. 

The claim was rejected March 29, 1888, on the ground that the cause of soldier's death-paralysis-was not a result of his military service. In her a:rplication, filed January 12, 1886, cln.imant states that her ~te husband, Samuel Martin, died August 1, 1885, of injuries received while in the 

service of the United States, and that he left no children sru 'iving him. In affidavit tiled January 24, 1887, 0. MeR. Moke, of Pari Ul., testjfies that 

he was present when the late soldier was wounded in both l~<,_,_s and thighs. In affidavit filed Jj,l_nuary 28, 1887, R. R. Roberts, a comrade, testifies that the 

soldier was wounded in battle at Atlanta, Ga., July 22, 1864, and that affiant was afterwards wounded about the middle of August., 1864, and sent to the general 

hospital at Rome, Ga., where he was placed in the same w rd with the abovementioned soldier; that the stump of said soldier's leg had been cut off once or twice, and that gangrene had set in; that the soldier was also wounded in the 

right leg and side: that he saw him every year from the time of his discharge 

from the service to the date of his death. and knows that he suffered from the 

disabilities above mentioned; that he visited the soldier during his last illness, 

and is of the opinion that his death was caused from his wounds and their ef- fect upon his nervous system. In affidav-it filed January25, 1887, Aaron 1\fartin, of Libertyville, Ind., testifie!i 

that when he first saw the soldier after his diRchargefrom the service one of his 

legs had been amputated, and that he was sufferingfrom other wounds received at the same time; that he suffered from· par!!>lysis for a long time before his 

death, caused, in the opinion of affiant, from the effects of wounds received in 

the service. In affidavit filed February 7,1887, Sarah Ann 1\Iartin, of Kidley, lll., testifies 

that she is the mother of the late soldier; that he lost his left leg in the service, 

and was also wounded in his right leg and side; that these wounds caused 

numbness of the limbs, making his arms and other leg almost useless; that one of the large cords of his right leg was cut by a wound in the knee; that owing to the crippled condition of the soldier it was difficult for him to use his 

crutches; that these wound caused paralysis, which terminated fatally. In affidavit filed January 18, 1887, Eli 1\'Iartin. of Vermillion County, Indiana, 

testifies to the helpless condition of the soldier after his return home from the 

Army, and states that the paralysis from which he died resulted from wounds 

received in the service. In affidavit filed December 11, 1886, Dr. James N. Downs, ofParis, Dl., testifies 

that be was acquainted with the soldier for about five years preceding his death, 

and that the said soldier had several attacks of paralysis during that time; that 

he never treated him, but was frequently consulted by the soldier with regard to his disability. In affidavit tiled December 11,1886, Dr. S. K. Gray, of Paris, lll., testifies that 

from 1867 to 1877 the soldier was yery nervous from wounds received in the 

service. 

In affidavit filed December 11., 1886, Dr.W. A. Buchanan, of Paris, Dl., testifies 

that he visited the soldier several times in July, 1885, and at that time he was paralyzed and suffering from a low grade of typhoid fever. 

In affidavit filed January 18,1887, Ueorge W. Wellman, of Paris. Dl., t-estifies 

that the soldier was a physical wreck long before his death, and that be died 

from the effects of wounds received in the service. In affidavit filed June 29, 1886, Dr. H. S. Bell, of Paris, Dl., testifies that be 

attended the late soldier during his last illness, whlch terminated fatally August 

1,1885; that the immediate cause of his death wag general debility .superinduced 

by injuries received in the service, and that the remote cause of his death was paralysis. 

In a letter dated .July 17, 1886, Dr. Bell atates that it is supposed that the dis- ease of brain and spinal co.t.d resulted from wounds and exposure incident to 

• 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It does. 

HOUSE DILLS PASSED. 

Honse bills of the following titles, reported from the Committee Gf 

the "Whole House without amendment were severally .ordered to be 

engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, they were accordingly read the third time, and passed: 

A bill (H. R . 11057) granting a pension to Margaret Gray; 

A bill (H. R. 3801) granting a pension to Nelson J. Crook; 

A bill (H. R. 4820) granting a pension to Ellen Kelly; 

A bill (H. R. 8748) to increase the pension of Richard Jobes; 

A bill (H. R. 10224) grant~g a pension to Elias H. Hall; 

A bill (H. R. 2566) for the relief of Phillip Kopplin; 

A bill (H. R. 8) to restore l'IIrs. R. S. Horton upon the pension-rolls; 

A bill (H. R. 10106) to pla.ce the name of Matilda Spangler on the 

pension-roll; _ 

A bill (H. R. 3504) for the relief of John German; 

A bill (H. R. 10504) granting a pension to Mary Hooper; 

A bill (H. R. 89!}3) for the relief ofShadrack W. Brown; and 

A bill (H. R. 10258) to place the name of Cyrus :M:illins, of O_gden 

Centre, Mich., on the pension-roll. 

