1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. 531 

:Mr. WALLACE. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] and myself have agreed to withdraw from the committee of investigation en Federal elections South and ask that the Chair fill our places, 

ewing to the absence of the Senator from Delaware and my inability 

to Attend to the duty. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks that 

himself and the Senator from Delaware may withdraw from the investigating committee on the subject of elections. Is there objection 'f 

Mr. CONKLING. I wish to make no objection in response to the 

remark of the Chair; but if I can do so without its being in the nature 

of an objection, I will say that the rules of the Senate declare that 

without a quorum no business whatever shall be done, except to adjourn or have a call of the Senate. What the effect mi~ht be of the 

request being ~anted under such circumstances, the ~:Senator must · consider for himself; but unless it is very pressing, I think he had 

better wait until a quorum is present if he wants to be excused. 

Mr. President, unless the Senator wishes to continue the matter 

now, I will submit a motion that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Mr. President, I ask for a call of the Senate. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll of the 

Senate. · Mr. CONKLING. Pending that call, I move that the Senate do now adjourn. 

The VICE-PRESIDE.NT. Pending the call the Senator from New · York moves that the Senate do now adjourn. 

The motion was not agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 12, 

noes 28. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll of the 

Senate. 

The Secretary called the roll, and forty-three Senators answered to 

their names. The VICE-PRESIDENT. A quorum is presen.t. 

EXERCISE OF ELECTIVE 1! RA...~ HISE COIDIITTEE: 

¥r. WALLACE. I now renew my motion. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania renews his request that he and the SeBatorfrom Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] be excused from further service upon the committee to investigate matters connected with southern elections. 

Mr. WALLACE. I may state to the Senate that the reason for this 

is that the gentlemen who represent the minority of the Senate now at New Orleans are about starting for the North, and the remainder . of the committee are charged with the duty of going to Charleston. 

The Senator from Delaware is absent on important duty, and it is 

impossible for myself to go. We are therefore compelled to decline 

service, and to ask the Senate to appoint other members representing 

the minority. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Will the Senate agree to the request of 

the Senator from Pennsyl'vania ~ 

l\Ir. HOAR. I hope that will lie over untill\Ionday until the Senate 

isfnll. ["No!" "No!"] · Mr. WALLACE. The committee will be at Charleston on :Monday 

and the minority will not be represented. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is objection made to action to-day ' 

llr. HOAR. I only made the suggestion. 

Mr. W ALLA.CE. I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will not 

object because the committee will be at Charleston on Monday and 

will be there with the majority of the Senate represented and no representation of the minority at all. 

Mr. HOAR. Of course the Senator knows that I would not wish to 

make an objection on that ground; but the Senator from Minnesota 

[Mr. McMILLAN] and myself who are members of the committee, un- derstanding that the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from 

Delaware were not ~oing to Charleston, bad ourselves determined not 

to go to-day. Now, if those gentiemen withdraw and some new gentremen of the democratic side should go, it might result in the minority being represented and the majority not being represented. That 

is all I wish to guard against. I am sure no gentleman on the oth~r 

side would seek to bring about such a result. · Mr. WALLACE. We bad no intention to do anything of the kind. ~Ir. HOAR. That was my only reason for objecting; but now, un- derstanding with the Senator from Pennsylvania that some arrangement will be made that the parties on both sides will be represente(l, 

I withth·aw my objection. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair then bears no objection; and 

he ~ppoints to fill the places of th~ Senators retiring the Senator from 

lnd1ana [Mr. McDONALD] and the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. 

RANDOLPH.] 

PETITIONS Al\""1> :\:IE?.10RIALS. 

Mr. McMILLAN presented a petition of citizens of Stillwater, Minnesota, praying the paSGage of the bill (H. R. No. 4234) granting arrears of pensions: which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. WITHERS presented the petition of R. A. Young & Brother, 

citi7.ens of Petersburgh, Virginia, praying compensation f01; certain 

toba-cco alleged to have been seized and appropriated by United States 

military!orcea at Petersburghduringthelate w:ar; which was referred 

t.o the Committee on Claims. . He also presented the petition of Pich--rell & Brooks, citizens of 

Virginia, praying compensation for certain tobacco alleged to have 

been seized and appropri~~d by U~ited States military forces during 

the late war; which was referred to the Committee ori Claims. 

He also presented the petition of J. Cheeves, surv.iwing partner of 

Cheeves & Osborne, of Virginia, prayinl> compensation for tobacco 

alleged to have been taken and appropnated by United States military forces during the late war; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. 

EULOGIES ON THE LATE REPRESE..."'TATIVE LEONARD. 

Mr. ANTHONY, from the Committee on Printing, to whom was referred tho fo1lowing resolution, reported it without amendment, 

and it was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: 

Resolvea by th.e Home of Representatiues, (the Senate concurring,) That 8,000 copies of the eulogies delivered in the House of Representatives and to be delivered in the 

Senate upon the late J. E. Leonard, late member of this House from the fifth dis- trict of Louisiana, be printed ; 6,000 for the use of the Honse, and 2,000 for the use of the Senate. · 

BILLS INTRODCCED. 

Mr. WINDOM asked, and by unanimous·consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No.l643) to establish a land district in Watertown, 

in the Territory of Dakota; which was read twice by its title, and 

referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. PLUMB asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 48) providing for the payment 

of 50 per cent. of the amounts required by law to be withheld from 

certain railroad companies for transportation service rendered for the 

Government; which was read twice by its title, and 1·eferred to the 

Committee on Railroads. 

Al\IE NDME~T TO POS'f·ROUTE BILL. 

Mr. WITHERS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed 

by him to the bill (H. R. No. 5218) to establish post-routea herein 

named; which, with the accompanying petition, was referred· to the 

Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

PRDITING OF A BILL. 

On motion of Mr. PAD DOCK, it was 

Ordered, That the bill (H. P... No. 3.'i47) to regulate interstate commerce and to prohibit unjust discliminations by common <!arriers, be reprinted for the use of the 

Senate. · 

ADJOUR...~MENT. 

Mr. ALLISON. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. ANTHONY. Will the Senator change that to a motion for an executive session ¥ , Mr. ALLISON. I will if the Senator desires it. I move that the 

Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. THURMAN. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to. . The VICE-PRESIDENT, (at four o'clock·and twenty-five minutes 

p.m.) The Senate stands adjourned to Monday next at twelve o'clock noon. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

FRIDAY, Jan/ttary 17, 1879. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. W. V. TUDoR, 

of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, Saint Louis, Missouri. 

SOPPRESSIQ.X OF POLYGAMY. . 

~Ir. 'VILSON, by unanimous consent, presented n. memorial of Mrs. 

Laura J. Tarr and 120 other ladies, of WeUsburgh,West Virginia, asking Congress to enact the necessary legislation to make effective the 

anti-polygamy law of 1862; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the REOORD. 

The memorial is as follows : 

To U1.e honorable ~.e e-~lizte a na HotMe of Representatives of the United. States ilt Oong ress assembled : 

We, the undersigned, women of Wellsburgb. West Virginia, pray your honorable 

body to enact sucli legislatiou· as will make effective t~e anti-polygamy law of 186~. 

Mrs. W. H. McKelvy, Stella Moore. Mrs. L.A. Gnmes, ¥rs. J. S. Hall, Ook1e 

Wheeler, Mrs. L M. Charnock, Ida Barth, J. Rieid, M. A. Canuicbel, Mrs. A. 

Forbes, Nancy Amick, Mrs. Hodgen, Mrs. N. Van Seck.le, Mrs. Lena Walter, Mrs. A. Mackey, Mrs. S. Jacobs, Mrs. M. J. Lazear, Nancy Frank, Mrs . .E . .Apple- g~te, N. B. Waddle, A. -B. H:tlley, Annie Lazear, Mrs. Laura J. Tarr1 Sallie Moore, .Mary E. Hall, Fanie Potts, Etb.li.Dda Waugh, Mrs. Mackey, Mrs. Siillie Bowman, 

Miss Jennie Bowman, Mrs. Mary Hug~, Miss ~aret Huggins, Mrs. :M. J. Dodd, Mrs. Margaret Gelsthorpe, Came Gelsthorpe, .l!.'Dlllla Gillsthorpe Rinnie Quest, Mollie Jones, Maggie B. Waugh, Miss Carrie Harris, Mrs. Elizabeth Apple- :rate, Al;mie C. Beall, Mrs. J. S. Beall, "Mrs. M. 3". Beall, Mrs. Virginia. Harrey, 1iliss 

Rebeca. Lewis, Mrs. Rebeca Nelson, Mrs. Sarah E. Nicholl, Mrs. Mary A. Nicholl, Mrs. Sarah Dei.,.hton, Mrs. Jackson Jones, Mrs. Susan Lloyd, Mrs. Jane Hauey, Mrs. :M.'lcy Niciiolls, M.rs. Ellen Nicholls, Mis!.! Nancy Fisher, Mrs. Ella Lloyd, Mrs. Laura Grimes, Miss Sarah Langhead, Mrs. Catharine Ralston, Mrs. Mary Liston, Mrs. Hanah Timmons, Mrs. Luna Caldwell, Mrs. Susan Ward, Mrs Marthe Taylor, Mrs. Laura McClelland, MJ:s. Annie Taylor, Mrs.' Lizzie Linton, Mrs. 

Alphereta Parish, Miss Emma J. Taylor, Miss Sallie Taylor, Mrs. Eliza.beth 

Chester, Mrs. Sarah Waldron. Miss Addie Roberts, Mrs. Annie Roberts. N . .M:. 

Clendoo.en, llis. F. C .. Glass, l\Irs. Jennie Antills, Mrs. Mary Pl\rke, 1t1iss Nannie 

McHenry, Mrs. Nancy Moren, Mrs. Clara 0. White, Miss Joanna Pooh~, Mrs. Terressa Poole, Miss E. J. Gaston, Mrs. I. P. Klein, Mrs. Belle.Ex:ley, Mrs. M. C. 

Richar(ls, Mrs. D. Latemor e, Mrs. H. "\V. Crotchers, Mrs. Sam.J.,Ja.-cobs, Miss-Abby Styers, Miss Lizzie Styers, Miss J ennie Cregg, :Miss Mary ~ati.mer, Mrs. John 

I 

I 

I 

f 
.... . 

532 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. I 

Jacobs, Mrs. E. J. Paull, Mrs. June Fenwick, Mi..ss Eliza. Patton, Mi~s Agnes 

Ferguson, Miss Lizzie Paull. 

PATE~"T LAWS. 

Mr. BANNING, by unanimous consent, present~d resolutions of the 

board of common councilmen of the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, pro- t~sting against the passage of Senate bill No. 300 and House bill No. 

1612, remting to the patent laws; which was referred to the Committee on Patents, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD. 

The resolntioos are as follows: CIXCTh"NATI, Januaryl5, 1879. 

Sm : A.t a meeting of the lloard of councilmen of the city of Cincinnati, held on the 20th day of December, A. D. 1878, the followin~ was adopted. 

[r.. .] lUCHA.RD C. ROHNER, · City Olerk. Hon.R.B.BA~~G, . Member of t1l.e House of Representatives, TVa.shingt<Jn City, D. C. 

Whereas, representing a constituency generally acknowledged to be one of the 

leading manufacturing cities of the United States, whose business interests and 

prosperity are largely founded upon ~e !abors of inventors, we recogn!ze the ~­

dom and importance of laws protecting mventors and manufacturers m the nght of 11roperty existing in patented inventions under the Constitution; and 

Whereas certain measures known as t.he Wadleigh bills (Senate bill No. 300 and 

Rouse bill No. 1612) ha>e been introduced and are pending in the Congress of the 

United States, which under the guise of amending the patent laws at present ex· isting would tend to deprive in>entors and patentees of those rights in inventions 

which are accorded to holders of other property, and by imposing unnecessary burdens and limitations discourage and repress that creative genius that has distinguished the American peopl~ above all other nations and contributed more than 

all other ca.uses.combined to their material prosperity; and 

Whereas it is the sense of this body that the passage of such or similar laws 

would react injuriously upon the constituency and interests we represent: Now, 

therefm-e, B e it resol.ced by the cif:I.J council of Cincinnati, That sections 1, 2, and 3 of the said 

Wadleigh bill and HoUS6 bill No. 1612 are unwi..se, impolitic, and nnjust to invent- ors and manufacturers and tend to discouraae in"\""ention and impede the progress of the useful mts and sciences, and that our Senators and Representatives in Con- gt'Ci'!< be, and are hereby. requested to use all honorable means to defeat the ~ectious of saill bills ab&ve alluded to. R esolved, That a copy hereof be transmitted to each of our Senators and Repre- sentati>es, under the seal of the city. 

RESOURCES OF COOS RIVER1 OREGOX. 

:Mr. WILLIAMS, of Oregon, by unanimous consent, presented a statistical report of the resources of Coos River, in tbe State of Oregon; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

RETIRE~rn....~T OF AN ARMY OFFICER. 

Mr. BAJ\~ING, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 

5856) for the retirement of an Army officer; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, aitd ordered 

to be printed. , JOHN C. RECK. 

Mr. BAJ\~"'ING also,'by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 

No. 5857) for the relief of John C. Beck; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee on .Military Affairs, and ordered 

to be printed. 

ADOLPH YO~ LUETTWITZ. 

Mr. BANNING also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 

No. qBOB) to provide for the retirement of Adolph von Luettwitz, firat 

lieutenant Third Cavalry, lrnit-ed States Army, with the rank and pay 

of a n;wnnted captain; which was read a first and second time, re- ferred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

THOMAS CRARY. 

Mr. BEEBE, by un·animous consent~ introduced a bill (H. R. No. 

5859) for the relief of Thomas Crary, postmaster at Parksville, New 

York; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. BREWER. I call for the regular order. 

SALE OF Th'TOXICATING LIQUORS IN THE CAPITOL. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I rise to a question of privilege, and ask that 

the Clerk read what I send to the desk. . The Clerk read ·as follows : 

Whereas Joint Rule No. 19 of the Rouse of Representatives prohibits the sale of 

intoxicating or malt liquors in the Capit~l building of the United States, or within 

the public grounds adjacent thereto ; and 

Whereas at the last &$!!ion of the Forty-fifth Congress this House by resolution 

expressed its condemnation of the sale of intoxicating or malt liquors in said build· 

ing or within said grounds and its approval of said joint rule, and instructed the 

officers of the House to see that said rule be not violated by the keepers of the House 

restaurant, which action was approved by the honor_able Speaker of the House ; and 

Whereas it is commonly reported that said keepers do not, and have not, re- spected tlte sa.id action of the House, but have continued1 from the time of the 

passage of said resolution, to violate Joint Rule 19, and have continued to sell in· 

toxica.ting liquors in said restaurant. · Now comes the undersigned, and doth charge tho I?resent keepers of the Rouse restaurant with violation of said joint r:ule, and With disregarding the express wishes of tile mambers of this Ho!Jse and defying the law and the honorable 

Speaker, and with violating the intern&l-revenue laws of the United States by sell· 

ing intoxicating liquors in said restaurant without license. 

C. C, ELLSWORTH. 

Resolved, That the charges preferre<l by C. C. ELLSWORTH against the keepers of 

the restaurant of the House be referred to :1 select com)llittee of five, who, when 

~cFu~~h!;i:fln~~~f~!~ ~v=~!~e ~:sib~~~r so referred, and report to this 

The SPEAKER. The Chair begs to differ from tho gentlemen. AP. 

much as he may desire to see the object the gentleman has in view 

executed, he is at a loss to know how this oon be considered a question of privilege. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I present my views on it. I regard it as a question of privilege. 

Mr. COOK. Let it be referred to the Committee on Rules. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the Chair will entertain 

the proposition. 

Mr. HOOKER. Let it be again read. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I hold it to be :1 question of privilege. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot hold it to be a question of priv- ile~e, because there is no warrant under the rnles for such interpretation or construction. 

Mr. EDEN. Let. it be referred to the appropriate committee. 

Mr. HOOKER. Let the proposition be again read. 

The resolution was again read. . Mr. EDEN. There is no need of a select committee. This shonld 

be referred to the appropriate standin(J" committee. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Let it be referred to the Committee on Rules. 

The SPEAKER. The proper reference would be to the committee 

having the appointment of the keeper of the restaurant-the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. I move its reference to that committe9. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection to the introduction of the 

resolution and the paper presented by the gentleman from Michigan, 

the Chair will entertain the motion for consideration orfor its refer- ence to the Committee on Pnbli(} Buildings and Grounds. The keeper 

of the restaurant is not an officer of the Honse. His appointment 

is with the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and ·that is 

the proper committee for its consideration. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. That committee will not act on it. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I understand the gentleman to say that committee will not act on it. I wish to know by what authority he makes 

that statement. When were charges made against the keeper of tlt.e 

restaurant and inquiry was ordered by the House and that.Committee 

refused to investigate them T 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I understand this to be the fact and I think I 

know this to be the fact that the committee do not act. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. If the gentleman understands that to 'be the fact 

he understands something that is not the fact. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to state that a complaint. of thi- sort was heretofore made to the Speaker, and he communicated the same to the chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds1 

and the chairman of that committee took immediate steps to rectify 

what was complained of. 

Mr. COOK. I will add to what has been stated by the Chair that 

I went to the keeper of the restaurant and notified him that he would 

be removed for any violation of that rule so soon as the committee 

shonld have information tha.t it had been violated. I have not been 

in the restaurant since. 

Mr. EDEN.· I demand thepreviousquestionon themotion torefer. 

The previous question was secended and the main question ordered, and under the operation thereof the paper submitted by Mr. ELLSWORTH and the accompanying resolution were referred to the Committee·on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

ORDER OF BUSTh""ESS: 

Mr. COOK. I desire to ask the reference of a bill to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

Mr. BREWER. I demand the regular order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan insists on his demand for the regnlar order, which is the call of committees for reports 

of a private nature. . CENSUS 1HLL. 

I.Ir. COX, of New York. I rise to a ~uestion of privilege. The 

Committee on the Census has leave to report at any time. 

The SPEAKER. On public bill days. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I think no one will object to the request 

I desire to make. It is merely that the bill w:hich I introduced on behalf of the .Committee on the Census may be reprinted. · Th~ SPEAKER. The Chair is bound to protec5 committees and 

the body of the House on Friday from the introduction of matters of a public character, for the reason that private bills have but that one day in the week; and if that day is infringed upon private bills 

·would not get that just consideration which they should have. But 

the Chair will submit the request of the gentleman from New York 

that there be a reprin~ of the bill introduced by himself as 'chairman 

of the Committee on the Census. 

There was no objection, and tho bill (H. R. No. 5765) to provide for 

taking the Federal census was ordered to be reprinted. 

BUSINESS OF THE J"GDICIA.RY CO~DIITI'EE. 

