5130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

I am hoarse to-night and ho-pe I will have the imlulgcnGe of the 

House. 

bir. WILLARD, of Vermont. I object, unless the same privilege be 

grr .. nted to the other side. Mr. :MYERS. I have no objection to that. I rlesire simply to say 

that this bill puts into the Treasury of the United States-

.Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I object to delmte. 

Mr. MYERS. I ask unanimous consent. 

The SPEAKER pTo temp01·e. Is there objection' 

1\fr. E. R. HOAR. I think objection ought to be made, 3.nd if no one else will do it I object. 

Mr. IlA WLEY, of illinois. The gentleman proposes to move to go 

into Committee of the Whole, and he will have every opportunity 

te discuss the bill. He will have the floor, and I hope he will not 

insiat upon discussing tho bill now. .Mr. MYERS. Then I move to suspend the rules and go into Committee of the Whole for tho purpose of considering this bill. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 70, noes 52. 

Mr. E. R. HOAR dema.ndcd tellers. 

Tellers were orllered; and Mr. MYERS, and llr. WILLA.RD of Vermont wer~ appointed. 

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 83, noes 64. 

Mr. 'VILLAH.D, of Vermont., demanded the yeas a.nd nays. 

Mr. E. R. HOAR moved that the House do now adjourn. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 88, noes 55. 

Mr. MYERS demanded the yeas and nays. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 25, noes 108. 

So (one-fifth of those present not having voted in the affirmative) 

tho yeas and nays were not ordered. 

So the motion was agreed to; and then (at nine o'clock and thirtyfive minutes p.m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following memori:hls, petitions, and other papers were presented at the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as stated: 

By Mr~ BARBER: The petition of citizens of Jordan, Wisconsin, for 

the passage of the bill to aid in the conetniCf,ion of ·the Continental :Freight Ra.ilway, to the Committee on Railways and Canals. 

By ?tfr. BLAINE: The memorial of John M. BracUey, of Ark~nsas, 

in relation to the seat of Congressman at large from the Sta.te of 

Arkansas, to the Committee on Elections. 

By Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia: The petition of W. P. BtiTWell, to be 

compensated for tobacco improperly taxed, to the Committee on Claim~ 

By Mr. HURLBUT: The petition of citizens of Indiana, for the con- struction of a double-track railway from the Missouri River to tide-. w:tter, to the Committee on Railways and Canals. 

By Mr. McCRARY: The petition of citizens of Iowa, for tlre passage 

of tho bill to aid in the construction of the Continental Freight Railwa.y, to the Committee on·Railways and Canals. · 

By Ur. PARKER, of Missouri: The petH.ion of citizens of Mount 

Pleasant, Gentry County, Missouri, of similar import,. to the same committee. 

-By Mr. SA. YLER, of Incliana: Sixty-three petitions from citizens of 

seventeen States of the Unito(l States, containing 1,234 signa.tures, 

for tho passn.?e of a Jaw authorizing the m::muf:wture of patent-right 

articles by otners than owners of patent right-s upon payment of n. reasonable royalty thereon, to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. WHEELER: The memorial of the American Public Health 

Association of New York, praying for the creation by Congress of a competent commission to investigate those great national su.nitm·y 

questions which do not fall within the scope of duties of local health 

organizations, to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. WHlTEHEAD: The petition of Folkes & Winston, William T. Yancey, J. H. C. Winston, and Robert C. Burkholder, of 

Lynch burgh, Virginia, to be compensated for destruction of property ' by United States troops, to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr.---: The petition of G. H. Noonan n.nd 74 others, of · Tex..'lB, for the establislunent of an additional Federal judici:tl district 

in the State of Texas; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

IN. SENATE!. 

THURSD.A. Y, June 18, 187 4 

The Senate met at eleven o'clock a . in. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

On motion of Mr. SPENCER,· and by unanimons consent, the reading 

of the Journal of yeo-terday's proceedings w~ dispe~ with. 

QUARTERMASTER'S CORPS. . 

Mr. SPENCER submitted the following report: 

Tl!e committee of conforonce on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on tbe bill (H. R. No. 3166) to correct tJ:te date of commission of cort..'lin officers of the 

Army having mot, after fllll anrl free conference, have agreed to r ecommend, and 

do recomm end, to their respective Houses as followf! : First. Thn.t the House of R.opresente.tives eollcm· in Senate amendment number one. 

Second. That the Se-nate recede from it.s amendment nmnber two. 

GEOltG.E E. SPENCER) . ;r. R. WEST, 

M. W . P..ANSOM, 

Managers on !he part of the Senat.e. 