House bills ofthe following titles, reported from the Committee of 

the Whole House with amendments, were taken up, the amendments 

respectively agreed to, the bills as amended ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time; and being engrossed, they were accordingly 

read the third time, and passed: 

A bill (H. R. 11021) granting a pension to Charle-s Hahneman; 

A bill (H. R. 7516) to increase the pension of Sylvester Stearns; 

A bill (H. R. 6022) granting a pension to Smith Bodkins; 

A bill (H. R. 508) granting a p1nsion to Sarah F. Hawkins; 

A bill (H. R. 10856) for pension to Eliza N. Aiken; 

A bill (H. R. 10236) to place the name of Lucy Wagor, of Hillsdale, 

Mich., on the pension-roll. 

SEN ATE l3ILLS PASSED. 

Senate bills of the following titles, reported from the Committee of 

the Whole House without amendment, were severally ordered to a third 

reading, read the third time, and passed: · 

A bill (S. 3118) for the relief of Mathew 0. Regan; 

A bill (S. 2716) granting a pension to Carl M. Schwantes; 

A bill (S. 3035) to grant a pension to William Thields; 

A bill (S. 2371) granting a pension to J~ob Pitner; and 

A bill (S. 2871) granting a pension to Urs. Sarah J. Martin. 

RE:\iOV AL OF POLITICAL DISABILITIES. 

The bill (I!. R. 11197) for the removal of the political disabilities of 

Henry A . Ramsay, 1·eported from the Committee of the Whole House 

without amendment, was ordered to be engros ed and read a third time; 

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

two-thirds voting in favor thereof. 

The bill (S. 3178) to remove the political disabilities of William L. 

Bradford, reported from tbe Committee of the Whole House without 

amendment, was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and 

pa.ssed, two-thirds voting in favor thereof. 

BII,LS POSTPONED. 

The Clerk read the titles of the following bills: 

A bill (S. 94.4) increasing the pension of Mrs. Elizabeth G. Scott; A bill (S. 2175) granting a pension to l\iru·y Calvert Truxtuu; and A bill (S. 2838) granting an increase of pension to Betsey A. Mower • 
~188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEl\IBER 1; 

The SPEAKER. pro tcmpo1·e. These bills have been reported from 

the Committee of the Whole House with the recommendation that 

they be made a specbl order for to-morrow. 

Mr. STEELE. These three bills are all in the same category. I 

ask that they be made a special order for to-morrow, not to antagonize appropriation bills or the bill of the Committee on Foreign Affairs--

l\1r. SPRINGER. Or the Oklahoma bill. 

Mr. STEELE. Or the Oklahom:l. bill; that they be ta,ken up as soon 

as possible witho~t interlering with any of the business that I have indicated, and that the previous question be considered as ordered upon 

them. 

Mr. KILGORE. Let it be understood that there shall be an opportunity to discuss and amend the e bills; otherwise I mu t object to 

this order. Once bef0re when bills were carried over in this way the 

right of amendment was denied because it liad not been 8pecified in 

the order. 

Ir. CHEADLE. The understanding in Committee of the Whole 

was that there should be fifteen minutes' debate on each side upon each 

of these bills. 

The SPEAKER pro tcm.pore. The proposition is that these bills be 

laid over till to-morrow after the reading of the Journal; that their 

consideration shall not antagonize appropriatio!l bills, the Oklahoma 

bill or the bill of the Committee on Foreign Affairs· that the previous 

que~tion be considered as ordered on each bill, with fifteen minutes' 

debate on each side, and with tbe opportunity for amendment. If 

th"ere be no objection. this order will be made. 

Mr. STEELE. I think it proper it should be added that the bills 

be considered to-morrow, or as soon thereafter as possible. 

'fhe SPEAKER pro tempore. It wm he a continuing order. If there 

be no objection, the order as stated will be agreed to. 

There was no objection, and it was oruered accordingly. 

POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF JOHN H. PARKER. 

l\Ir. WISE. I ask unanimous consent for the consideration of the 

bill (H. R. 10621} for the remo al of the political disabilities of John 

H. Parker, of Virginia. 

There being no objection, the Committee of tho Whole House was 

discharged from the further consideration of the bill, and the Honse 

proceeded to consider the same. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be il enacted by the Senate and House of Represenlali1:es of the United States of America ill Cong1·ess assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That 

the legal and political disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendmen~ of 

the Constitution of the Un.ited States by reason of parti<:ipation in the late re- bellion, be, and they are hereby, removed from John H. Parker, of Che&terfield 

Countv. in the State of Virginia. 

Mr. }:>A. YSON. I will inquire whether the ~;entleman from Virginia [Mr. WisE] has personal knowledge with reference to this _case? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir; I have. 

Mr. PAYSON. Does this gentleman desire.the removal ofhis political disabilities? 

.~:1r. WISE. Yes, sir; I ask the passage of this bill at his request. 