Mr. KNOTT. I ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BREWER] 

to withdraw for a moment the demand for the regular order that I 

may prefer a request from the Committee on the Judiciary. The SPEAKER. This is not a question of privilege. . Mr. BREWER. I yield for that purpose. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I think it is. Mr. KNOTT. I am instructed by the Committee on the J udioiary 

T.he SPEAKER. In what respect f · to ask unanimous consent that on next Monday evening a session 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. It concerns employes of this House, having I may Be held, commencing at half past seven o'clock, for the considrelation to their conduct. · · eration of reports from tliat committee. 
.. 

1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 533 

The SPEAKER. That would have to be by unanim~ms consent. 

Mr. KNOTT. I ask unanimous consent. . The SPEAKER. ·Is there objection to. the request mado by the gentleman from Kentnqky f 

Mr. TOWNSEND,. of New York.· Will that include the right to 

paas bills f _ The SPEAKER. It will. . 

:Mr. TOWNSEND, of New Y<>rk. Then I must object. 

ORDER OF BUSL.~ESS. 

The SPEAKER. The morning hour begins at twenty-six minutes 

past twelve o'clock, the business of the morning hour being reports 

from committees of a private nature. Th~ call rests with the Committee on Pri-vate Land Claims. At the close of the morning hour on last Friday, the bill (S. No. 854) for the adjudication of title to lands 

claimed by Jose Apis and Pablo Apis, in the State of California, was under consideration. The bill will be read. 

The bill was read; as fo1lows: 

Be it en(!.cted, c&., That the legal representative~l succe sors, or assignees of J os6 Apia and Pablo Avis, or either of them, be, and mey are hereby, perrilltted to file 

their claim and titfe to a certain tract of la11.d inC alifornia known as La lolla Rancho 

in and before the United States district court of California; and that said conrt hall have the same jurisdiction in all things, to be exercised originally, to hear and 

determine UJ.><>n the said claim and title, and to confirm or 1'1\iect the same, as the 

several district courts had under the aet of Congress of March 3, 1851, and acts amendatory.thereunto. And the Supreme Court of tho"United States shall have 

jurisdiction to hear and determine said cause upon appeal, as decided in said acts: Provided, That no lands shall be confirmed to said claimants by said decree to which there are valid claims exis~ under the pre-emption, homestead, or other 

laws of the United States at the date of the passage of this act; nor shall any aecree of confirmation affect any valid adverse right of any other person or persons, or give to the confirmees, or any of them, any claim upon the United States for 

compensation for any land such confirmees may lose by reason of pre-emption or homestead claims or ad~erse rights as aforesaid; and ihat no decree shall be ren- dered for more than two square leaunes: Provided further, That said claimants, 

before filing their claim and title1 shall execute releases to hny persons who may 

be in possession of any portion of said lands under valid claims under the pre-emp· 

tion, homestead-, or other laws of the United States at the date of the passage of this act to the portions of said lands so held respectively; and before rendering a decree in confirmation the said court shall ascertain that said releases have been 

duly executed. 

Mr. REAGAN. Is there a report accompanying the bill 

Mr. DENISON. There is. ~1r. RE:AGAN. I a.sk that the report may be read.-

The report was read, as follows : 

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred Senate bill No. 

d54 entitled "An act for the adjudication of title to lands claimed by Jose A pis and 

Pablo Apfs, in the State of California," res~tfully report that they have consid-

.;lred the same and recommend concurrence m its passage. 

.Mr. EDEN. Is the Senate report on the desk¥ 

Mr. DENISON. I do not know whether the Senate report is there or not. I can state in a moment what the case is. 

This bill has reference only to two leagues o.f land. It is limited· by the terms of the bill to two square leagues. Orio'ina.lly the grant was made to a family by the name of Apis by the Spanish government. They took possession under the Spanish government and occu- pied the land, and have continued to do so; and their descendants 

occupy it now. The land having been granted to them while they were Spaniards, and they never having learned the English language, 

they never kuew of or knew about any law by which they could have 

their title confirmed under the United States Government. In the course of time one of the men to whom the land was granted died 

and his administrator was unable to find the deed making the grant; 

and while be was searcbing ior the grant the time in which he should 

have presented the claim expired. :Meantime the other grantee, a brother of the deceased man, also died. Each left a daughter. And 

these two daughters and their descendants are the present owners of these lands; but the bill provides that they and their representatives may go before -the Unit~d States courts and have their title 

confirmed under the Spanish grant exactly as if they had not been 

limited by the act, and it expressly prevents any possible injury to 

anybody else. It provides that they shall execute a release to anybody claiming the lands. Everybody is protected. No injury can happen a11d it would be great injustice to these parties not to pass 

the bill. The question has been examined thoroughly by a committee of the Senate and also by a committee of the Honse, and both 

committees are unanimous in thEir report. I trust 'there will be no objection to the passage of the bill. 

llr. REAGAN. I ask that the bill be again read. 

The \)ill was again read. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading ; and it was accordingly read 

the third time, and passed. 

Mr. DENISON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas. ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. fhe latter motion was agreed to. 

LA..~D CLAll\I IN ~'EW MEXICO. 

llr. McGOW .A.t~. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 

table Senate bill No. 7G3, to confirm certain land claims in the Territory of New Mexico, and put it upon its passage. It is a bill identical 

with one favorably reported by the committee. ' 

There being no objection, the bill was taken from the Speaker's table ~d read, as follows: 

Be it enacted. l;y tJw Senate and HOU8e of Rep1·ese-ntatives ofthe 1Jnited States of 

America in Congrus assembled, That the pri,ate land claim in the Territory of :New 

:M:e'rico known as the Mesita Juana Lopez grant, made by the Spanish go\"ern- ment January 18, 1782, examined, approved, and recommended for ·confiimation 

by the surveyor-general of ~ew Mexico November 29, 1872, designated as private 

land claim No. 64, and duly surveyed by the United States, the field-notes of the 

survey and plat being a:J?proved by the StirV"eyor-general of· New Mexico on Feb. 

ruary !8, 1877, be, and \he same is hereby, confirmed: ProlJid<Jd, 'rhat. the fore- . going confirmatioQ shall only be construed as a quitclaim or relinquishment of 

au title or claim on the part of the United States in ana to said private land 

claim, and shall not affect the adverse rights of any person or persons to the same; nor shall the United States be liable to make compensation for any part of said 

land to which there are ot' may be any a-dverse rights or claim. 

No objection being made, the bill was taken from the Speaker's 

table, received its several readings, and'Was passed. 

Mr. :McGOWAN 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. 

ASSIGN:\IENT OF LAND SCRIP. 

On motion of :Mr. GUNTER, the bill (S. No. 109) defining the man- ner in which certain l~nd scrip may be assigned and located or applied by actual settlers, and providing for the issue of patents in the name of the locator or his legal representatives, ,was taken from the 

Speaker's table and read a first ami second time. ' 

The bill was then read as follows : 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep1·esentatives of the United States of 

America in Oongress assembled, That whenever.,.inocases prosecuted under the acts of Congress of June 2-2, 1860, March 2, 1867, ana the first section of the act of June 10, 1872, providing for the adjustment of private land claims in the States of Flor-- ida, Lowsiana, and Missouri, the validity of the claim has been, or shall be hereaf. 

ter, recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the court has decteed that the plaintiff or plaintiffa is or are entitled to enter a certain number 

of' acres upon the public lands of the United States, subject to private entry at 1.25 :per acre, or to receive certificate of location for as much of the land the title to which has been established as has been $lisposed of by the United States, certificate of location shall be issued by the Commissioner of the General Land Office 

attested by the seal of said office, to be located as protided for in the sixth sectio~ of the aforesaid act of Congress of June 22, 1860, or applied according to the provisions of the second section of this act; and saiJ certificate of location or scrip 

shall be subdivided a.coording to the re<J.Uest of the eonfirmee or confirmeeR, and, as nearly as practicable, in conforrillty With the legal divisions and subilinsions of 

the public lands of the United States, and shall be, and are hereby declared to be assignable by deed or instrument of writing, according to the form anJ pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 130 a'i to vest the assi_gnee with all the ri~hts of the original owners of the scrip, includinrr 

the right to locate the scrip in his owu name. <--

SEC. 2. That such scrip shall bo received from actual settlers only in payment of 

pre-emption claims or in commutation of homestead claims, in the same manner 

i:?d ~~a~~:.-e extent as i::~ now authorized by law in the case o; military bounty 

SEc. 3. That the register of the proper lana office, upon any such certificate beinf! 

located, shall issue, in the name of tho party making the location, a certificate of 

entry, upon which, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the 

General Land Office that such certificate bas been fairly obtained, according to the true intent and meaninl:!j of this act, a. patent shall issue, as in other cases,-in the name of the locator· or hlS legal representative. · SEc. 4. That the provisions of this act respecting the assignment and paten tin..,. 

of scrip and its application to pre-emption aotl homestead claims shall apply to th~ indemnity certificates of location provided for by tbe act of ~e 2d of June, 1858, 

entitled ''An net to provide for the location o'£ certain confirmed private land 

claims in the State of Missouri, and for other purpos~s." 

Mr. EDEN. I call for the reading of the report. 

The report in that case was read, as follows : 

Tho private land claims which are reco~ed by this bill,. with many others 

which have been from time to time recogruzed and adjusted, had their origin prior to the purchase of the province of Louisiana by the United States from France. 

The treaty of purcha-se specially recognized the right.s of property in tho then 

inhabitants. The third article of the treaty of April 30, 1803, ~ as follows : "The inha.bitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of 

the United States, and admitted a soon as possible, according to the principles of 

the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advanraues, and 

immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be 

maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their" liberty, property, and the 

religion which they profess.'"4 Stat. at Large, 202. 

This obligation has been repeatedly recognized by Congress, and variOilS acts have been passed, from 1806 to 1858, providing for commissioners to hearnnd determine the claims of parties to lands embraced within the territory thus acquired, 

and to report liat.s of such lands as, in the opinion of the commi sionas, should 

be confirmed to the claimants. 

Under these several acts l&nds ~re, from timet~ time, confirmed to the respective claimants. The greater portion of these claimants took their lands in place but some were unable to do so for various reasons, but principally because th~ United States ha-d disposed of the particular lands to which their claims attached. To remedy this difficulty Congress passed the act of Jtme 2, Ie58, (11 Stat. at Large, 295,) providing that "where a.ny private land claim has boon confirmed bv 

Congress, and the samo, in whole or in par:t, has not been located or satisfied: 

either for want of a specific location J?rior to such confirmation or for any reasoii 

whatsoever .other than a discovery or fraud in such claim subsequent to such confirm~tion, it s_hall be the duty _of the surveyor-general of the district in whkh 

such clru.m was situated, ul>On sabsfactory }lroof that such claim has been so con- Jirmecl, and that the same, m whole or in part, remains unsatisfied, to issue to the 

claimant, or his legal ref.lresent,atives, a certificate of location for a quantity of 

land equal to that so confirmed and unsatisfied; which certificate may be located 

upon any of the public L'lnds of the United States subject to sale at private entrj at a prioo not exceeding 1.2-'i per acre : Provided, That such location shall conform to legal divisions and subdivisions." -Congress also, by actofJune22, 1860, (t2Stat. at Large, 85,) the operation of which was extended by acts of March 2, te67, (14 Stat. at Large, 544,) and Jnne 10, 1872, 

(17 Stat. at La1_e, 378,) authorized claimants t~ proceed to establish their claims 

'!'fieJU~~ ~ta\e~. di trict court, with the right of appeal "to the Supreme Court of 

In cases where claims ha>e been held valid under the statute above cited, and 

where the court bas decreed that the claimants are entitled to enter a specified number of acres of the lands of the United State8 subject to entry. or to receive 

certificates of location for such proportion of the lands decreed to them as have 

been dis-posed of by the: United States, the bill under consideration authorizes the 

subditislon of the same into quantities as nearly as practicable conforrillng to the 

legal divisions and subdivisions of the public lands of the United States; and also 

authorizes the as. ignment of the certificate'3 of location, by written instnlm.ent, so 
534 CONGRESSIONAL REC@RID---H@USE. JANUARY 17, 

a.s to vest the assignee with all the rights of the original owner, including the. right to locate the scrip in. his .own name. . The-bil.J.-fu.rtbel"p~poses to'Ulake all.sueh.scrip receivable from actual settlers 

in payment of pre-emption claims, or in commutation of homeste-ad claims, in the mune manner as now authorized by law in case of military bounty land warrants. The third section provides for the issue of certi.ticates of entry by the proper local 

land officer in tht~ name of the parties makin,:r the location, and for the issue of 

patents by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, if he shall be satisfied 

that such certificates have been fairly obtained. The right of these J.>arties to en fer 

certain quantities of the public land or to receive certificates of locatiOn for so much as bad previously been disposed of by the Government rests upon the decrees of 

the court-s, as above set forth. Where the right to la.nds is recog¢zed by t.he 

eourts, a.nd the Government has, by its previous disposition of them, <leprive.d the 

parties of the e.njoyment of the -paTticular lands clauned, these certificates entitle 

the claimants to similar quantities of the public lands, and, to render them available, their sub<livision to conform them to the legal subdivisions of the public domain is authorized. 

A bill similar to the one un<ler consideration was considered by the Committee on Private Land Claims of the House of Representatives at the last session of the 

Forty-fourth Con p-ass and a favorable report was made, the views expressed in 

whioh we have aaopted as the basis of this report. The Commissioner·of the Gen-. eral Land Office approved the purpose of that bill, and suggested certain amend- ments which have been embo<lied in the present meaanre, which bas also receive-d t he approval of the Secretary of the Interior. · The committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill with an amendment. 

Mr. DUNNELL. I desire to inquire how much laud is involved in 

this bill or will be conveyed.by the land scrip f 

Mr. GUNTER. There is no land conveyed. There are about three 

hundred thousand acres in~olved, one hundred and twenty thouaand 

of which belong to a school at Baltimore and one at ;New Orleans; it 

onlv affects three hundred thousand acres in all. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read 

the thh·d time, and passed. 

Mr. GUNTER moved to recol!Sider the vote by which the bill was pa-ssed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

RELINQUISHMENT OF TITLE. 

Mr. GUNTER, from the Committee on Private Land-Claims, re- ported back the bill (H. R. No. 5439) relinquishing the right of the 

United States to an island therein named; which was referred to the 

Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with thereport, ordered t& be printed. 

HEIRS OF .ISRAEL DODGE. 

Mr. CALDWELL, of Tennessee, from the Committee on Private 

Land Claims, reported, as a substitute for Honse bill3483, a bill (H. 

R. No. 5861) fot the relief of the heirs and legal representatives of 

Israel Dodge, deceased; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

A bill for the relief of the heirs and legal representatives of Israel Do<lg~, deceased. 

;'\\'hereas it appears that the claim of .Israel Do<lge or his legal representatives was confirmed by the act of Congress entitled "An act to confirm certain land claims 

in the State of Missouri," approved June 21, 1860, to the extent of seven thousand 

and fifty-six arpents, equal t{) six thousood ood two acres and fifty-hundredths of an acre, a.nd that on tlle 20..d day of December, 1865. a certHir.ate of location, No. 

2, was issued by the Commissioner of the General Land Office in full satisfaction 

of said claim of Israel Do<lge,. erroneously reciting the act of Congt·ess approved 

June 2, 1858, as the authority for the issue of said certificate; and • Whereas it appears that certain tracts of land subject to location and entry under the provisions of the aforesaid a<:t of June 21, 1860, have been duly ent roo 

under and by virtue of said certificate, and in part satisfa<:tion thereof: Therefore, Be it ena<;ted by the Senate and Huu.se of .Representatives of the United States of A m.eriea in Oongresa assembled, That the Commissioner of the General Land Oflice 

be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to issuo patents to sncb of the legal representatives of !Brael·Dodge, deceased, as mav be entitled to them for lands en- tmed under and by virtue of certificate of location No.2 issued by the Commis· 

sioner of the General Land Office on the 22d day of December, 1865, to the legal representatives of said Israel Dodge, under anll by virtue of act of Congress ap- proved June 2, 1858, as though said lands had been entered under and by Yirt.ue of a. certificate dnly issued in accordance with the provisions of tbe second section of 

the act of June 21, 1860: Provi<led, Said entries be found free from objections in 

every other particular, and that for the remainder of the land yet authorized to be 

located under said certificate np!)n the surrender thereof, he issue to the legal representatives aforesaid, who may be legally entitled thereto, certificates of location 

in quantities not to exceed eight acres, each of which may be located upon any lands not mineral of the United States subject to entry under the laws thereof, and 

the lands located therewith patented in like manner as other public lands of the 

United States: Procided.. Tlmt the location in each case shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public surveys. 

Mr. EDEN. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Ten- nessee [Mr. CALDWELL] if there are any adverse claimants to these 

lands f 

Mr. CALDWELL, of Tennessee. There are none. This bill is intended merely to correct a mistake made in the certificate of locatiol). 

That certificate referred to the aet of 1858 for the authority for its 

issue, when in pQint of fact it was the act of 1860 which authorized 

it. The Commissioner of the General Land Office now refuses to 

issue a patent upon the certificate of location because of this errone- OUB recital. Th.e object of this bill is to correct that mistake and 

authorize the Commissioner of the General Land Office to issue the 

patent. 

Mr. EDEN. I would inquire if the residue of this certificate can under this bill be located upon lands that are held at- higher rates 

than $1.2.'> an acre T 

Mr. CALDWELL~ of Tennessee. No, sir, the bill especially so provides. 

Mr. EDEN. The bill provides that it shall not be located upon 

mineral lands; but may it not be located upon lands within the limit 

of grants whioh are held at higher rates than $1.25 per acre 'l 

Mr. CALDWELL, of Tennessee. It is expressly limited to 1.25 au acre. t 

The bill was then orderetl to be engrossed and read a third time; 

and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. · Mr. CALDWELL, of Tennessee, moved to reconsider the vot~ by 

which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. . The latter motion wns ag1·eed to. 

LANDS IN AN 1\IATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

Mr. GUNTER, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, re- ported back, with a favorable recommendation, .the bill (H. R. No. 

4886) to authorize the correction of boundaries of certain lands in 

San Mateo County, California. · 'fhe question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it ena<;ted, d:c., That any and :ill persons claiming land the title of which was derive-d through the grant of the Mexican authorities to Juan Coppinger, known as the Cafiada de :Raimando rancho, situated in San Mateo County, in the State of 

California, and which lands are alleged to have bee.n erroneously included in the survey, location. and pat~nt of the Pnlgas rancho, in said county, contrary to the 

boundaries originallydesignat.OO by the decree of the Supreme Court of the Unit-ed 

States rendere<l at the December term, 1!:155, oi said court, shall have the right to contest the said location in their own names, without leaving the St&te, by suit in 

chancery in the circuit coiut of the United States, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court; and said courts are hereby given jurisdiction of the same and 

authorized to correct the said boundaries and to t·eform the ~o.tents to either or both of said ranchos, if they shall be found not to be in confol'lDlty with the decree o! the Supre~e Court, and to give such other and furthe1· relief M equity a.nd jus- tice may require. . The United States a11d all persons having an interest in the subject..mattet of 

said snit or in the adjustment of the lines of the patents, if determined upon by the 

court, shall be made parties defendant; and any party defendant may rely upon 

any legal or equitable defe.nse except the lapse of time <luring which the opposite 

party nad, und~r existing laws, no remedy in the courts; and either party may appeal to the hi!:her Fe<leral courts and on np to the Sullreme court of the Unite.d 

Stat.es in the manner now provided by law. . 

· Mr. BLOUNT. I would inquire of the gentleman from Arkansas 

[Mr. GUNTER] how much land is involved in this bill t 

Mr. GUNTER.' It does not involve any land; it is merely to cor- rect the boundaries of certain lands. I ask that the report be read. 

Mr. PAGE. Is it proposed to put this bill on its passage now! 

1\Ir. GUNTER. That is the proposition. 

Mr. PAGE. There will be objection, and it may as well go to the 

Committee of the Whole at once, so as to save the time that will be 

required to read the report. 

Mr. GU!\T'fER. I prefer to have the report read. 

The report was read, as follows : 

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was refmTed House bill No. 

1871, entitled ''A bill to authorize the correction of boundaries of cert&in lands in 

San Mateo County, California," have considered the same, and report the aceom- panyiug bill as a substitut.e therefor, with the recommendation that the snbstitute 

do sass. The facts ~re fully set forth in the print~<l report of Hon. S. L. MA.YHlll, 

h!e~f~o the Forty-!!e~11d Congress, which is hru;eto annexed and made a part 

THOMAS TURNER. 

Report o.f the subcommittee on. Private Land Claims in the mattn· of the boundary 

line of tM Las Pulgas 1'1lt1tcho. 

The undersi~ned subcommittee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred 

the petition of Dennis Martin and others, asking for authority to contest tbe cor- rectness of the survey and location of a la.nd grant in California, respectfully re- ports to the Committee on Private Lancl Claims as follows : That on the 27th day of November, 1835, Jose Castro, political chief and governor 

ad interim of Alta California, granted to the hen'S of Arguello a tract of !.aDd called 

Las Pnlgas, and bounllo<l on the south by the arroyo of San Francisquit{) ; on the 

north by the San Mateo ; on the east by the estuaries or bay ; on the west b y Canada de Raimando, and in saill grant dPRcril>ed the samo as 'bl'in~ four leagues in latitude and one in lonaitude. That the westeyn bonnllary of said grant-wa surveyed and marked, an:'l juridical possession was given to said gt-antee estab- lishing the westerly bouodi! thereof one leagne west of the estuary or bay of San 

Franctsco. (Arguello '1:8. U. S., 18 Howard, 539.) 

In Hl52 the Las Pulgas claimants petitione1l tlie California land commissionehf 

for a confirmation oi their claim to the amount of twelve leagues, and the commia- sionei'S rejected the claim for twelve leagues, but confirmed the claim for four lea~ues, which decision was confirmed by the United States district court, from 

whiCh an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and heard at the December tei'Dl, 1855, when the decision of the district eourt was affirmed 

and the land. described in the decree as followil : "Bounded on the south by arroyo or creek of San Francisquito; on the nerth by the creek of San Mateo; on the east esteroR or waters of the bay of San Francisco, and on f he west by the eastern borders 

of the valley known as the Canada de Raimando, sMd land being of the extant of 

four leagues in lengt.b a.nd one in breadth, be the same more or le s." 

On the 19th pf December, 1856, John C. Hayes, United 8tates surveyor-general 

for California, returned to the General Land Office field-notes and a map purporting to be a survey of the Las Pulgas rancho, including an area of land of the amount of 35,240 acres, aBtl the 2<1 day of October, 1857, the Commissioner of the General 

Land Officfl issued a patent to the heirs at law and legal representatives of Lui.-1 

Arguello, deceased-a -patent for the land embraced in that surrey, but providerl 

in said patent that in vutu~ of the fifteenth section of the act of March 3, 1851, tlte confirmation of said claim and the patent shall not aftect the rights of third partie . The survey by Hayes, and the patent issued in flCCord.ance therewith of the Put- gas rancho, was not limited in quantity to the am~nnt in the original grant or that 

specified in theuecree of the Supreme Court of the United States confirmin,g tlttJ same, but was, as appears by the certificate of the county s1rrveyor of. San :Mateo 

County, three Sparush leagues wide a.t the southerl.v end, one and four-tenth 

leagues at the center, anrl one and six-tenths leagues at the northerly end, and em- braCed land in excess of tbe original grant of one league in width to the amount of 

17,490 acres, or nearly double that of the orirrinal errant. 2. On the 3d of August, 1840, Governor Alvara'do, then g.wernor of California, «ranted tQ John Coppinger the tract-of land known as the Canada de Raimando. This grant was bounded on the east by the :Rancho de Las Pulgas; which, a.t that 

time, must have been understood as extending but one league from the Bay of San 

Francisco according to the tei'Dls of the ~rant. On the 15th of March, 1843, John 
• 

1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

o()op:pinger conveyed by deed ("which was duly recorded) to Dennis Martin a large 

'POrtion of the southeast portion of this grant, and in said deed deacribed the same :as bOunded on the I!Outh by the creek of- San Francisquito, and on the ea-st b:y the 

:,!rant of Las Pulgas,. and said-Martin; regarding the extreme westerly bound of the Laa Pulgas to be located one league from the bay, took: possession of said land 

described in his deed and continued in lP!disturbed possession thereof while it re- .ma.ined under the Mexican go>ernment, and for a long time thereafter. and made 

improvements to the amount of $75,000 to $100,000 on the same. The balance of the 

grant to Coppinger was occupied by him until his death in 1846, except such por- tions of the same as he bad conveyed to other parties. The claimants of the Cop- pin~er grant petitioned the commissioners to be allowed to intervene in the name ·.of tne United States, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1851, for the pur- pose of showing that the Pulgas ranc'ao did not extend but one leagno from the 

bay, but were denied that privilege at the bearing of the Pulgas claim in 1852. But there does not appear to be anything iR the decision of the commissioners, -or of the district or Supreme Court, that aflects the rights of the Coppinger claim-

..ants, or that in any w-ay extends the rigbt.s of the Pulgas claimants beyond the 

league line, or over one learoe from the bay. On the contrary, tho language of the -court in the case of Arguello vs. The United State!! (18 Howarll, 5:39) seems t<> be 

adverse to the tl.oat!_~ of the Pulgas rancho beyond one league from the bay. The -court says: "The Mexican authorities have tbemselves ~iven a construction to this grant in 18-4.0, when they granted the Canada de Raimanao to Coppinger, calling 

for Las Pnlgas as its eastern 'boundary. Moreover, juridical possession was given to the ArgueHos, establishing the western boundary of the Las Pulgas one lea-gue west of the estuary or bay of San Francisco." 

The inference is inevitable from tbis language that the court regarded th~eague 

line as the westerly limits of the Pulgas rancho; and if tbis is so, then the adjudication of the Supreme Court is an ~udication in favor of and not against the 

il"ights of the petitioners, and their ri,gbts are affected only by the acts of the sur- -veyor in making the survey, and the Commissioner of the Land Office in issuing a patent not in a~cordance with the grant or the decision of the Supreme Court. 

On ihe 23d of November, 1853, the commi88ioners of California confirmed the title 

.of the Coppinger grant, and bounded on the east by the Rancho de Las Pulgas. If 

the westerly line of the Pulgas rancho bad been the league line, or a line one league 

from the bay, tbis would ha.-.e been a correct description. ·But by the survey and 

.patent the Plu,ga.s rancho bad been floated beyond the limits of theleaJ;rUe line from 

-the bay. ID other words, the grant which bad the bay as one of its fixed boundariea, and which by ita terms was limited to one lea.gne in width from the bay, had 

been extentled two lea~~;utls beyond that limit, and in that way the U.,ppinger grant 

had been crowded ba~;k to make room for the growing dimensions of the Prugas 

rancho, aml to this proof of expansion and removal the heirs of Coppinger have 

failed to interpose any effectual resistance. - But to. the grantees of Coppinger, who had purchased their lands and paid for 

them when the Une one league from the bay was, b_y all parties, regarded as the 

exterior boundary of the Pulga.s grant, this extensiOn of the Pulgas rancho was total absorption and annihilation, and unless they can be proteeted in the courts .or in Congress they are remediless. 

Can they be pro~d in the courts~ If so, they would not seek con~ressional 

aid. In Waterman vs. Smith, (13 Cal. R., 373,) the court says the patent IS concln· . sive evidence of the right of the patentee to the land described therein, not only 

between himself and the United States, but as between himself and a third person, who has not superior title from a source of paramount proprietorship. 

"This being the settled law of California, and conclusive evidence of title in the 

patentee, he can maintain ejectment at law for all lands embraced in his patent 

.against persons in poss088ion holdir.g adversely to him, or may defend himself in 

his possession agamst any person seeking to evict him by or tmder an adverse 

title." 

. But it can hardly be pretended that this power, under a patent, is so crystallized .-as to defy the power of Congress in cases where a patent bas been either errone- .ously or fraudUlently located, especially if the party injured was not a party to the 

location or the fraud. 

By the.terms of section 15 of the act of March 3, 1851, as well as by the express language of tlie Pulgas patent, the rights of thirrl parties a-re reserved and pro- tected, and in the case of Minturn vs. Bovee (24 Cal. R., 644) the court says : " Third persons mu.st be regarded to be all persons who_are not parties to the proceeding 

before the land commissioners", or standing in such relation with those who were parties thereto as to become affected and bOund as privies, and the interest of third persons that remain unaffected by the final confirmation and patent, and those subsistin.!!; in perfect title deri-ved from a source of paramount proprietorship, which ~ould"be used in resisting successfully the action of the Government respecting 

them." 

The grant to Coppinger was perfect in itself. It was an absolute conveyance to him as fnll and ample as letters-patent could be from the Unitecl States. 

This deed to hiS grantees passed to and vested in them a perfect title, which 

they held· at the time of the acquisition of this territo1y by the United States. 

The treaty of Guadalupe IDdalgo imposed upon the Uri:itetl States the duty of 

protecting the title of those who had perfect titles to real estate under the Mexican 

Government, as well as that of perfecting such titles as were in their nature in-

(lhoate. 

These parties having been divested of their legal title by a proceeding to which 

they were not parties, and over which they could not exercise any control. are still 

the equitable owners of these lands, and the _persons in whom the legal titl~ is by 

this patent vested should be treated as trustees for the benefit of those having the 

eqnitable title. 

That they have bought and held these lands in good faith is evidenced by thefr 

-original purch:u;e and title-deed, and by their long occupancy and substantial im· 

pro-vements. 

They were transferred by the act of annexation from one sovereignty to another, 

.a.nd every principle of justice,· humanity, and civilization requires that the Gov. ernment extending its jurisdiction over them should e:rlend its protection as well as,its authority. 

The petitioners ha-ve not bad a day in court, or an oppor.tunity to defe~td themselves against the o-vershadowint; claim of the Pulgas rancho. Their grantor did not contest the location of the lirie on appeal to the Supreme Court, and-that ques- tion has never been preaented tQ that tribunal or adjudicated by it. The only ~oestion that seems to have been litigated is, as to the validity of the respective grant~. and not as to their location or boundaries, except as that question has inci-

{lentally occurred in the description of tlle land as contained in the grant. 

Unless the petitioners are permitted to contest the correctness of the location of 

the exterior lines of the Pulgas rancho and the surv-ey of the ~trant, they will be 

forced t-o relinquish their claim to their lands, which they bought in good faith of a grantor having a valid Mexican title, and havo occup~ed for more than a quarter 

of a century, and upon which they have made valuable and expensive impNve- ments. 

I therefore recommend that the bill introduced by Mr. Lt_,..'l"TRELL. be reported to the Honse, and that this committee recommen~ts passage . .. • S. L. MAYHAM, _ Suhcommittee Private Land Olaims. 

Mr. GUNTER. I now ar.k the present consideration of the bill. 

Mr. DAVIS, of California. I object. 

Mr. BLOUNT.- I would like to ask the gentleman who baa this bill 

in charge if this same bill was npt reported a~ainst by a majority of 

the Committee on Private L3D.d Claims of the Forty-fourth Congress T 

Mr. GUNTER. I -believe such~ repert was ordered; whether: made or not I cannot tell. 

Mr. RANDOLPH. Was not this same question· adjudicated by ihe 

courts twenty·years ago f 

·Mr. BLOUNT. I must object to the present consideration of this 

bill. 

Mr. DAVIS, of California. And I object to it . . The SPEAKER. On what ground! 

Mr. DAVIS, of California. On a peint of ordtlr. 

The SPEAKER. What is the point of order which til-e gentleman 

.makes against the bill f 

llr. DAVIS, of California. It involves costs of litigation; the 

Government is made a. defeRda.nt in the suit. , The SPEAKER. The Chair is advised that the bill grants no additional land; it is simply to correct a bmmdary-llne of certain lands 

in question. - Mr. LUTTRELL. It does not grant an acre of land or a. dollar of 

money. . , The SPEAKER. As the Chair is advised at present, there is no point of order resting agaiDBt the bill. The Chair, however, will 

listen to the gentleman from California [Mr. DAVIB] if he has apy 

views to suggest. 

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I understand that this bill makes 

the Government liable for costs, and thereby increases the expenditures of the Government. · I have not car'efully read the bill, but I 

gathered that from hearing it read by the Clerk. · The SPEAKER. 'I'he impression of the Chair is that the provision 

making the Government one of the parties defendant is merely a. matter of form-that the real parties involved are the two grantees. 

Mr. GUNTER. The snit w.ill not be determined either for or against 

the Government. The Government is1not necessarily a party to the 

snit." The real litigation is between the_ two parties claiming the land. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair can only look upon the face of the bill, 

and i~:~ unable to see wherein any point of order rests against this bill. 

Mr. PAGE. Has the morning hour expired' 

The SPEAKER. It has not. 

Mr. PAGE. When will it; expire! 

The SPEAKER. In six minutes. 

Mr. PAGE. The Chair does not propose to limit deh.ate on this bill . to six minutes¥ 

The SPEAKER. That is a matter for the Honse to control. 

Mr. WHIT~, of Pennsylvania. I move that this bill be referred to 

the Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. GUNTER. I call for the previous question upon tho engrossment and third reading of the bilL ' 

Mr. WHITE~ of Pennsylvania. My motion to refer was first made. 

The SPEAKER. But the gentleman was not recognized by the - Chair to submit that motion. The Chair. recognizes the gentleman 

reporting the bill as the oJoJ.e entitled to take char~e of it. If the 

House agrees with the gentleman from Pennsylvama [Mr. WHITEJ 

and the gentleman from California [Air. DAVIS] a~ } it has to do is to 

vote down the previous question. 

Mr. CONGER. Pending the call for the previous question, is nota ·motion to com.mit in orderf · Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I move that the House do now adjourn. · The SPEAKER. That motion is in order; and if agreed to, tho bill 

will go over as unfinished business until _next Friday. . Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. The next day the committee is 

reached, it will come DJl of course. Mr. PAGE. I think that my colleague, [Mr. DAns, of California,] 

who has made this objection, ought to have an opportunity to state it. 

The SPEAKER. After the previous question is sustained there will ' 

be an hour for debate, under the control "of the gentleman reporting 

the bill. ' · Mr. DAVIS, of California. I would prefer not to have the time in 

that shape. 

Mr. GUNTER. We will divide the time. 

Mr. CONGER. I made an inquiry whether pending .a demand for 

the previou..~ question a moti,on to recommit would be in order. I understood the gentleman from Pennsylvania to move to recommit. 

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I did, but the motion was not entertained; and then I made a motion to adjourn, which is in order. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair entertains the motion to adjourn. In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan [Mt:. CoNGER] the Chair Will say that w bile the 4emand for the previous q ues- tion is pending a motion to recommit is not in order. The call fot: 

the previous question must be voted upon ; and ·if the House desires 

further debate beyond the hour which would be allowed after the 

previous question is ordered, or desires to throw the bill open to amendment, it is within the power of the House to vote down the call for 

the previous question. 

The questio~ being taken on the motion of Mr. WmTE, of Pennsylvania, that the House adjourn, it was not agreed to. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I a-sk the gentleman in charge of this bill to withdraw the call fo:r: the previous question and allow the majority report 

of the committee of the Forty-fourth Congress to be read. The _gen- tleman bas had his report read. 

The SPEAKER. The reading of the report would be in the naturE" 

of debate1 and unless the gentleman from Arkansas yields--

Mr. GUNTER. I cannot yield for that purpose. 
• 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17,. 

Mr. WHITE,ofPennsylvania. 

expired. 

I submit that the morning hour has The motion was agreed to; and the Honse ::wcordinglv resolved 

itself into the Committee of the Whole on the Priva.t~ Calendar, Mr. · '.rhe SPEAKER. There is one minute remaining. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I rise•to a point of erder. I submit that the 

point of order already made was well taken. I ask the Clerk to read 

from the bill at line 21, page 2. 

Mr. PAGE. Is it not in order to move to lay the bill ofl the tablet 

The SPEAKER. 1t is. 

Mr. PAGE. I make that motion. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the point of order already submitted is 

well taken, and I ask the Clerk to read the clause of the bill to which 

I have referred. · The Clerk read as follows: · The United States and all persons having an interest in the subject-matter of 

sa\d snit or in the adjustment oi. the lines of the patents, if determined upon by the court, shall be 'made parties defendant; and any party defendant may rely upon any legal or equitable defense, except the lapse of time during which the 

opposite part.y bad under existing laws, no remed:v in the courts ; and either party may apneal to t.he hlgher Federal courts, and on up to the Supreme Court of the 

Umted l;tates, in the manner Iiow provided by law. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not find anywhere in the bill any 

language appropriating a dollar of money or donating an acre of land 

belonging to the United States. 

1\Ir. PAGE. It involves private parties in litigation. 

The SPEAKER. That the Chair d~es not take cognizance of. 

Mr. PAGE. I understand t.hat. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But if the Speaker please, the Gm-ernment is 

made a party in the litigation provided for in the bill, and its rights are to be concluded by that litigation, if it result adversely to the 

Government, as it is to be presumed it will. · The SPEAKER. The gentleman will observe that the Government 

of the United States has already by law parted with all its interest 

in the lands which are in controversy oetween indi'dduals, as men- tioned in this bill. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. And agreed by a treaty to protect t.hese liti-

.gants. 

The SPEAKER. The Government of the United States does not 

make any donation of land or any appropriation of money by this. bill. The Chair overrules the point of order. 

Mr. THOl\fP50N. But the Speaker does not understand the point. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks he does. 

llr. THOMPSON. The Government may have parted with all its 

title: and then this bill makes the Government a defendant in a case in which it has no interest. The litigation in which the Government 

is thus made a party must be a charge upon the Government. 

The SPEAKER. The expense of any such litigation is provided 

for in another. bill. The judicial expenses of the Government are provided for in one of the regular appropriation bills--

Mr. THOMPSON. But this increases such expenses. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair, while anxious to treat the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania with entire fairness, does not see how the bill can be reached by a point of order. 