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

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

two-thirds vo.ting in favor thereof: 

Mr. CHIPMAN moved to reconsider the votes by which the various 

bills reported from the Committee of the Whole Honse were passed; 

and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

The hour of half past 10 o'clock p. m. having arrived, the House, 

accordiug to order, adjon;ned. 

P:RIV ATE BILLS INTRODITCED AND REFERRED. 

nder the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced 

and referred as indicated below: 

By fr .. C. S. BAKER: A bill (H. R. 11317) granting a pension to 

Frederick:t Liesegang-to the Committee on Invalid ~ensi?ns. 

By Mr. BUTLER: A bill (H. R. 11318) for the rehef of Stokely D. 

Brooks, of Tennessee-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Hy Mr. T. J. CAMPBELL: A bill (H. R. 11319) to remove the charge 

of de ertion from the military record of Michael Carroll-to the Committee on Military Affairs. · 

By M:r. TAULBEE: A bill (H. R. 11320) to remove the charge of 

desertion from the military record of Harris Hanshoe-to the Committee on Military .Affairs. 

By l\1r. S. V. WHITE (by request): .A bill (H. R. 11321) to place 

the name of John H. Tunney on the pension-rolls- to the Committee 

on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS: A bill (H. R. 11322)•to place the name of 

Patrick McNichols on the pension-roll-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11323) to place the name of Charles T. Strocklien on the pension-roll-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

A1so, a bill (H. R. 11324) to place the name of Franklin Furay on the pension-roll-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11325) to place the name of Martin O'Connor on 

the pension-roll.;._to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11326) to place the name of John O'Brien on the 

pension-roll-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

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

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. BUCHANAN: Petition of the citizens of the Second Congresl:ional district of New Jersey, praying for a posi:H.l telegraph"7""to 

the Committee on tho Pot-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. DOUGHERTY: Petition of John M. Mcintosh, administrator 

of F. H. Gregory, of Uarion County, Florida, for reference of his claim 

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

By Mr. GEST: Proof in the pension claim of Francis Klein-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. GOFF: Petition of G. L. Cranmer and others, members of 

the bar of the district court of the United Stc1.tes at Wheeling, W.Va., 

relative to legislation proposed affecting said county-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By ltlr. POST: Memorial of Orange Grange, No. 843, Patrons of Husbandry, of Peoria County, illinois, against the passage of Senate bill 

2083-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. ROBERTSON: Petition of Maggie H. Rowan, heir of Horace 

Hills, of East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, for reference of her claim to 

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

By Mr. SCULL: Petition of the GermaniaQuartetteClub, of Johnstown, Pa., in relation to foreign immigration-to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs. 

By Mr. T.ARSNEY: Petition of Mrs. Cordelia Barnes, for privilege 

of purchasing certain lands-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

Also, petition of citizens of Montcalm, Mich., for amendments to the 

interstate-commerce law-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. TAULBEE: Petition toaccompanybill for thereliefofHarris Hanshal-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: Petition of Mrs. Mary A. Mitchell, of 

Giles County, Tennessee, for reference of her claim to the Court of 

Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

The following petition, indorsing the per diem rated service-pension 

bill, based on the principle of paying all soldiers, sailors, and marines 

of the late war a monthly pension of 1 cent a day for ea-ch day they were 

in the service, was referred to the Committeeon Invalid Pensions: 

By Mr. TA.RSNEY: Of citizens of Michigan. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

SATURDAY, Septmnber 1, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m., and was called to order by Mr • 

Thomas S. Pettit, one of the reading clerks. 

ELECTION OF SPEAKER PRO TEIIfPORE. 

The following was read: 

SPEAKER'S ROOM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wa.shington, D. 0., September 1, 1883. 

SIR: I am compelled to be absent from the city from this time until Tuesday next. 

Please present this note to the House in order that it may choose a Speaker pro tempo1·e. JOH~ G. CARLISLE, 8peake1·. Hon. JoHN B. CLARK, 

Olerk House of Representatives. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I offer the resolution which 

I send to the desk. · 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That JAMEs H. BLoUNT, a. Representative from the State of Georgia, 

be, and he is hereby.!. chosen Speaker pro tempore, to preside during the tempo• rary absence of the ::;peaker. 

The resolution was adopted. 

:Mr. BLOUNT, on taking the chair, was greeted with applau e. 

Prayer was offered by Rev. S. Moylan Bird, of Galveston, Tex. 

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

NOTIFICATION TO THE SENATE. 

Ur. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: 

Re•olved, That the Clerk be directed to inform the Senate that the House has 

chosen JAMES H. BLOUNT, a Representative from the State of Georgia, Speaker pro tempore during the absence of the Speaker. 

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask unanimous consent 

tbat next Saturday be set apart for the consideration of bills from the 

Committee on Expenditures in the Treasury Department. The SPEA.KEL{ pro tempo1·e. The Chair desires first to lay before 

the House certain privileged matters. 

1\fESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCooK, its Secretary, announced 

•