Mr. THOMPSON. What I mean is this: when this bill makes the 

Government a defendant, whether it has any claim or not, (and if it 

has no claim my point is so much the stronger, as a party who has no interest is compelled to defend,) can it be said there is no expense 

incurred 'I 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not think he is required to argue 

this point ; but if for 11Ce sake of argument the case was as stated 

by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, still the language of this bill 

does not authorize the payment of any money out of the Treasury. 

Any expense of costs is provided for by other law or laws. The Chair 

has already overruled the point of order. The pending question is on the motion to lay on the table. 

)!r. WHI~~t...of Pennsylvania. Ha.s the morning hour expired 'I 

The SPE~R. The morning hour has expired. The situation of 

the bill is this: the gentleman from Ark~sas demands the previous 

question, pending which the gentleman from California moves that 

the bill .be laid upon the table. 

ENROLLED BILLS. 

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

they bad examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following 

titles ; when the Speaker signed the same : An act (H. R. No. 4234) to provide that all pensions on ac~ount of 

death, or wounds received, or disease eontracted in the service CJf the 

United States during the late war of the rebellion, which have been 

granted, or which shall hereafter be grap.ted, shall commence from 

the date\of death or discharge from the service of the United States; 

for the payment of arrears of pensions, and other purposes : and 

An act (H. R. No. 5067) to divide the western district of Missouri 

into two divisions, and to prescribe the times and places for holding 

courts therein, and for other purposes. 

G. H. mLL. 

Mr. HUNTON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 

5860) to remdve the political disabilities of G. H. Hill, of Virginia; 

which was read a first and second time, referred to the Cgmmittee on tho J ndiciary, and ordered to be printed. 

l'RIYATE CALEXDAR. 

lli. BRIGHT m<ived the House resolve itself into the Committee of 

the Whole House on the Pri>ate Calendar. 

MILLS in the chair. · 

HEmS OF BRIGADIER-GENERAL WILLIAM THOMPSON. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House resumes the consideration of the 

Private Calendar, and the first business in order is a bill (H. R. No. 

934) for the relief of the heirs of Brigad).er-General William Thompson, of the revolutionary army. 

Mr. MACKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move by unanimous consent that 

bill be passed over for the present, not to lose its place upon theCalendar. • The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears no objection, and it is ordered 

accordingly. S~IUEL P. TODD. 

The next business on tlle Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

2160) for the. relief of the heirs of Samuel P. Todd, deceased, late a purser in the United States Navy. 

Tho bill, which was read, directs that there be paid to James Todd~ 

admi~trator of the estate of Samuel P. Todd, deceased, late a purser 

in the United States Navy, for the use and benefit of the heirs-at-law 

of said Samuel P. Todd, deceased, the sum. of $4,000, out of any moneys 

in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. . The report was read, as follows: 

The memorialist, Samuel P. Todd, on the 5tb. day of October, 1839, being at that 

time a purser in the Navy of the United States, was ordered to the United Sta.te ship Potomac~ one of the squadron on the Brazil station, as purser. On the 5th day ·of July, 1840, ne was appointed by Commodore Charles G. Ridgeley, who was com- mander-in-chief of the said squadron, special Navy agent for :procuring ani disbnrsillgmoneys for the use of the squadron, there being at that time no .agerit upon that station authorized by the Navy Department to draw for funds. 

The following is the letter of appointment: 

U:-.TrED STATES SHIP POTOMAC, 

Rio de Janeiro, Jttly 5, 1840. 

Sm: As there is no agent upon this station authorized by the Navy Department to draw for funds for the use of the squadron, I have deemed it expedient to ap- point one, and I do hereby appoint you a special agent for that purpose . Yon will therefore, whenever funds are required for the use of the souadron, 

draw bills of exchange upon the Navy Department or upon Messrs. Barin~r .Brothers. & Co., of London, in my favor, and present them to me· for indo1'86ment, after which yon will negotiate them upon the most.favomble terms for the United States, taking care to procure the proper vouchers, as acoounts of sales, certificates, &.o., which 

vouchers you will Jay before me for my approval. 

The pursers of the squadron will ma.ke t.heir req.uisitions upon you, approved by their commanders and myself, for the funds reqmred for the respective vessels io 

which they belong; and for the labor and responsibility which will devolve upoa yon in consequence of this appointment you will, I presume, be allowed by theN avy Department the same compensation as is made to agents upon other stations, towhich I conceive you will be justly entitled. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,' · CH. G. RIDGELEY, 

Commodore and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Naval l!'orces 

To SAMliEL P. TODD, on Coast of Brazil and Rio La Plata. 

• Ptwser United States Ship P~t(nnac. 

It will be readily perceived that Mr. Todd was appointed on the express ground 

that there was no authorized Qgen! on the station authorized to raise and disbw'Se 

funds, and for negotiatin:; bills of exchange, and for keeping accounts of the larKer 

disbursements to the suoordinate disbursing officers for the general use of rue. squadron. 

Under this appointment. which the meiDPrialist was not at Iibert. to decline, 

being ordered by his superior officer, Mr. Todd negotiated for and disbursed more- than $300,000, and he claims as compensation therefor 2~ per cent. upon the amount so negotiated anti disbursed. · · At that time the squadron on the Pacific station consisted of the same foree a.~ 

that on the Brazilian station, and the agency of the business similar to that devolved on the memorialist was performed by Messrs. Edward McCall & Co., 

temporary agents for the Pacific squadron, and they were allowed a salary of $4,()()()_ 

for the same. • At the same time the squadron on the Meditenanean station consisted of about 

the same force as the Brazilian, and the agency thereof was just about the same as the Pacific and that performed by the memorialist, and wa performed bv Messrs. Fitch, Brothers & Co., of Marseilles, and it is understood that they were allowed a commission of 5 per cent. upon the money disbursed, and the money. besides, being advanced to them and paid in to their mercantile house in New York. 

At the same time the squadron on the Weat India station consisted of oue frigate 

and t.wo sloops of war, and the agency was performed by Messrs. Fnrniss 6.:- Co., 

of St. Th~mas, and your commi~te~ are informed, and they think credibly, that 

they rece1ved 2! per cent. comnuss1on. · The memorialist discharged the duties of his said lilpecial agency from the 5th. 

day of July, 1840, the date of his appointment, to the 20th day of December, 1841, a period of nearly eig:hteen months, and no impeachment whatever was ever made 

of the ability or fidelity' w:ith which he conducted said extr!Wrdinary d"gties so cast upon him. And rour committee come to the conclusion that the Navy D epart- ment., by acqniescmg in this appointment and permittin,; it to continue, confirmed 

it iB all things, and are now estopped from denying that they authorized the serv- ices to be performed or that the United States is not bound inhenor amllaw t{) pay for the same what it was reasonably worth. But the Department refuses the compensation. asked for the petition er~ and rests its refusal n~n the ground that by law no extra compensation can be rulowed to persons receiving an annual salary or pay and emoluments fixed by law from the 

Government. 

But your committoo fully coincide with Hon. H. D. Gilpin, former AttorneyGeneral, and wh'ose opinion is filed in this case, that there is nothing in this con- struction which prevents an officer who is receiving a salarv or fixed compensation for his particular office from being also paid for services no£ belonging to that officewhich he is legitimately required to discharge, provided these services are such as are recognized by law as entitled to compensation. It was not as p~er of the Potomac that Mr. Todd drew the bill or raised th& money for the squadroa; as such he would have had no right to dra.w them; it was as special agent, special Navy agent, ta.king the place of a Navy agent on the sta- tion, nml he took it by order and appointment of the commander of the squadron, on the express grounc:l stated in the order that it was too remote from the residence 

of any N'avy agent to procure the money in that manner. If a Sary auent then had been on the station, he would hav~ been entitled to- compensation ¥or the services the memorialist performed. On What "princiiJle of 
. , 

.. 

1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 

law or justice it can then be withheld from Mr. Todd your commitree are unable to see. 

A similar agency for the same station was intrusted to Purser Da.ragh in the 

years 1826 and 1827, and a ~mmi.ssion of 2! per cent. was allowed him: as such 

agent, in addition to his com-pensation as purser, on the amount of bills drawn by hun for the use of the squadron. · On the Pa-cific station, in the interval between the agency of Mr. White, who 

resided at Lima, and who left there about 1833, and that of Messrs. E. McCagg & Co., which commenced in 1838, Edward M. Coxe, actnal purser of the Vincennes 

sloop of war, was appointed special aaent on the station, and on his leaving there 

.Tose:ph Wilson, actual purser on the lforth Carolina., (seventy-four,) was similarly 

appomted, and both of them received an allowance for the special service at the rate of $2,000 per annum, that certain sum being fixed as a compensation for it in 

lien of the more inadequate one of commission. It will be seen by the cases given above, and they were of like kind, that it has been the practice of the Government to pay extra for such senices which have 

been performed outsid~ of and beyond the duties properly pertaining to the proper 

~ vi~!.h~~~r:e~nsiderations above mentioned, and also of the fact that t.he Supreme Court have held at different times in like cases that such special agent& are entitled to pay for their services, as will be seen by reference to 2 Peter's Reports, page 10 ; also on page 23 of the same report, in the case of Major-General Rtpl~y; 

alsO 15 Peter's Reports.,. in the case of General Gratiot, wherein the SupremeCourt 

affirmed their former aecision in like cases as the one before your committee, they do therefore report a bill authorizing the payment to James Todd, administrator of 

the estate of Samuel·P. Todd, deceased, late a purser in the United States Navy, 

for the benefit of the heirs at law of said Samuel P. Todd, deooased, the sum of 

$4,000, and recommend that the bill pass. 

Mr •. EDEN. It occurs to me this claim, now forty years old, if the 

Government ever owed it, should have been paid long ago if it were just. lf we are goi,ng back forty years to settle all claims of this kind we will never get through. 

Mr. BRIGHT. There have been various claims allowed by this Congress within the last two years which have ~one farther back into 

antiquity than forty years. The age of a cla1m, while it may raise a presnmptien against itl ~not conclusive against its validity. It argue& on the contrary a dereliction of Congress in paying just claims of the 

Government when the citizen has been here toiling with this body 

for justice at its hands. · The oill wa-s laid aside, to be reported to the Honse with the xeoom- mendation that it 'do pass. 

DA1\TIEL W. PERKIN,S. 

The next businesstwa.s the bill (H. R. No. 850) for the relief of Dn.niel W. Perkins, of East Saginaw,. Michigan. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Treasury to pay to Daniel W. PerkiruJ,·of East Saginaw, Michigan, 

the sum of $1,090, being in full for services rendered as substitute district attorney in the eastern district of Michigan, from October 1, 1871, 

to J nne 30, 1875. · Mr. BLOUNT. Has the gentleman from Michi~an the statute before him under which these services were renderect f 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. The statute is not here, btlt it has been ex:t.mined thoroughly by the committee. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Let -&he report of the committee he read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

· The bill is for the relief of Daniel W. Pe;kins, of Ea t Sa~naw, Michigan, who was appointed a substitute attorney under section 14 of . tne act of Congress of 

.August 16, 1856, aud acted as district attorney in cases before United States com- missioners in Saginaw county, in said State. His claim is for services rendered 

from October 1, 1871, to .April, 1875. The claim of Mr. Perkins seems to your committ-ee to be entirely just and rea- . on able. He allowed the matter of his compensation to run on froru year to year 

without settlement, at the same time continuing hl3 services as such district attor- ney without calling for a settlement., as he shotlld have done. Finally, when he 

did present his bill for sernces against the Government he was told that the 

appropriations for the respective years he had served the United States were ex- hausted, and it could not be paid without an act of Congress authorizing the pay- ment. The act referred to fully authorizes the appointment aJJd employment of substitnte attorneys1 who are to receive the same fees as the district attorney. 

This law continued m force up to 1874, when the Revised Statutes were adopted, at which time this provi.l!ion seems to have been dropped; but the omission was not discovered by the authorities in the department until July, 1875, and notice was not. gi-.en UDtil August followina. 

The cliiimant, it seems by the printed report of the Committ.ee on the .Tmliciary 

of the Forty-fourth Congress, (which was a favorable repol't.,) furnished said Judi- ciary Committee a list of the cases he tried as such substitute attorney and a. full copy "of hiti account, but the same is not now to be found; which account., as appears from said report of the Judiciary Committee, was duly certified to by the 

commissioners before whom t.he cases were pending when tlie sernces were performed; also the certificate of the First Comptroller of the Treasury, showing that 

the charges correljpond with the cases reported, and that neither the claimant nor any one else bas ever been paid for the services rendered. The district attorney also appends hls certificate to the srun~. as appears by said report, showing that he 

appointed Mr. Perkins as such substitute, ·and that he rendered said sernces for o>e ,·eral years. · • The claim of the memorialist amounts to the sum of 1,090, and appended to it, as appears by said report of the said Judiciary Committee, are the following certifl-. cates: 

'(f~TTED STATES OF .A..liERICA., 

Washington, D. C.: 

I, .Tames R. Cook, late United States commissioner for the eastern district of 

Michigan, do hereby certify that the dates stated in the foregoing cases, as exam.inationR had before me, are correct and true, showing the time occupied in such ex- aminations; that Daniel W. Perkins was the attorney and the only attnrney who 

Sippeared for the United States Go"\"ernment and conducted such examinations. 

.T .AS. R. COOK, 

Litle r'"nited States ('{)mmissioner, Eastern Dist1ict of Michigan. 

\ TREASURY DEP ~RTlllt~T, 

First Oemptroller's Office, July 10, 1876. 

The records and files of this Department show that examinatiohs were had in 

the cases specified in the foregoing statementof D. W. Perkins, sub titute<l United 

States attorney in said cases substitute, D. W. Perkins. have been made to the said attorney, o.r bieR W. TAYLER, 

Comptroller. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATI'OID."EY'S 0FFICF., 

FQT the Eastern District of MichigrLll : 

I, A. B. Maynard, United States district attorney for eastern district of Michi- gan, do hereby. certify that D. W. Perkins, of East Saginaw, Michigan, bas been 

m:y deputy at that place for· a number of years ; that none of the services of thesaid Perkins were e"\"er audited with my services in any cases in which said Per- kins appeared; that I ha>e never been allowed or paid for any services which said' 

Perkins has performed as snell deputy district attorney; that all the pay which 

said Perkins has received for his services as such deputy district attorney has been· allowed and audited by "the First Auditor of the Treasury ; and that the said Per- kins should receive/ay for such services as he has performed which do not appear to have been audite by the said First Auditor; that the certificate of the United 

States commissioner, before whom said Perkins performed said sernces, will show 

what these services were; that I have been personally acquainted with :Mr. D. W. Perkins for many years, and know hlm to be reliable and trustworthy, and that h6 

would not present any aooount for services which was not correct and true; that l. personally know thathehasnot been paid for a. number of years, but I cannot give· the exact date; that the fact of his not being :paid grew out of the fact of Mr •. 

~:::!J ~~~?C:~'!f.nting his account till after estimates for the y~rs had been exDated June 24-, 1876. 

A. :B. MAYNARD, - 1Jnited States Di.Btrict Attontey for the Eastel"n District of 11Hchiyan. 

TREASURY DEPARTH.E}o.""T, FIRST COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, 

Washington, D. 0., June 5, 187G. 

Sm: Your letter of the 3d instant to the First Auditor relative to a claim or ·Daniel W. Perkins has been referred to this office. 

By section 14, act of August 16, 1856, district attorneys were authorized to om- ploy substitutes, who were to receive the same fees as the district attorneys for likeservices. Mr. Perkins was so employed and so paid. His last account settled at: this Department embraced services to the 3oth day of September, 1871. In the revision of the statutes of the United States the authority to employ substitutes was dropped. It apv.ears fr-om the district attorney's statement that Mr. Perkins continued to-- act until April, 1875. I therefore presume that his claim is for compensation as- substitute attorney from October 1, 1871, to April, 1875, which cannot be paid at the· Treasury for want of authority. His account has probably ueen rendered to the--

Department of Justice, where it would properly go if it could be allowed. 

Very respectfully, · 

Hon. X. B. BRADLEY, 

House of Representatives. 

R. W. TAYLER, 

Comptroller. 

It .a.ppears that the omission in the revision was not discovered till about July,. 1875, and no notice was gi"\"en till August, 1875, to district or substitute attorneys~ 

They, including Mr. Perkins, continued to act in good faith, as can be ascertained 

from the First Comptroller of the Treasury. Your committee, from this examination, and from the above facts as found by theJudiciary Committee of theForty.fourthCongress, and from the evidence attached to their report, come to the conclusion that there can be no doubt about the justiceof the claim of the said Daniel W. Perkins-, and that it should be paid ; and therefore, without waiting for the filing of a. new statement of his aooounts, so lost, we report back the bill so referred to said committee and-recommend that it do pass. 

The bill w'as laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation it do pass. ELLA. P. 1\lURPHY • 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No .. 1502) for the relief of Ella P. :Mnrphy. . ·The bill, which was read, n.uthorizes and directs the Secretary of 

theTreasurytopaytoMrs. EllaP. :Murphy, widow ofPatrickMurphyrout of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum· of ·3,875, as full compensation for depredations committed by the ¥es- ca1ero Apache Indians upon the property of said Pn.trick Murphy. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The bill seeks to appropriate $3,875 for losses sustained by the husband of claim- ant on account of depredations committed by the Mescalero Apache lndi.<tns on ills- property on the night of the Gth of .August 1861, and in 18701 at Fort Davis, Texas. To sustain that part of the claim occurring in 1861 there ls no proof except thatof Mrs. Murphy, the widow, and while there can be but little if any doubt of the 

loss as set out by claimant it is not deemed a safe precedent to allow such claims 

without certain and strict proof of the actual loss, the character and "\"alue of the 

property. and the identity of the tribe of Indians committing the depredation. 

.Afterin'"estigation by the agent of tbo Imlians char_ged with the depredation and. 

the Interior Department, this part. of the claim was disallowed. Another portion 

of the claim is for depredations committed by the same band of Indians at Fort Davis in 1870. The sworn testimony of Captain Cparles Parker shows that in the month of. August, 1870, Patrick Murpby, then in the employ of the United States Govern- ment as a post-trader, lost tlu·ee hundred head of sheep and goats, taken by the- Indians mentioned; that Captain Parker was dispatched with his command in. pursuit of the Indians, and that twenty-two head of the sheep and goats were re- captured. This testimony is further sustained by the sworn statement of .Acting Assistant Surgeon Thomas Landers, United States Army. It appears that two hundred and rughty-se"\"en sheep nnd goats were lost, and that they were of the-

>alue of $2.50 each. After investi;ration. thls part of the claim, amounting to i(i95, was allowed by the Department and reported to Congress. 

During the Forty-third Congress the Committee on Indian Affairs mnde a report recommending the passage of the bill for this amount. · (See Report""No. 632, Forty·third Congress, first session). Your committee recommend the following amendments, -namely : First. In seventh line, strike out the words "three thousand eight hundred and 

se'"enty-five," and insert in lieu thereof the words "six hundred and ninety-five. " · Second. Add at the end of the section the words "Provided, That before paying 

the moneys hereby appropriated the said Ella P. Murphy shall make satisfact-ory 

proof that she is the sole heir of Patrick Murphy, late of Fort Davis, Texas, or otherwise the sole owner of -the claim: And provided further, That the sum herein• appropriated shall be paid out of the moneys due the Mescalero Indians of New. Mexico." With the adoption of the amendments indicated the committee recommend th• 

passage of the bill. 
.538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17, 

The CHAffiMAN. The pending question is on the amendments reported by the committee and contained in the report just read. 

The amendments were agreed to; and the bill, as amended, was 

laid aside, to be reported t.o the House with the recommendation that 

it do pass. 

W. JESSE BUCHANAL~. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

1854) for the relief of W. Jesse Buchanan, }l).te first lieutenant Third 

.Michigan Cavalry Volunteers; which was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs adversely. 

Mr. DIBRELL. I move that bill be laid aside, to be reported to the 

House with the recommendation ihat it do lie upon the table. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the bill was laid aside, to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it be laid on 

-the table. · 

~ENKINS A. FITZGERALD. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 

796) for the relief of Jenkins A. Fitzgerald, assistant surgeon United 

.States Army. 

The bill, which was read, provides that the payments made by the 

Department of the Interior to Assistant Surgeon Jenkins A. Fitz-

_gerald, UniteU. States Army, for medical services rendered the Chey-

-enne and Arapaho Indians, at the request of said Department, in the 

absence of other medical aid, are hereby sanctioned, and the said Assistant Surgeon Fitzgerald is authorized to retain the compensation 

] laid, anything in the statutes of the United States to the contrary 

notwithstanding. 

The report was read, as follows : 

This bill provides that the payment made by the Department of the Interior to Assistant Surgeon Jenkins A. Fitzgerald, United States Army, for medicalserv· ·ices rendered the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, at Camp Supply, Indian Terri· 

tory. in the year 1869, at the request of said department, in the a.osence of other· medical aid, shall be sanctioned, and allows him to retain the compensation, . amounting to '>i98.33. A precisely similar bill was introduced at the second session 

of tho Forty-fourth Congress, and was refeiTed by the Committee on Military Af. fairs of the Houae of Representatives to the Secretary of War, for infonnation, . and returned by the Secretary on the 8th of February, 1877, accompanied with a letter from the Adjutant-General, in which the bill is inclosed, in the following -words: " The Surgeon-General, to whom the bill for the relief of Dr. Fitzgerald was re- -ferred, reports as follows: . "It is my opinion the money was fairly earned and is justly due." 

A bill of precisely similar character, for the relief of Assistant Surgeon Thomas 

F. Azpell, unanimously passed both branches of the Forty. fourth Congress, and was "appro"\"ed January 19, 1877." (Unit-ed States Statutes at Large, "\"olume 19, 

.Pa,!!e 500.} . Your committe respectfully report the bill back to the House, and recommend itsp~ge. 

:Mr. EVINS, of South Carolin.a. I move as :1 substitute for the bill 

the following: 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and in lieu thereof insert the following : 'l'hat the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay or ..cause to be paid, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Assistant Surgeon Jenkins A. Fitzgerald, fo1· moneys originally received by him 

from the Department of the Interior for medical services rendered at the Arapaho . and Cheyenne Indian agency, in the year 1869 and 1870, and which moneys sore. ceived the sai<l Jenkins A. Fitzgerald was required to return to the Treasury by -order of the Second Comptroller. 

Mr. EVINS, of South Carolina. Since the introduction of the bill 

Assistant Surgeon Fitz~erald was compelled by order of the Second 

•Comptroller to refund the money to the Treasury. The bill as originaUy introduced proposed he should retain the money; bnt as he 

.has paid it baok:-and I have the papers here which show he has paid 

. it back-the amendment proposed by the committee is that the money 

·shall be refunded to him. The Surgeon-General recommends the payment; so does the Secretary of War. The Surgeon-General says this 

®an performed these services in good fait·h and in ignorance of any 

Jaw which prevented him from receiving compensation for them. 

.As stated in the report, precisely a silrilar bill was passed by the 

Forty-fourth Congress. 

The amendment was adopted; aml the bill, as amended, was laid 

.aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

PROTESTA.li.""T EPISCOPAL SEMINARY, VIRGJ!oiiA. 

The next. business on the Private CaltSndar was the bill (H. R. Ko. 

'943) for the relief of the trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Semi- . 

nary and High School in Virginia; reported by Mr. GOODE, from the 

•Committee on Education amt Labor. 

The hill was read, as follows : 

Be it enacted, etc., That there be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money tin the 'l'reasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $20,000, in full payment of •rent due to the trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary and High :School in Virginia, for the use and occupation of their bUildings and other prop- .erty (located near Alexandria) for hospital purposes. 

SEc. 2: That this act be in force from and after the passage thereof. 

The report was read, as follows: 

This seminary and hi!Zh school were established for the most beneficent of all •purposes-that of educating and training the minds of those yo~ men who felt .-called t.o enter upon the solemn and responsible duties of ministers of the Protestant 

.EpitiCOpal Church in the U,nited States. Tbey were situat-ed near Ale:s;andJ:ia, in J.t'airiax County, Virgini.a. and within sight of the Capitol. The buildings were ·erected and -tile schools sustained by eonhibutions from all parts of the United :Stnt<'s. They.,were seventeen in number, and stand upon a tract of land contain· .ing al.unt two hundred acres. One of these buildings was erected from funds fur· 

ni hf'll l·:o;· William H . .Aspinwall & Brother, of New York, and another by John 

JJc!;ll'll l!Ilu his sister, of Pl.Jiladelphia, and still ~other by the conl:l'egation of 

Saint George's chureh, New York. Fnnds were contributed from all parts of the 

United States to build the others. The students in these schools have been from 

nearly all the States-North, South, East, and West. 

In the seminary there have been 601 students of divinity. Of these; 20() were from the North, 195 from the South, 19 foreigners, and IS7 whose residence is not ~riven in the catalogues. These holy men all entered the ministry. Of this 

number, some 440 still remain in the ministry in thfrty.two States of the' Union anti. 

foreign lands. One of the most important Christian denominations i<t infiehted to this institution for one.seventh of the entire body of her clergy. Thirty: -one have gone to foreign lan<l~as missionaries, 44 are laboring in Maryland, 56 iu POOI1syl- vania, 34 in New York. 'l:he rest are scattered ilfsmaller numbers in other Stat 

of the Union. 

The high cbool is a first.class prepamtory school for the colleges and universi- ties of tho country. A very large number of students from all parts of the countrv have entered this sehool. 'fltese statistics are obtained from Ule reports up to ldi<i . 

A large number bas since been added to the catalogues of both schools. 

At the time the war began, in 1861, both these schools were in a most·prosr.erOllll condition. Many of tho buildin~~:s were new, and all were fnrnished in compltJt~ 

manner. On t-he 24th of Mas, 1861, the :Federal troops rook possession of :A.lc.xu.n- dria, and soon commenced a "Permanent syst-em -of fortifications forth& defense of 

the city. These fortifications embraced :ill the buildings of these schools, ami thev 

remained in the permanent and undisturbed occupation of tbe Fetltlra.i Goveru- ment during the whole war. On or about the 25th August, 1861, these buil<,Ungs were taken possession of uy the United States authorities and converted into a brigade ho$pital, or an a~'O~· 

tion of the hospitals of the di1ferent r~~giment.'J on duty in and near Ale:ia.nd.ria. 

(See the order of .Charles S. Tripier, surgeon of United States Army, to .Hri!tatlt> Surgeon George Suckley, on :file in the Sargeon.General's OffiCe.) On the 14th of 

August, 1865, David P. Smith, a surgeon of Unitell States Volunteers, ordered a discontinuance of this ho pi tal, which order is on tile in the same office. So that 

from the 25th August, 1861, to 14th August, 1ti65-about four years-the Govern- ment had the entire use of these buil~s. Besides the use of the buildings, " vcrr large quantity of wood was cot from th1s lan<l aiul userl by the GOvernment. Tb'e valuable furnitqre of all these buildings was either destroyed or caiTied away under the mistaken impression that it belonged to the Government. 

Some time afterthe clo e of the war the friends of the institution from theN orth 

and South united iu an application to the War Department for payment of rent and for the property destroyed. This application was indvrsed by Surgeon-Gen- eral Barnes as just and reasonable. The Secretary of War agreed to pay rent, but 

refused to pay damages, and reque ted a bill fo1· rent and be would pay it. 

Before this bill was presented he was informed of the law of 1867, which pro- hibited payment of such o}aims comin~ from the seceding States, and be ad nsed 

that application be made to Congress. '"This application is contained in the above 

bill No. 948, and is only for the rent of the properLy. The proof before your com- mittee shows that the reasonable rent of this Jlropertyfor the ~our years amounted to $20,000, the amount appropriated by this bill. 

Upon the above statement of facts ought"thi.s claim to bo paid? Your committee report in the affirmative, for the following reasons : 1. It is a benevolent and literary im1titution, fonuded by the good people of this 

country, North and South. Such institutiona are exempted and sacred from injurv by the laws of nations, and, when used for the necessary purposes of the war, should be paid for. . , 2. This claim would have been paid but for the law of 1867, prohibiting the pay· ment of such claims in the seceded States. This institution, though in a seceded 

State, was, during the whole war, in the permanent undisturbed occupation of the Federal Government. The v.roclamation of President Lincoln of 16th August, 186 L 

a few days before these bmldings were occupied, declaring that insurrectiol1 ex- isted in certain States, expressly exempted from its operation aml effect such pares as " may be from time to time OCCDJ?ied and controlled by the forces of tho U nitetl 

States." Besides this continued military occupation, Alexandria wa!:l represented continuouslyin what was called therestoredgovernm(lntof Virgini~ which always recownzed tho Government of tlle United States and rendered obed1ence to its an- thonty and laws. The seat of this restored government was in Alexandria unti l 

it was removed to Richmond in April,,)865, and became the government for the 

whole State of Virginia. · This instirution was not, therefore, in any sense of the word, in an insurrection- . acy: district·, and was as mnch within the equity of the laws for the payment of this 

claim as any similarly situate<l institution in New York or Massachusetts. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Planters' .Bank vs. The Union 

Bank, (16 Wall., 25!1,) decided that the city of New Orleans, in August, 1863, wa.'l so held by the United States forces. If this was true of the city of Kew Orleans, how can it be denied as to the locality of this institution, which was never under 

control of the Confederate forces for two days after the ord.inance of secession was ratified by the vot-e of the people. There are many precedents for the payment of claims like this. Joseph Segar was paid for u e and occupation of his farm near Fortress Monroe, in \irginia . (See Statutes at Large, No. 17, page 699.) The University of Kentucky was paid for occupation of its buildings, (16 Statutes at Large, 678.) 

3. For the above reasons the question of loyalty does not enter into this case. But for technical application of the law of 1867 the Secretary of War would ha,ve 

paid it. Although a part of a acceded State it was in no sense of the word at any time du·ring the war in insurrection a~inst the United States, and, a.<t before stated, is completely within the equity of the law for payment. Bot how can such an eleemosynary institution as this be disloyal ~ Its ttustees may be disloyal, but 

they only hold, as an artificial person under the law of incorporation, the nakeJ. 

legal title for the benefit of all who may hereafter reap the benefits' of its teachings. Who shall say they are disloyal ? Who are they, and from what section do 

they come 1 It is believed that the t-erm disloyal cannot be applied to any Ruch 

institution. It is farther believed that the gOod faith of the Government tlemands its payment: that the benevolent objects of the institution call loudly ou the Government, if not to repair the losses actually sustained by its occnration, at least to pay a fair rent for the use of the buildings and grounds, which, i not paid for these buildings, would of necessity have been paid for some others to shelter the sick soldiers of the Union Army . .For these reasons your committee rep on back the bill and recommend its pas~age: 

• J.\.Ir. GOODE. I move that the bill be laid aside, to be reported 

favorably to the House. 

Mr. COKGER. From the reading of this report the committee is 

inforJDecl of two things: first, that the payment of this claim is contrary to law, a consideration which sometimes has a little force with 

some members of the House; and perhaps it would not be a serions 

injury to any of us if we regarded the law in making apprQPriati0ns. 

The next fact which we learn from this report is that these' buildings 

were not only in a seceded State but were a.ctually inclosed within 

the fortifications built by the Unit-ed States, and were them8elves a 

part and parcel of a military fortification, the erection of which we 

may naturally SU],>PQSe was rendered necessary to secure to our soldiery tbe occnpat1on of that territory. 

Now, sir, I need not go again and again over the proposition that 
1879. CONG~ESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 539 

Alexandria was a ca.ptnred city, captured by our forces in the pres- ence and occupation of a hostile army; that eveTY building, public 

and private, every warehouse, every dock, was the captured property 

of the United States under the laws of war and the law of nations; 

and that our Government had the right to take any and every building under that law for its own purposes. The report shows, and I do 

not go outside af the report-and I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GooDE] for having been so candid with the House in making the report-the report shows that as a war measure, after making .such capture, and I do not know whether I am right in the supposition that this·property was in the city of Alexandria. or whether it was property on the heights above the city of Alexandria--

Mr. GOODE. The property is about a mile beyond the limits of 

Alexandria. 

Mr. CONGER. I had supposed so. That whole region, including 

the city and the surrounding suburbs, the bills and the valleys around, was captured by Union forces opposed by confederate forces· and 

not only was this occupied as captured territory, but the military 

forces of :the United States thought the possession, as I suppose, of 

these gounds, of these buildings which were on the heights, of so much importance in the carrying on of the war and in defending their 

position thero against the assaults of the confederat-e forces that they 

made there a military fort, inclosing within it, as the report says, 

these buildings and making the buildings themselves, by the act of ·Our generals and by the act of our Army, a part of the forts of the 

United States. 

Now, sit, if it be true that the common judgment of all men, North .ami South, a.cquiesced in· the decision of Congress in regard to the 

payment of Dr. Best for the. use of his house, and perhaps for lts 

-destruction, in a place then about to be, and which was finally, occu- pied by onr Army for a fort; if it be true that we may use the property, 

the houses in which loyal citizens and their families reside without 

payment, without even the right of compensation-for that question 

arises in the Best case, whether this Government has the right, whether it can, in compliance with the laws of nations and the obligations of this Government to many thousand others in like cir-

-cumstances, make paymept either for the use or for the destruction 

of such property-! ask this committee to show bow this "Government can pay for using a 'part of its own fortresses: how it can pay for the use and occupation of property which it has not only seized and made .a military fort but which it has surrounded with the ramparts of a fortress to be specially and solely, and as we may su1>pose necessarily, 

.occupied, directly and absolutely, by our troops to the exclusion of 

every other occupancy whatever. . The cases which have been referred to by the committee are the .cases of the occupation of premises, of houses, or the property of other 

institutions, where there was no war necessity to occupy them, whf;lre 

there were other buildings that could have been occnpieu, and where 

there was some agreement either direct or indirect between the Government and the owners that rent should be paid. I: dislike to oppose 

the payment of claims to institutions of this kind aa much as any 

othe1· man on this floor, and I cannot divest myself of the conviction 

that this belongs to a class of ca.s_es which are of such a nature that 

if we pay one we must pay hundreds equally deserving, equally meritorious; if we pay one we must pay by thousands and by millions of 

dollars a class of cases which, under the law of nations, as the com- mittee already admit, under the laws of the United States as they now exist, could not and cannot be paid. · Now, sir, I call upon the committee to sho'v by. what right this case can be taken away from the operation of existing law and in what 

it differs from other cases which are said to b6.equally meritorious. 

I call upon the committee to show that it does not open a class of cases to payment and prosecution which would involve the expenditure of enormous sums·of money from the Treasury of the United 

States. 

There must come a time somewhere when the dividing line between 

what is right for this Government to pay in these matters of war claims, and what it is not right fo;- the Government to pay must be 

clearly defined. · I dislike to question every one of these claims. It is in no spirit of 

antagonism to the South or to Vir~a. It is in no spirit of antagonism to colleges, much less to :religious institntionshthat I am com- pelled to call attention to the passage of these bi s. I have not 

examined this case. I take it upon the report of the committee, and 

upon the report itself of a committee which ought not to have had 

this bill to report upon. 

I mean by that that this is one of those bills that ought to have 

gone to the Committee on War Claims and been decided there according to the conditions and terms which that committee have imposed 

upon such claims, and which this House has instructed them to impose 

upon such claims. 

Now, sir, I ask the gentlemen who favor this bill to show the Honse 

wherein this is different from other cases which the judgment of the 

House has been unable to approve of, and let us see where the dividing line stands. 

It is interesting for me to know that there have been graduates who 

have become ministers of an influential, prosperous, and beneficial 

church of Christ. I rejoice that this has done much good and is now doing much good to the world of sinners; but if it be not one of the 

claims that are to be paid by the money from the Treasury of the U nite<l 

St;a:tes, no matter what hallowed names are associated with it, no matter what number of ministers and missionaries may have gone 

forth from its walls, we are not here to vote the money of the people 

to pay for institutions which have done good merely. We are to pay 

such obligations of this Government as the good jud,!rment and sound 

sense, the law of nations, the laws of our land, ana the conctl!Tent 

judgment of the vast mass of our constituents will warrant us to vote 

out of the Treasury of the United States. 

Let us be informed concerning this bill, and if it be one for which 

I may vote in conformity with my judgment, the laws of natioD8, 

and the laws of the country; if it be a claim whicl,l the people of the 

United States ought to pay, as a right claim, no man will vote for it more cheerfully than I; but if it be not, however grand the institution, however hallowed its work, however glorious the names of those 

who have gone forth to do good in the world, I must, although reluctantly, raise my feeble voice against the passage ·of this or any other 

bill which overrides the laws of the land, the laws of war, the laws 

of nations, and depletes the Treasury, contrary to aU those principles 

of law. 

Mr. EDEN. I am constrained to differ with the distinguished gentleman ~om :Michigan in reference to the propriety of paying this 

claim. Neither do I agree with hitn that it has been reported by the wrong committee. While in one sense it is a war claim in another it is an e(lncational matter, and hence it might properly be considered 

by the Committee on Education and Labor. I opposed the payment 

for the destruction of William and Mary college for the reason that 

I thought it would be a bad pTecedent for this Government to undertake to pay fot· damages which were merely incidenta.l to the prosecution of the war. This claim for tlompensation by this institution for the use of its buildings for hospital purpo~s for a period of four years by the Government of the United States stands upon entirely 

different principles. If there is either any law or any moral principle 

against the propriety of the Government of the United States paying 

claims like this they are written in some book that I have never read. 

This is simply and purely a claim for compensation for the use of 

this property, and this institution of learning is just as much entitled 

in law and in morals to be paid a fair rate of compensation· as any 

person in any other part of the country would have been had the Government used his property for that purpose. The confederate go~ernment never had any control of this property. The Government of the 

United States took possession of Alexandria and the surrounding conn- try, I believe, a day or two after the passage of the ordinance of seces- sion by the State of Virginia, and before that State had become a part 

of the confederate government. That portion of the territory of Virginia in which the cemetery is situated was recognized by the Go-.-

ernrnent of the United States during the entire war as loyal territory. It waa represented in the Senate of the United States during th'e en- tire war, and during a portion of the war at least it was represented 

in this Honse. 

Mr. LATHROP. I desire to ask the gentleman if he ever heard of a nation blockading its own ports ' ~r. EDEN. It never was in the possession of the confederate government. It was in our possession and could not be blockaded; it never was in the possession of the confederate government at any time. Mr. LATHROP. I never beard, of a people blockading again3t 

themselves; but there was a blockade there against the enemy; 

Mr. EDEN. The gentleman from Michiaan puts this upon the ~round that the Government of the United States had captured that 

prqperty, had captureu the city of Alexandria, including this highschool, and all the property there. Well, if the GQvernment of the United States had captured that property, and intended to hold it and own it as captured property, I suppose that the rights of individuals 

would have been entirely dispensed with, and all the inhabitants of 

that territory, after the war was over, before they could again reoc- cupy their lands and houses, would have been compelled to buy them 

from the Government of the United States. No one ever heard of 

such a law as that. 

Again, this is not setting a precedent; the payment of the rent for this seminary is not making a precedent. The precedent has already 

been made, was made soon after the close of the war, and I do not know 

but during the war, and has been followed from that time until this. The Government of the United States has paid for the rent of property held as this property was in Tennessee and in Kentucky, and 

probably in other States of the Union, to which I do not now have time to refer. 

Mr. CONGER. Was not that by special contractt 

Mr. EDEN. I am not aware that there was any special contract 

in those cases. But in this case, as I understand from the report, Surgeon-General Barnes advised the payment for this property, and 

it would have been paid without any additional le~islation but for 

the fact that in 1867 an act of Congress wag passoo. which forbade 

the payment of any claims in the seceded States without action of Con~. Consequently that act prevent-ed this institution from re- ceivmg what the Department was willing to pay, and what it wt\nld 

have paid but for t:Q.e law that forbade the payment of claims in a ll 

tha£ territory. · In the treatment of the people in the late insurrectionary Statea, · and in the treatment of their property, the Government of tbe United 

States baa not proceeded upon the theory laid down by the gentleman from Michigan. The Government has not proceeded upon the theory 
54Q CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 17, 

tbat all property tbat was captured in that country belonged to the 

Government of the United States and that the Government had no right to pay for it because it had captured it. 

At the close of the late war we had a large amount of what wa,s 

denominated in the law as captured and abandoned property ; some $24,000,000, A large part of the proceeds of that captured and abandoned property has been paid into the Treasury of the United States. 

This Congress passed an act giving the claimants upon that fund the 

right to sue in the Court of Claims, and if· they could identify their 

property they were allowed to recover the proceeds of it. 

Mr. CONGER. This House passed such an act; not this Congress. 

Mr. EDEN. It became the law of the land; it was an act of Congress, and it became the law of the land many years ago. A large 

part of that property has been recovered under that law. . Now, I am as much opposed to the payment of unlawful claims as _my friend from Michigan [Mr. CoNGER] or any body else. As a mem- ber of this Honse and as a member of the Committee on WarClaiiDB, 

in my dealings with this question I have been as careful and as cau- tious as probably any gentleman upon this floor. But when the Government has had the use of a valuable property in its own territory, 

under its own jurisdiction, never under the jurisdiction of the enemy, 

for a period of four years, I say that instead of its being unlawful to 

pay for the use of that property, it is disgraceful for the Government 

to refuse to pay for it. ~lr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania, addressed· the committee. [His 

remarks will be printed in the Appendix.] 

Mr. HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Committee on Education and Labor, to which was referred this bill for its con~ideration, it became my duty to investigate somewhat the nature 

of the claim and to cast my vote in the committee fer or against the 

passage of the bill. I believe in the justice of the claim, in its equity, 

in its right. I do not see that it is in any sense a w~r claim; and in 

reply to my friend from Pennsylvania, who says he fails to distinguish between the case of William and Mary and the .case of the Episcopal Seminary at Alexandria, I will say that in the one ca~e the 

College of William and Mary was on territory belonging to and under 

the control of the Confederate States, and it was destroyed by one of 

the exigencies of war. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to recall the gentleman's 

attention to the report made by the same gentleman from Virginia who 

made this report. He states that this territory was under the control 

of the United States at the time it was occupied. 

Mr. HASKELL. Very good. It was destroyed as one of the exi-

.(J'encies or one of the casualties of war. It afforded the confederate ~ervice no protection and no benefit. It gave the Union side no protection and no benefit. It was destroyed as much by one of the acci-

-dent.s of war as the destruction of a building destroyed by a stroke 

of lightning can be termed an accident. This building was located 

in Alexandria, a section of the country which by proclamation of the 

President of the United States was declared to be part of the United 

States and not part of the confederacy. These buildings were not 

destroyed by one of the accidents of war. There is no claim to .Pay 

for the destruction of this building. There is no claim here to pay 

for the destruction of any furniture. This was a piece of territory 

decla.red by the President of the United States to be pa.rt of our territory and not part of the confed'eracy. By order of our own officers 

these buildings were appFopriated to the use of the Union soldiers. 

For four long years Union soldiers were protected by the roofs of these 

buildings. Every friend of the Union soldier who knew his fri~ud 

was there felt he was provided with comfortable hospital ac«omodations. 

Now, then) these buildings constructed by the gratuitous gift of 

loyal men, this institution was in no sense disloyal, in no way allied 

to the confederate service. 

These buildings have escaped all the exigencies 'of the wa.r, and are at present in possession of the same old company, and this claim is 

pending before Congress to pay for the valuable services which the 

Union soldiers received from an entirely lawful and legal corporation. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Let me a-sk the gentleman a question. Early 

in the war the United States took possession of the city of Nashville; 

they took possession of the churches, the colleges, the court-house, 

arid other public buildings, and theY. used them for hospitals. The 

whole city was a military camp for ylars, and now what good reason is there if the Government pays this claim why it should not also pay 

for the rent of those buildings~ 

)!r. HASKELL. I do not lrnow. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Neither do I. 

l\Ir. HASKELL. I do not lrnow what good reason a church or building occupied by Union soldiers in the city of Nashville, a loyal institution, no charge of disloyalty attaching to the owner; affording protection and shelter and convenience to Union troops by order ef offi- cers of our Army-I say I do not see any good reason why it should 

not be paid for. I suppose there may be some good reason, but I do 

not know it. 

But I am not alone in the advocacy of this bill. The payment of 

t his rent has been asked for by a republican and a Union Secretary of War. The payment of this rent has been asked for by a loyal 

Union Surgeon-General. A similar institution has been paid under a similar bill. I am not in fa-.or of any war claim. I apprehend it 

is not necessary for a representative of the State of Kansas to vote 

against anything anybody may suggest as a war claim in order to 

prove his tlevot.ion and loyalty to the Union or to the republican. party. I am a citizen and a resident of the town that was destroyed 

by one of these accidents of war. I know exactly what it cost. No, 

I do not want to be paid, but if I shall come here with a legitimate 

bill and ask for nothing but what is right and just and equitable, I 

hope the American Congress, republican or democratic, will forego 

for a moment all petty considerations and deal in the spirit of that 

great higher law which commands us to do unto others as we would 

that others should do unto us. I cannot conceive wherein this is a war claim. I take it this in no way binds me to vote for war claims. I would not cast · my vote for one on any consideration. I conceive; however, these buildings used 

by our troops, affording valuable aid, ought to have a moderate rent 

allowed for them, especially when the institution and the very soil 

upon which it stands, by the word of a republican Union President 

of the United States, was declared not to be within the lines of the 

rebellion. 

Mr. HUNTON rose. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I would like, if the gentleman 

from Virginia would allow me, to ask the gentleman who has just 

finished a question for information. · Mr. HUNTON. I yield for that purpose. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. Does the gentleman fr6m Kansas 

know who were the officers of this institution? 

Mr. HASKELL. I do not. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York . . lias the gentleman any knowled·ge as to whether they were loyal? . . Ur. HASKELL. ·The officers t 

!Ir. TOWNSEND, of New York. The officers of this institution. 

Mr. HASKELL. Some were loyal and some were not, as I understand. 

11Ir. TOWNSEND, of. New York. Does the gentleman know who was the presiding officer of the institution? 

Mr. HASKELL. The president now is Cassius M. Lee. I cannot 

recall the name of the president at that time. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. What \VaS the objection in the 

way of the- Secretary of War paying for the use of this building T 

.Mr. HASKELL. I cannot recall at present the terms of the objection. 

Mr. GOODE. If the gentleman from New York will allow me I 

will answer him upon that point. If he has paid attention to the 

reading of the report--

Mr. TOVlN,SEND, of New York. I have not; I was out when the 

report was read. 

Mr. GOODE. I will be glad, then, to state, with the permission of 

my friend from Kansas, that after the termination of the war a claim 

for the rent of this building was brought under the attention of Surgeon-General Barnes, and he recommended its payment. Application was made to the Secretary of War and he directed the hill to be paid as one which ought to be paid because it '!as reasonable and jnst. 

Then his attention was called to the law of 18tii', prohibiting the pa.yment of any claim arising in the seged~d s.tates; he therefore declined 

payment and recommended that applicatiOn be made to Congres~. 

Mr. HUNTON. If there ever was a claim which came before this 

House that ought to be received and treated without any sectional 

feeling, this is such a claim; and I am gratified, Mr. Chairman, that 

up to this period no sort of sectional feeling has been introduced into 

the debate upon thi~ bill which comes before the Honse reported by one of its committees with lmanimity;as I understand. Gentlemen 

from the North and the South and the East and the West have all, 

by uniting in that report, said to this committee, this is oce of the 

claims pending before this House that ought to be paid because it 

is just. 

Let ns look a moment at this claim, .Mr. Chairman, :md see how it 

presents itself before this House and to the minds of the members of 

the committee who have to vote upon it. It is the cL.'l.im of the Virginia Theological Seminary and High SchooL There were seventeen 

buildings used by the two institutions under one government, fer the 

education of ministers of the Gospel and the preparation of young men for the colleges and the higher schools of the country. These 

seventeen buildings were erected by funds contributed throughout 

the length and breadth· of the land. This institution owed its ris(.~ 

and its success to no ·one section of this land, but as far as the Epis--

copal Church was known in the United States it received funds 

for its en.dowment. We learn by the report what I knew beforo, that one of these buildings was erected by funds furnished by William H. 

Aspinwall & Brother, of New York; another by John Bohlen and his 

sister, of Philadelphia; and still another by the congregation of Saint 

George's church, New York; and the residue of the fund was fnmished 

from :ill parts of this land. · The gentleman from New York [Mr. TOWNSE~"'D] asked thegentle- man ·from Kansas [Mr. HASKELL] a question as to where the officers- of this institution owed their allegiance, to which government they: 

adhered. I unfortunately cam:wt answer the gentleman eliCept as to one of the~fficers of that institution whom I knew and loved, who 

spent many days in my house, and was esteemed and beloved by 

my family. I refer to Rev. James 1\!ay, of Philadelphia, one of the 

leading officers of that institution. When this college was taken 

po session of as a hospital building by the Army of the United St~tes, 
1879. QJONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUS~. 541 

that pious and excellent gentleman returned to hia home in the ~ity 

of Philadelphia, and died there during the war. · Now, Mr. Chairman, in this theological seminary acco1·ding to the 

statement in the report, which is unquestionably tme, up to 1874 

there had been educated 601 studen,ts of divinity. They were not 

students of the South; they were not students of any given section 

of this gren.t country, but. they came from every section-North, 

South, East, and West. I find that of these there were 200 from the 

North, 195 from the South, 19 forei~ers, and 187 whose residence is 

not given in the catalogue. Now, srr, what has become of those 601 

students of divinity!· These men entered the holy ministry. They were not preachers of the South n.lone but they scattered throughout 

the length and breadth of the land, preaching the Gospel to the people of Michigan as well as to the people of Virginia. Of this num- ber of 601 students, 440 still remain in the ministry, and they are in 

thirty-two States of this Union and in foreign lands preaching the Gospel; 31 haYe gone to foreign ,lands as missionaries; 44 are laboring in 

Maryland, 56 in Pennsylvania,34 in New York, and the rest are sc..'l.ttered in smaller numbers in other States of the Union. . Such is the institution for the rent .of whose buildings this bill is 

pressed before this committee, and I say,~ I said at the outset of 

my remarks, if there ever was a claim before the Congress of the 

United States that ought to be treated in a non-sectional spirit, this 

is snell a claim. .And I say, sir, that while the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Co~GER] has opposed this claim, he has stated to the com- mittee that he opposed it, not because it comes from Virginia or the 

South, but because be believed it is one of those claims coming from 

anywhere that ought not to be paid. I cannot take exception to any 

such position. If the gentleman believes it should not be paid, let 

him vote according to his sentiments. I must say, however, that I 

cannot conceive the process of reasoning by which the gentleman 

arrived at such a conclusion. 

Why ought this claim to be paid f Why is it distinguisha.ble from 

those other claims which this committee has over and over again re- jected t The gentleman. from Pennsylvania [Mr. WHITE] said it 

seemed strange that gentlemen should vote against 'Villiam and Mary 

college and support this bill. Why, sir, it does not seem strange to 

m& . . . . I do not mean to express a»y approbation of the action of this com- mittee in rejecting the claim of William and Mary. On the contrary, 

I believe that that claim ought to have been paid; but this cL'l.im 

rests upon higher ground, and does not present any phase of the 

()_Uestion involved in the payment of William and Mary. 

William ahd Mary was an ex delicto claim. It was a payment for 

the destruction of property in the exigencies of war. This is a claim e.c contractu for the payment of rent and property occupied by the 

United States Government as a hospital, and if iaentlemen cannot see .any difference between this claim and that one must confess that I .am surprised. 

The one claim is for the destruction of buildings by the exigencies 

of war, while this claim is for payment for the use and occupation ex contract1t1 and for rent of property occupied by the United States 

Government as a hospital for its soldiers. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Would not that apply to every public building occupied by the Union .Army th.rou~hout the South f 

Mr. HUNTON. Every building occupted by the .Army of the United 

.States in Union territory ought to have been and in many cases has 

been paid for. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Was this Union territory? 

Mr. HUNTON. I will show you that this was Union territory. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. That is not admitted. 

Mr. HUNTON. I will prove that it was so. Mr. ELLSWORTH. Take, for instance, the city of Nashville. It 

was not Union territo1·y when the Government took possession of the 

.city, and they occupied almost every public building there. .And if 

they have a right to claim pay for the occupation of this building, 

pay may be claimed for every one of those· buildings in Nashville, .and also for the buildings in New Orleans and where the ex contractu. 

Is not tha.,t true f 

Mr. COX, of New York. With the permission of the gentleman from 

'Virginia, I will ask whether or not the territory in which these buildlings were situated was not'by proclamation of the President declared 

rto be loyal territory f That is the main point. 

Mr. HUNTON. I was about to state that. This property is situ- :ated one mile from the town of .Alexandria, and was never for twentyfour hours lillder the control of the confederate government after the 

ordinance of secession was adopted. I believe I am right ip saying 

this, certainly not for more than one night after the adoption of the 

ordinance of secession by the State of Virginia. 

The Federal forces took possession of .Alexandria, and I believe ·of 

this college, and held it until the close of the war. The territory in which this building is situated was in the posses-

.sion, the undisturbed permanent possession, of the Federal Govern- ·ruent during the late war. · Mr. ELLSWORTH. Was the city of Nashville f 

Mr. HUNTON~ If that be true, the Supreme Conrt of the United .States has decided that such permanent occupation as this made the 

-territory as much a part of the territory of the United States as Massa- . chusetts or New York. 

l\ir. MILLS. If my friend from Virginia will allow me, I will say 

that on this matter of contracts the Attorney-General of the Unite{l 

States has decided in a written opinion that the law of 1867, which 

bas been quoted, does not apply to contracts at all, and he renderetl an opinion, which I believe will ·be found in the twelfth·volume of 

the Opinions of the Attorneys-General, sustaining a .contract made 

by the Government with a rebel in the State of Virginia for furnishina- wood to a railroad occupied then by the Government. The court 

held that the act had no reference to contracts made by the Government, and that all contracts most be carrietl out, no matter whether 

they were made with rebels or not. 

Mr. HUNTON. The decision to which I desired to refer when I was interrupted was iu the case of The Planters' Bank vs. The Union 

Bank of New Orleans. The Supreme Court dec\ded that when the 

city of New Orleans was taken possession of by the Federal tfoops 

and held by them permanently to the close of the war, this occupation of itself placed the people of that city and its properly under 

the pro·tection of the flag of the Union . • Now this is not only true as to the city. of Alexandria and the territory embracing the buildings for which rent is asked, but the President in his proclamation expressly exempted this territory from the 

operation of the proclamation wb.ich declared that rebellion ex.iste£1 ·in certain-portions of the country. 

Sir, look at this question in any way you may, in any phase you 

may, and no man in my opinion can maintain on this floor that 

these buildings were in territory at that time at war with the United 

States. They were in territory subject to the dominion and laws of 

the United States, and its people and its property were as much 

entitled to the protection of the Government of the United States as were the people of any State in the Union. 

That is not all, sir. .All through the four years of the unhappy war that waged betWeen these sections there wa-s a Legislature of the 

State of Virginia which was denominated on this side of the river the 

loyal Legislature of Virginia. 

That Legislatureheld .its sessions at first in the city of Wheeling, 

and when West Virginia was taken from the old Common-wealth that 

Legislature removed to the city of .Alexandria. 

Mr. TUCKER. In May, 1863. . 

Mr. HUNTON. And held its sessions in the city of .A.lexaBdria from 

that time until the close of the war, when it went to the city of Richmond and became the Legislature of the whole State, and was recognized by the whole State as its lawful Legislature. 

Mr. CASWELL. To which State government did this locality pay 

taxesT 

Mr. IDJNTON. To what wa known on this side of the river as the 

"loyal" State government of Virginia, holding its sessions in the city 

of .Alexandria. . That is not all. This very territory, embracing these very buildings; was represented in that Legislature in the city of AlexaBdria. 

and that Legislature sent Senators from the State of Virginia who 

occupied seats in the other branch of the legislative department of 

this Government. .And this very territory, embracin~ these buildings, 

helped to elect members of this Honse who took their seats here during the war. · Mr. RYAN. Was not that by force of arms, Did we not by force 

of arms carry our authority and _laws over that territory as ho~>tile 

territory 7 In other words, I wish to ask the gentleman if the con- federate arms had prevailed instead of the Federal arms, whether as the Confederate States were then organized this territory would not 

have been embraced within the jurisdiction of the Confederate Stat.es f 

Mr. HUNTON; I presume it would. But while it was in the permanent possession of the Federal Government it was entitled to the 

protection .of the Federal laws both as to persons and t-o property. 

Mr. TJJCKER. .And entitled to the protection of the Constitution. 

Mr. HUNTON. Yes. ·Another thing which strikes my mind--

Mr. ELLSWORTH. That applies anywhere where we had posse - sionf 

Mr. HlTh"'TON. Where you had permanent possession. • Mr. ELLSWORTH. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTON. .And in this case the' possession never ceased until 

the whole southern-country, including the whole State of Virginia, 

recognized the United States laws and the Constitution of the United 

States. 

·Mr. BRAGG. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one 'question! . ?.Ir. HUNTON. Certainly. ~Ir. BRAGG. I desire to inquire whether this same territory W<"l. 

not represented in the confederate legislature of Virginia and in tlle · confederate congress! 

Mr. 1HUNTON. I think not. 

Mr. GOODE. It was not. 

Mr. HUNTON. My colleague says positively that ib was not. Kow, if this was Federal territory, subject to Federal Jaws and jurisdiction. 

I ask this committee if the Constitution do~s not guarantee to thestl 

claimants here payment for the use of their property? I call the 

attention of the committee to the fifth amendment of the Constitntion, which provides thatNo person ahall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 

law; nor shall privat~ property betaken fo~public use without just compensation . 

There is no question that this was private property, or th~t it was taken for public use. And if it was under the jurisdiction of the 
542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J&~ARY 17, 

Pederal Government it is the bounden duty of the Government to 

pay rent for this property. It had no right to take this property, 

being private property, for publie use without just compensation. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Does the gentleman claim that that applies· in case of wart 

Mr. HUNTON. It applies where the Federal Government ha.d jurisfiction; ·as much in this case as in any portion of the district which 

you represent. 

l\lr. ELLSWORTH. It .does not apply in case of war. Mr. HUNTON. This case is not without preclldents. The Kentucky 

University was taken possession of an<l occupied by the forces of the 

United States, and it was paid for by an act of Congress. The farm 

of Colonel Joseph Segar, situated away down yonder in Virginia near Hampton, waspaidforbylaw of Congress. The use of tbefll,ir grounds 

at Le.x:mgton, Kentucky, was pai(l for on the same principle. Why 

the rent' of this property should be excepted out of the precedents 

already established by this House I cannot for the'life of mo see. This question has been before different Departments of this Government several times since the war closed. Soon after the close of the war these parties presented theil· claim to the Secretary of War. 'l'hey 

did not present it for rent alone. While the Federal soldiers held 

possession of these buildings for hospital purposes they destroyed very 

nearly all the property th;;~.t was in these seventeen buildings; most 

af it was new. That was not all. They cut and used the timber from 

thirty acres of land belonging to this 'institution, which furnished fuel 

for that portion of the Army of the United States. 

'Vhen this claim was presented to the Secretary of '\Var it contained 

not Qnly a claim for rent for the occupation of these buildings, but a claim for the destruction of the furniture and for the destruction 

of the timber on the thirty acres of land. The .Surgeon-General of 

the United States, General Barnes, indorsed the entire claim as just 

and right, and said it ought to be paid. 

Mr. RANDOLPH. That was in violation of law, was it not! 

Mr. HUNTON. This claim was presented to the Secretary of War 

with the indorsement of Surgeon-General Barnes. The Secretary of 

'Var said he did not feel authorized by existing law to pay for the 

destruction of property or the destruction of the timber. He said 

that if they would strike out those item8 froq1 the account he would 

pay the rest. They went back and reformed their account, and again 

presented it. The Secretary of War was then informed that by the 

law of 1867 he was prohibited from paying any such claims as this, 

and for that reason alone be did not pay it. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I maintain that while the law of 1867 was technically a prohibition upon the Secretary of War to pay this claim, 

yet, according to the equity of this case, he was as much bound to 

pay it as to pay any claim for rent for any building in the United 

States occupied by Federal troops durin~ the war; because, though 

t his institution was within the boundaries of a seceding State ac- cording to the phraseology of the law of 1867, it was in that portion 

of the State of Virginia which the President of the United States 

declared was not in rebellion, which belonged to the Government of 

the United States, and was entitled to ita protection so far as con- cerned both person and property. 

Mr. RYAN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question 

for information f 

Mr. HUNTON. Yes, sir. . Mr. RYAN. I understood the gentleman to state that there was a contract to pay this rent·. Do I understand him to say that there was an express contract, or is it claimed that the occupancy by the Government raises an implied contract to pay for such use Y 

Mr. HUNTON. I said that this is a claim ex c<mtt·actlt, while the case of William and Mary was ex delicto. I do not m~an to a.ssert, 

and I trust I have n~t asserted,· that there \VaB an express -contract 

between the parties as to the paymE\llt of rent. But we all know, 

and it bas been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, 

that the GovernVtent of the United States is a.s thoroughly and com- ¢ete1y bound by an implied contract of this sort as by an express 

one. . lir. RYAN. I was led to ask the question because pf the reply 

which the gentleman from Virginia made to the question put by the 

gentlema'{l from Texas, [Mr. MILLS.] There was some misunderstanding on this side of the House in regard to the gentleman's position, and hence I asked this question for information. · Mr. HUNTON. I certainly did not mean to say, and did not wish 

to be understood as saying, that there was an express contract between 

the Government and the trustees of this institution for the payment 

of rent. But in the late case of Clark VB. The United States, reported 

in 2 Otto, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the 

Government of the United States was bound by its implied contra-ct as well as by an express contract. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I have stated this case fairly, (and I have 

labored to do so,) I ask what is there surrounding the case that should cause a single member of this committee to hesitate one moment to 

pay for the rent of these buildings occupied by the United States Gov- ernment as a hospital for its troops f They were occupied by order of the Government-by order of one of its surgeons; and they were not surrendered until that surgeon or his successor decided to abolish 

the hospital. When this institution, built as I have said for the purpose of §ending preachers all over this land, comes here and asks for 

payment, not for property destroyed, not for furniture carried away 

or destroyed, not :Cor the thirty acres of wood, most valuable to the 

institution-when this institution is willing to relinquish any claim 

for these matters as belonging possibly to the exigencies of war-when 

it comes here and simply asks the Congress of the United States to pay 

what the buildings were worth as shelter for sick soldiers of the Union 

Army, I cannot see how the Representatives of this Government can hesitate to pay such a claim. 

Mr. KELLEY. .MI·. Chairman, distinguishing this case from that 

of William and Mary collec-e, I shall support this bill. The discussion to-day has recalled some of the earliest memories of my public 

life, at least in connection with national affairs. I had been elected 

to Congress in October, 1860; and from the 4th of March, 1861, when 

President Lincoln was inaugurated, until the 4th of J ufy of the same year, when Congress assembled upon his call, I spent much of the 

time in Washington, especially after the 19th of April. Listening to 

the discussion to-day as to whether the city of Alexandria was hostile or Union territory, I could not help remembering that I was oftentimes an almost daily visitor to Alexandria; that a short time after 

the assassination of Colonel Ellsworth and the k:illin~ of his mur- derer, Ja-ckson, I addressed froln the window of an engine-bouse the 

citizens of Alexandria as a Union man, and was kindly re~eived by 

them. 

I remember, too, the carrying of wounded troops to this hQSpital: 

and when its buildings were filled, the erection of frame barrack hospitals which covered gradually acre after acre until they themselves. made a great city of the sick and dying. When public duty or that' 

duty of a semi-public nature which bad brought me to Washington. would permit, it was my privilege to visit those hospitals; and some of 

my most devoted friends in the State of Pennsylvania to-day are men. whom I found there, then unknown to me but who would send ames- senger to me or would feebly respon<l w ben I would ask whether there- was any Philadelphia soldiers there. I could name some of them if it were necessary. . I remember, too, Mr. Chairman, that Congreiis has taken action on cases of this kind when there were no Representatives from t1te con- federacy ou this floor-before we had so many confederate brigadiers. in the Halls of Congress. We paid Joseph Segar, who for a time· occupied a seat as a member of this House, if I remember rightly, and was returned from what was ca11ed the loyal government of Virginia as Senator of Virginia with Mr. Bowden as his colleaaue. They 

did not take their seats, but I remember a good deal of pleasant in- tercourse with them. '\Ve paid, too, Mr. Armes, and but for an unfortunate inability to recall the name I think I equid give some others. 

The cases of Segar and Armes I remember distinctly . . The records 

will show in what year it was these loyal citizens, one of .A.lexandl·ia and the other of Williamsburg!!, were reimbursed by a Congress.- overwhelmingly r~publican. 

Again, I remember an immense number of buildings that the Government rented under special contracts in Alexandria. The Quarter-- master's Department occupied them, together with the commissary 

and other branches of the military service; and I can make no distinction between the propriety of paying rent for t.hese seventeen.. 

buildings, which for four years gave comfortable shelter to the - wounded and sick and dying of our .A.rmy, and any other building 

the Government occupied in and about that city for which it paid 

rent. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I would vote for the payment of 

this claim, Mr. Chairman, as readily, it being in the territory of Vir-- ginia, as I would if it were in any other territory. I opposed the payment of the claim of William and Mary college for reasons which I 

then expressed to the committee. It will be remembered b;t such 

members of this Honse ~ were ·members of the FortY.-fourth Congress that I voted to pay the claim of Van Hoffman and his partner-· for the rent of their mill at Alexandria under an arrangement with the 

Commissary-General. But the element which made me vote for that • Van Hoffman claim I find wanting in this case. I voted as I did in 

that instance becaut~e it was established beyond peradventure that. Van Hoffman and his partner were, during every day of the war, loyal 

citizens; but there is an utter absence here of any positive proof that 

the ruling power of this corporation was loyal-that this corporation 

and the controlling power of Pairfax Episcopal Seminary was loyal. I 

know that Bishop J ohns,.tbe bishop of Virginia, under whose aUBpJces 

this institution was and whose residence was at its very door, cast 

in his fortlmes with the confederacy and gave his influence and his 

power in favor of the opponents of the Government. 

I stand in this case as I would in any other case, and I do not think our sentiments had better run a~ay with us, even though it happened to us as to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who had the kindly 

feelings of his heart touched to see some of his neighbors' boys there 

lying down to die at Fairfax Seminary in consequence of wounds 

received in fighting against the rebellion. I went there, too, in December, 1861, and I saw some very good and exeellent friends there. 

It was an occasion long to be remembered. But the occupants of the 

seminary were not there. It was in the Union lines. It was under 

the protection or the Union guns. There was not even a seminarial 

rat on the grounds. [Laughter.] I went through the seminary buildings and they were utterly vacant so far as its officers and students were conce.rned. Where had they gone i If the Union Government 

and the Union soldiers were their friends, how happened it they ran away from them ? · 
18·79 •... - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 543 

• 

Mr. GOODE. If the gentleman will refer to the military orders 

issued from th& Army of the Potemac ke will find that on August 28, 

1861, this institution could not possibly be occupied at that time as a seminary, because it had been taken and appropriated for hospital 

purposes. llr. TOWNSEND, of 'S"ew York. What was the date! 

.Mr. GOODE. August 28, 1861. And as to Bishop Johns, the presi-

<lent of the seminary, he went, when it was taken in charge under 

that military order, to another portion of his diocese, where he re- mained and discharged the duties incumbent upon his office of bishop 

of Vir~inia, having nothing to do with the war. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I do not find fault with Bishop 

Johns for joining the confederacy. I do not find fault with the gentlemen here representing the States which went into rebellion. I do 

not s~1.nd here to fin(l fault with anybody who went intq the rebellion, whether he be bishop or layman. It makes no difference. Those 

who cast their lot in the confederacy adopted in taking their choice 

alllihat resulted from it. Those who cast in their lot with the Union 

took their choice and they took with that choice all the advantages 

that resulted from it; and time has shown they have taken all the 

burdens that resulted from their choice; and God only knows when 

those burdens will cease being piled on them~ If we knew what we bad to.carry we should feel better about it. But there is one approach, and another approach, and another and another. Yesterday we had a warning from over yonder [Mr. ELLIS, of Louisiana] that some one had a claim of $82,000,000 against us, and that we must be 

ready to "shell out." We must pay that when the time comes and 

must pay everything else. · Now, I am not to find any fault with Bishop Johns. His religion, a~:~ he construed his duty, required him to go into the confederacy, 

and Bishop Johns must take the consequences. 

Mr. GOODE. He is in heaven now. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I hope he is, and I believe many 

of those who were for the confederacy will go to heaven and to the 

best part of it. They were dreadfully mistaken ; they had a tongh 

time of it here and I hope they will go in future where they will have 

better luck. .[Laughter.] I hepe I will meet my friend from Virginia [Mr. GoODE] thet'e, and we will not then hear any more about 

rebel claims, or about. claims under a violated " ()()nstitution.'' 

[Laughter.] The only claim of our friends from the confederacy 

will then be for mercy; it will not come under the Constitution of the 

United States. 

Mr. Chairman, I put my objection to this bill on the very ground on which I restecl my action when I voted for the claim of Van 

Hoffman. I then said if a claimant is shown to have been loyal I 

will pay, if' not loyal I will not pay. I am not going to pay 

this claim because northern men contributed to build up this sem- inary. \Ve took from-the Treasmy of the Union money to build the 

court-houses and custom-houses in what were afterward the Confederate States, and some of that money of course came from the North. 

But that did not vary the circumstances of the case. Theywerejust as rebellious in those neighborhoods although the money which built 

their custom-houses and their light-houses and court-houses came partJy from the North; it made no odds whatever that the North had 

contributed, as I trust the North ever will contribute what it properly 

should contribute for our brethren of the South, however much they 

may get angry or fly into a passion, or however much we may fly into a passion; for I wa.nt to have it understood that if there is to be any 

passion about it, while I am in public life there will be as much passion on my side as on theirs. [Laughter.) For half a century before 

the ]ate war we never ~ot into a passion on our side; but I now say 

to gentleman on both stdes of this House, "Be ye angry and sin not.'' 

A MEMB~R. But you must not Jet the sun go down upon your 

wrath. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. That applies only to ni~ht ses- sions, after the sun has gone down. In day sessions it is rigllt to be 

angry all the time. [Laughter.] 

I cannot and will not vote for this bill until it is established beyond . pera-dveniure that the infl.uence of this corporation was in the right 

direction. I had one friend in that seminary, and I know he considered then and considers now that it was the providence of God that 

enabled him to get off to the North with his life. • L8t me S&Y also that I envy the people of' Alexandria the privilege 

they had of .hearing .my friend from Pennsylvania, [~h-. KELLEY') 

of hearin~ his beautiful voice ringing out on the night air in fav~· of the Umon. But my friend will not forget that he had our New 

York Zouaves to protect him. [Laughter.] But for our New York 

Zouaves all that beautiful flow of eloquence would have been lost to 

the world. 

Does any man believe that with the spirit prevailing there-with 

the spirit prevailing which stimulated Jackson to murder the gaJ.lant 

Ellsworth-it would have been allowed to my eloquent friend to speak 

in favor of the Union in Alexandria unless he had been protected by 

the guns of the Ellsworth Zouaves f We know it was rebel tenitory 

at one time. Virginia had declared itself out of the Union, and bowever void that declaration might be held to be under the Constitution, that was forgotten then, but it is vividly remembered now when 

there is money to be got: However the matter was afterward, there was a time when this territory was a part of a rebel State and in the 

power of that State. 

But I do not put myobjectiou simply on that ground. Iknowthat our troops took possession. Our troops finally got possession of the 

whole confederacy down at Appomattox,. but that did net wipe out 

the,rebellion. It wiped out the fighting on the field, bet only prepared us for that long, protracted, never-ending fight at the doors of 

the Treasury that began immediately after Appomattox, and God 

knows when that battle will end. No, sir, I vut my opposition to thebill upon the grollnd that the influence of th1s institution was, up ·tothe day and after the day when Virginia went out, in the wrong 

direction. . 

Mr. BRIGHT. ;Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is proper that as a mem- ber of the Committee on Education and Labor I should say a word 

in advocacy of this bill. I heartily approve the bill and shall most 

cheerfully vote for its passage. I propose to give several reasons in 

brief why I shall vote for the bill. I do not propose to refine upoa 

the technicalities of the law, to ·quibble upon the ninth part of a hair whether it is a. contract express or a contract implied, or whether it is no contract. The vital point in the matte1· is that here was private property, the property of .a corporation to be sure, but 

it was, nevertheless, property the Government used. It derived a; 

benefit from the use, and according to all principles of law, pubicand private, .and the higher principles of equity and morality, when 

the Government has received the benefit of it, it should recognizethat benefit by a just compensation. There are principles that t{)wer 

like a monument in .the plains of jurisprudence and legislation far 

above legal technicalities a.ud sectional passions; they are the principles of justice and equity which all nations must recognize to 

maintain an exalted civilization. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, placing it on the high ground of equity and 

justice, the Government having taken something for nothing the only 

vindication of its integrity is to make a fair compensation. But we are not without law for the support of this proposition. w ·e have an ancient instrument called the Constitution of the United States. It 

not only embodies but it regulates the exercise of all the powers of 

the Government. The President and all civil officers, the Army and 

the Navy, are restrained by its fetters. It treads the deck of the 

American man-of-war as. high-admiral in the most distant sea and 

curbs the robust powers of the· nation's armies. There is no power 

which is not covered by its canopy, and there is no escape from its 

presence in war or in peace. 

I wish to restate here distinctly this fundamental idea, and it is 

time that the American people understood it, that the Constitution is 

the paramount law of this land, above military law, above the laws. 

of war, and every power and force known to this Government are subject to its con~rol. · . The question has been asketi, Was not the Constitution suspended or held in abeyance during the existence of the warT By no manner of means. No doctrine could be more monstrous and dangerous to 

the life, liberty, and property of the people than an army,. the most 

dangerous of all powers, turned !oose iu unbridled licentiousness 

upon the country. 

Once admit that a state of war suspends tbe functions of the Constitution, .the time. may come when th~t sacred in!'trument may be 

trampled m the mrre beneath the red hoof of war, and liberty may 

be strangled with the iron hand of a conqueror who may mount like a Cresarto a throne. No, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution did not intend 

to dispense with its obligations in a time of war. Bot it was intended 

to go before our armies as the pillar of cloud by day and fire by ni~ht; 

and all those who directed the m<1Vement of our armies recognized 

this theory of the Constitution. · I wish it understood that I am not insisting upon the obligation 

of the Government to repair losses resulting from the unavoidablecasualties of war. It is my purpose to speak to the issue involved in 

this case. · 

I now invite attention to this clause of the Constitution: 

No soldier shall in time of p~e be quartered in any house wit.h6nt the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

Now let us inquire what was the policy of the Government in relation to the occupancy of private property! If my recollection is not 

at fault, the President, in the ear]y stages of the war, caused a proclamation to be issued that all private property should be respected, 

but the property of the Confederate States should be appropriated tothe Government. Now, sirs, every officer who maintained the authority of the Constitution and was obedient to the proclamation of thePresident of the United States recognized this fundamental principle. 

Here is ari. extract from the proclamation of that great soldier, General McClellan, when he marched his legions upen the soil o'f the 

"Old Dominion," and I call your attention to it : · 

I have ordered the troops to cross the river. They come as your friends and 

brothers •. a~ enemies only to armed rebels, who are preymg UJ?On you. Your homes, your families, and your property are safe under our protection. 

There was a guarantee; there was a re~nlation for the Army of the 

United States; there was no brigand ism mit; it was not the tread of 

the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Lorn bards, and the savage Norsemen who 

invaded the plains of Italy. Did this mean a violation of the laws. 

of humanity and of civilization and the spoliation or destruction of 

the arts and sciences¥ It was intended to save the country from ~he· 

historic execration of vandalism. 

Mr. 'VHITE, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me tOJ 

inquire did these people accept this guarantee? 

. 
.544 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE . JANUARY 17, 

Mr. BRIGIIT. That is net the question I am now deaHng with. 

I will cull your attention to the authority to which I wish to bring 

thA attention of the Honse. Here is another authority with reference 

to the movement of the Army of the West. ·II ere is the prpelama.tion 

-<>f that great soldier, statesman, publicist, and patriot, General Halleck, who said: 

:Military store.s and public property of the enemy must be surrendered, and any 

attempt to conooru such property by fraudulent transfer or otherwise will be pun- ished, bot no private property wilf be touched, unless by authority of the com- manding-general. 

It was not to be touched except by order of the commanding general. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, seeing the effect. of the Constitution 

of the United States, that our armies were under it, that they were subordinate to the laws of the land, that private property was to be 

respected, that the orders of the military authorities guaranteed this 

'Protection, alld that it could not be touched without authority of law, 

I come up to the question now before us. · ·was this propetiJ taken 

by the authority of military orders, or was it violently taken without -orderf And, so far as that question is concerned, it matters not 

whether it comes in either shape, the vis major or the superior power; 

sir, if taken in that way there is another obligation that ruBhes with -constitutional force upon the conscience ·of the American people. 

I call attention to another clause of this old instrument that seems to be moss-grown and fergotten in these days of excitement and sMt ional strife : · 

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. 

Do you inquire whether that was suspended t I tell you no. It 

-was put in the ~onstitution as a fetter upon the Government. There was a power intended to be reserved to the people, and it was an .antagonistic power to the old governments of Europe which had been 

in the habit of eonfi.scatingproperty by acts of Parliament and without compensation. It was intended to deny and guard against the 

principles and practices of barbarian nations that seized private prop-

-erty and distributed it as spoils of war among the soldiers. It was intended as a bulwark of the citizen ~ainst the rapine and plunder 

of the Government. Modern nations now pay for all private property taken for purposes of war. . The question comes back to us what are we going to do with these -claims f It is a qu,estion of power and one easily decided. If you 

wish to get rid of southern war claims-loyal claims-there is one power and only one power that can absolve the Government from 

--the obligation to pay them, and that is by amending the Constitution 

.and repudiating the .claims. · There was an amendment o1fered in the last Congress for the purpose of changing the Constitution. They had seen that this question 

would recur as long as this Constitution stood, and it will recur and 

it will be a bone of contention until the question is settled. 

As it stands at present, why should you not pay this claim t It is 

.a.ddressed to the discretion of Congres~J. We do not legislate for 

-other Congresses ; they are not bound by our precedents. As a matter of course, when this question comes to us in that form it is simply -one of justice; a quest.ion whether you will pay the claim or not. 

That being the whole question, it appeals from your sectionalism to 

-the Constitution of the- nation; it appeals to law and justice ancl to 

the higher elements of equity itself. · While I am upon this subject allow me to say a word in all kind-

'lless to my northern friends. I have no drops of fire torain upon 

t hem. I am not one to stir the angry passions of sectional strife, nor to 

fan the fire which is slumbering. l wonld rather quench than inflame. 

\But I wish to say this to them; they have a grand opportunity to 

dignify their great triumph with magnanimity and mercy. If they 

wish tbe sundered and bleeding limbs of this grand Republic to be -entirely healed, if they wish its wounds to be cicatrized, it must be 

-done with the surgery of love and in the higher feeling of justice, 

and with the recognition of constitutional right. I tell you that you 

have now an opportunity to vindicate yopr name, not only before 

the eyes of the present, but before the opening eyelids of post.erity. 

I tell you that a record is being made just here upon this occasion. There is no law that authorizes the destrl}ction of school-houses and -churches and hospitals; none whatever. There is no law of war that 

authorizes an invasion of the laws of humanity. There is no law of war that authorizes an invasion upon the civilization_ of the people. 'There is no law that authorizes the spoliation or destruction of the 

.arts and sciences, which belong not to the present alone, not to one generation, but which belong to the world and to all time. They are not mtder the caveat of a patent for the present ; they-belong to posterity. These works are to be entailed upon them, and they are entitled to the inheritance. 

The point that I ·make is this: when ·we look over the desolate .churches and school~houses, these monuments of civilization and the 

religion of the people; when they appeal to you upon a principle far 

.above sectional strife and the maxims of revenge, that you should 

rebuild the waste places, the school-houses and churches, and bid 

them soar heavenward ; thereby you will build monuments that will 

.do more to reconcile the people of the North and of the South than 

any other donation or tribute that you can pay to them. They will ·stand there for the. eye of posterity; they will oft speak that you 

have been charitable, that you have been benignant, that you have ·been humane, that you are not subject to the charge of vandalism. 

Although there have been desolated cities and smoking ruins, and 

whole _districts swept by the fires of war, still so far as this matter iS · concerned no tribu~ to the civilization and religien of a people wUl 

be more warmly recognized as a return of your love and your benediction, and of your willingness to be restored one to the other; not only 

to shake hands across the bloody chasm, but to have it heal-ed up and 

cicatrized so that the wound shall disappear like a wound of tho air. 

If yon wish your country to be one in heart as it is one in government, if you wish the people of' the North and of the South to rush 

again into the arms of each other, make them feel that they have one national heart, the same pulsation, the same grand vital principles 

sending its life to all the extremities. You have the opportunity now. 

But yQu may make a record1 I warn you, that will repel and drive 1 them aw~y from you in their efforts of love. You may draw them to 

you, and do so at very little cost. You may save y~ur joatice, you can save your honor, you can save the Constitution of the United 

States and command the blessings of posterity when it shall read the 

record you have made here to-day and perhaps in time yet to come. If you wnnt peace, let us begin now'"to rebuild the waste place ; 

bid our churches arise and point their steeples to the skies; bid our institutions of learnino- arise in their influence throughout all the 

land. Harvard and YaYe and Princeton are just as much cheri bed in 

the South ns they are at home. They have been the well-springs of. our civilization a,s well as of our learning. · Tho waters have gone 

forth free until they have overspread this whole land. We desire no hostility, no war, no cry of sectiOnalism to be raised against them. 

This is your common country; it appeals to you as your own coun- try. You cannot inflict an injury upon the South without it recoil 

upon yourselves. True patriotism and a proper feeling would dictate 

that the people of the North should have the same pride iu relation 

to the prosperity of the South and its institutions as they have in re- lation to that of their own section. Massachusetts belongs to me as well as to any other gentleman upon this floor; it is a part of the inheritance of a common liberty; and Louisiana and Virginia belong 

to you just as much as to the citizens who reside in those States. 

While I say this for old Virginia it is not in a spirit of "gosh." She 

has been liberal in hertreatment of the West. · She opened her treas- ures and her heart for the purpose of extinguishing the national debt. 

She haa given yon a vast domain; and when she comes here now asking for a recognition at your bands shall she, like a beggar of old, say, 

"A pampered ingrate drove me from the door ' " No ; remember that. yon had a mother, yemen of the West; never forget it. Recognize 

the boon which you have enjoyed j restere estranged feelings; ' and . if you. want peace, then Heaven will send the Angel with her brow 

adorned with her olive crown. Mr. HOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I had desired to say a few words OH. 

this bill; but what I had int-ended to say has been so well and fully 

expressed by others that I do not know whether I shall he succes fnl 

in gaining the attention of the committee. 

I take it for granted that among la-wyers there will be no disputing the proposition that so far as the question of loyalty is con- cerned t.he universal principle and rnle of law is that loyal territory 

raises the presumption of loyalty in those who are the occnpanta of 

that territory ; and the converse of that proposition is ,equally tme. 

Now, allow me to make a remark in answer to what fell from my 

friend from New York, [Ur. TOWNSEND.] Notwithstanding the fact 

that he lashes himself occaaionally into a teJllpest of passien, I can- not help still speaking of him as my good-natured friend from 'New 

York, because while he prefers the freshening breeze that lashes the 

surface of the waters into a tempest, even though it may blow mountain-high, rather than that dead-sea stillnesM which is unmoved by 

breeze or gale, still, even in his passion, I can trust to the soundness 

9f his judgment and the goodness of his heart, and I know tqat he 

will respond to the sentiment which I have uttered and the l~gal proposition I have announced. 

He spoke, Mr. Chairman, of welcoming in mercy those who had 

swerved from their loyalty to the Union. I hope he will take to himself something of the salutary lesson given by the _gentle Portia in 

her judgment upon the exacting Jew, when she saicl: 

, 

The quality of mercy is not strained ; It droppeth as 'the gentle rain from heaven 

Upon the place beneath: itis twice bless'd ; It blesseth him that gives, and him that ta.ke3 : 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes 

The throned monarch better than his.crown : "4 * * * • It is an attribute to God himself, 

And earthly power doth then show likest ~d's, 

When mercy seasons justice. 

I hope the gentleman from New York will bear in mind this just 

judgment upon an exa-cting demander . When the gentleman asks, was this institution loyal, what part of 

the i!l.stitntion does he mean f Does he mean the insensate buildings 

which, in the language of the · gentleman from Philadel?hia, [.Mr. 

KELLEY,) sheltered the sick and prostrate soldiers of the U mon Army f 

Would yon carry the test of loyalty to that extent Y Would you ask 

whether the insensate stones upon which these buildings were founded 

and the unfeeling timber that was erected over them were loyal to the 

Government f You took those buildings and used them for the purposes of the Government; and that institution, devoted to learnin~! 

now asks simply that the ~overnment of the C'nited States sbau 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE . . 

zemunerate it for the occupancy of the buildings ; a. claim which was sanctioned by the then Secretary of War, who, I believe, wa.a Mr. 

Stanton, and by the then President of the United States. If that be 

so, upon what principle will you now ask that loyalty shall be established in reaard to this institu.fion f . Wliy, sir,let me state a case that occurred before the war chums 

commission-a commission organized by law for tke purpose of ascer- t aining what loyal citizens of the South could make just claims 

against the Gov~rnm~nt for any part of that fund of $34,o_o<>,~O 

which was deposited m your Treasury, uot aB a funa belongmg m general to the United States, but as a specific fund held in trust by 

the Government, never to be diverted to any other or general purposes of appropriation. The Supreme Court of t?e.U~~d States 

decided in two cases that came from the State of Mississippi, one the .case oi McArdle, the other the case of Kline, that where a par~ 

makes a claim against the Government the question of loyalty is not 

to be considered if that party has been embraced in a general am- nesty by the President of the United States or·in a specific pardon. 

Yet this claims commission, a subordinate tribunal, invested simply 

-with the. power of paying back to the loyal men of the South what was taken from them, undertakes to assert its prerogative as higher 

than that of the ·Court of Claims, higher than that of the Supreme 

.Court of the United States___:.lllldertakes to say that in all cases com- ing before this•tribunal the fact of loyalty must be established. 

It i8 within my knowledge that in one case before that tribunal the 

.question of loyalty was raised with reference to an infant who at t.he 

time of the facts in controversy was only ten :J ears of age. In deciding this question this judicious commission determined tliat it would 

take the deposition of this infant of tender years, not to ascertain if 

.she had been disioy,IU to the Government, but to find out what were .her sympathies and feelings during the progress of that war. The .commission absolutely weRt through the farce of sending to the Isle . of Man (where the young lady had been removed by her parents) and 

.taking her deposition. Among the questions propounded to her was this: "How were your sympathies during the war of the rebellion f "I 

She answered truthfully, "I had none." '.l;'hen the question was put: ·"Did you sympathize with one side more than the other f " "No." 

""''Did you feel rejoiced when Vicksburgh fell 'I;, "I did not know that 

Vicksburgh had fallen or risen," was her answer. Yet, sir, wh"n these 

.commissioners undertook to determine the question of the justice of 

this claim they actually decided this infant, tb,us unconscious of passing events about which she is calleu upon to testl:fJf, so far as her in-

-terest in the claim was concerned ought Iiot to be recognized. I think 

that is running the doctrine of loyalty to a more farcical conclusion 

than that reached by1Ily distinguished friend from the State of New 

York. This is all I have to say. 

Mr. GOODE. I move the committee rise and report the bill to the 

House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

Mr. CONGER. There are amendments to be offered and that motion . cannot be submitted so long as an amendment is pending. · . Mr. G€>0DE. I move, then, that the committee rise for the pnrpose .of closing debate on this bill. It ha.a been sufficiently discussed. 

The motion was agreed to. ' 

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed 

the chair, Mr. MILLs reported that the Committee of the Whole House 

had had under consideration the Private Calendar, and had directed 

him to report sundry bills with the recommendation that they do pass 

and one that it, be laid on the table. • 

1\:lESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, ·announced that the Senate had passed a resolution for printing 1,000 

copies of" theN rrative of the Polaris Expedition for sale by the Public 

Printer, and a resolution for printiilg 15,000 extra copies of the report 

-of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for the year 1877-'78; in 

which resolutions the concurrence of the Honse was requested. 

The message further announced that the Senate had passed, with 

amendments in which the concurrence of the Honse was requested 

the bill (H. R. No. 5315) to restore the records and files in the district .--and circuit courts of the United States for the western districts of 

TextJ.s, lately destroyed by fire. 

BILLS PASSED. I 

The following bills, reported from the Committee of the Whole with 

rthe recommendation that they do pass, were severally ordered to be ,engrossed and read a third time ; and being engrossed, they wer~ 

.accordingly read the third time,· and passed: · . A bill (H. R. N6. 2160) for the relief of the heirs of Samuel P. Todd, -deceased, late a purser in the United States Navy; and. 

A bill (H. R. No. 850) for the relief of Daniel W. Perkins, of East . Saginaw, Michigan. . " ELLA P. 1\:tURPHY. 

The SPEAKER. The bill (H. R. No. 1502) fot· the relief of Ella 

.P. Murphy is repoded with amendments. 

Mr. SPARKS. ·Is it in order to move to recommit that bill to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs T 

The SPEAKER. It is, the previous question not having been -demanded. 

Mr. SPARKS. Then I make that motion. That bill was acted on adversely by the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Forty-fourth lCongress. 

Mr. CONGER. Not this bill. 

Mr. SPARKS. This is the claim of Ella P. Murphy, which is identical with the claim acted. on by the Committee on Jndian Afl:'airs in 

the Forty-fourth Congress. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. But it does not embrace what the other claim did. 

Mr. SPARKS. I ask that the report of the committee be reai. Mr. CONGER. It has been already read in the committee. Mr. SPARKS. And I now ask that it be read in the House. 

Mr. CONGER. Then I move the:Honse adjourn, fotit is too late t o read it. 

The motion was ~reed to; and (at four o'clock and twenty-three ·minutes p.m.) the .House adjourned. . 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions, &c., were presented at the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as stated : . By Mr. CLARK, of Iowa: The petition of John Dilatush ~nd others, 

citizens of Johnson County, Iowa, for such amendment of the patent 

laws as will protect innocent purchasers of patented articles-to the 

Committee on Patents . By Mr. COX, of New York: The petition of J. M. Weddell and others, 

for back pay under the eight-hour law-to the Committee on Educa-, tion and Labor . By Mr. DANFORD: The petition of Eliza P. Holliday and 205 others, 

citizens of Martin's Ferry, Ohio, for the enforcement of the laws relating to polygamy-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina: The petition of S.M. Barbee, 

Kemp P. Battle, and others, for a ·post-route from Chapel Hill to 

Pittsborongh, North Carolina-to the Committee on the PGst-Office 

and Post-Roads . By Mr. EDEN: The petition of Mrs. Elizabeth Reayille and 93 

others, for legislation to make effective the anti-polygamy la.w of 

1862-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, the petition of Mary J. Espy and others, of La Place, lllinois, 

of similar import-to the same committee.· ; 

By Mr. FORT : The petition of Catharine A. Stlha.fer, administratrix of the estate of W. C. Bradford, for the reference of a war claim 

to the claims commission-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. HARMER: Memorial of the representatives of the ·religions 

society of Friends of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, re- monstrating against the transfer of the management of the lndians 

within the United States from the Interior to the War Departmentto the Committee on Military .Affairs . . By Mr. HASKELL: A communication from Walter L. Simops, favoring the passage of ~he biH providing for holding.tel'IDS< of the 

United States circuit and district courts at Fort Scott, Kansas-to 

the Committee on the Judiciary . By Mr. JAMES: The petition of S. P. Remington and others, for an amendment of the act for the regulation of steam-vessels-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. JONES, of Ohio: The petition of ·citizens of Ohio, against 

polygamy-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. KIDDER: A paper relating to the establishment of a postroute from Vermillion to Glenwood, Dakota Territory-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By :Mr. MONROE: The petition of President Carroll Cu£ler and 

others, .members of the faculty of Western Reserve College, for the 

passage of the Senate bill providing for a commission of inquiry con- cerning the alcoholic liquor traffic-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, the petition of R. Bosworth and 107 others, citizens of Hudson, Ohio, of siinila.r import-to the same committee. 

By Mr. MORRISON : The petition of Qitizens of lllinois, for ad val 

(mm-, duties on imported sugars-to the Committee of Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. NORCRO~S: The petition of Sidney Sibley and others, for arrears of pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions~ 

By Mr. PHILLIPS: The petition of 1,935 citizens of Kansas, for woman suffrage-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. ROBINSON, oi Massachusetts: The petition of Mrs. E. F. 

Barnes and others, of Housatonic, Massachuc;etts, for the suppression 

of polygamy-to the same committee. 

By Mr. STONE, of Michigan: The petition of Haunah·Pasinger and 

others, citizens of North Plains, Michigan, for an amendment -to the 

Constitution relating to woman suffrage-to the same committee. 

By Mr. THOMPSON: 'l'he petition of SarahR. Hand and others, of 

Steuben, Pennsylvania, of similar import-to the same committee . By Mr. TUCKER: The petition of citizens of Appomattox County, 

Virginia, for a post-route from Spanish Oaks to Mooreville, Virginiato the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. WU.LIAMS, of Wisconsin : The petition of Alex. Spencer and 150 other ladies, of Somers, Wisconsin, that the anti-polyj(J"amy 

law of 1862 be made more effective-to the Committee on the udici~~·Mr. WARD: The petition of Priscill~ R. Pickering and others. of the counties of Lancaster and Chester, Pennsylvania, for an amendment to the Constitution relating to woman suffrage-to the same committee. 

•