CHARLES AJ,llRIGH'l', 

J. W. NESMITH, · Managers on the part of the House. 

Mr. WADLEIGH. I regret that this matter went to a committee 

of conference in tl1e absence of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affa.irs of the Senate, because there was ~m a,greement between the chairman of the Military Committee acting in behalf of 

those who desired the passage of this bill antl myt:>elf as to these amentl- ments, and it was stated by the chairman of the Iilitary Committee 

to this body that there had been 1111 agreement by which the matter was to be settled by these amenclments. I hope that the chnli·man of 

the committee will retnrn before the aujournment, in which case the 

matter can probably be made I'ight. I move that the repmt be laid on the tn.ble. 

.Mr. SPENCER. I hope that will not be dono. . The PRESIDENT 1Jro tenLpore. The Senator from New Hampshire moves that the repor~ of the committee of conference be lai(l on the 

table. 

The. Chair put the question, and declared that the noes appeared t o prevail. 

Mr. WADLEIGH. I ask for the yeas and nays. I will state that 

I will call up the report again. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is not debatable. Those who sustain the call for the yea,s and nays will rise. 

1\Ir. ·wAD LEIGH. I withdraw the motion to lay on the tabl~; and move that the further consiuerat.ion of the report· be postponed. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Does not a single objection carry it over, it being a report made this morning 7 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. It is a report from o.. conference 

committee, not from a standing committee. 

Mr. WADLEIGH. I move to postpone the report until Saturday. 

1\Ir. SPENCER. I hope it will.not be postponed. I cannot conceive 

wha,t there is in this bill to object to. It meroly places a man cor- rectly on the records of the Army as he ou~ht to be. The law a few 

years ago was viol:tted, and this bill puts him back where he belongs on the roll of the Army. 

1\Ir. DAVIS. As I Ull(lerstand, this is a conference committee's re- port. It is usual for the ·Renate to take up snch reports when presented, and I see no reaso~t why this one should be postponed. · 

The PRESIDEN'l' pro tempore. The question is on the motion to 

postpone. 

The motion was not agreed to. . 

The PRESIDENT p1·o lelnpore. The question is on the report. 

Mr. WADLEIGH. Mr. President, I desire to call the attention of 

the Senate for a short time to the questions involved in this bill. T~ bill provides ~hat Willi~m Myers shaJ.l staml upon the Army · Register for promotion No.5 rnstead of No. 12 on the list of maiors 

in the Qurui:ermaster-General's Dep:1rtment, as he now stands. That 

is, he is advanced over Jameg Belger, James M. Moore, l\L J. Lndin•rton, R.N. Batchelder, Joseph .A. Potter, James J. Dana, ancl Charl~s 

G. Sawtelle, whose CO!fim~sions bear d~t~ before his. He says that 

when he w:IB placefl m his present positiOn that was a decYratlation of him. Now, if this bill passes it 'Yill be a degradation!::> of those 

whom I have named. I desire to sta,te to the Senate, as I proposed 

to do :t>efore the agreement between the chairman of the J\.lilitary 

Committee and myself, the facts ancl the law bearing upon this matter. 

1\fr. President, in 18ofi, upon the re-establishment of the Army a,n 

act was passed which made au increase in the Quartermaster's D e- partment, as follows: Those holding the rank of colonel in the Quartermaster-General's Department were increased from t.hree to six ·making three vacancies to be filled; the lieut.enant-colonels wer~ incre~ed from four to t~n, making six vacan~ies to be filled; the maJors were mcreased from e1ght to fif+-een, making seven vacancies to be 

filled; and it was provided in the same n.ct that there should be fortyfour officer~ in that department holding the rank of captain, a,nd that 

the vacancies created by that act, whether by promotion or otherwise 

should be filled from the volunteer forces according to merit. That 

left the :vacancies created by the .act in those holding the rank of 

colonel, heuten:mt-colonel, and mUJor to be filled accordincr to the 

Army Regulations. The Army Regulation in force at that time ~n regard to promotions W'as.as follows: 

· All vacancies in established regiments nnd corps to the rank of coJonei·shall be 

filled by promotion according ta seniority, except in case of disability or other ·incompetency. 

The constructi~n put npon that Army regulation by Secretary Stan- ton, by General Grant who was then the General of the Armies and 

·by the President of the United States, was that the vacancies cr~atc d by the act in the rank of colonel, lieutenant~colonel, and major could 

be filled by tho President· by selection either ;from the regular Army ·or from the volunteers, and that those vacanmes were not to be filled 

by prom9tion. 

The view of the law which they took ancl the view of tl10 law 

which I t~ke is this: that by ·~established rog~cnts and corps" is 

meant regrment.s and corps wh1ch have had th01r fnll quota of offi-

~ers appointed, ~ud that so loJ?-g as a regiment or corps has not hntl 

Its full quota of officers appomted, all .the. officers appointed to it 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5131 

which the law demands, so long it is unestablishcd a.ud unor~anized . 

For illustration, suppo e that a new regiment wa~ provided for by 

law, and suppose that all the offices in that regiment up to company 

A had been filled by appointment; the captain and the other officers 

in company A. in that regiment of ten companies are yet to be 

appointed; those appoint-ments are ·not t.o be made by promotion, 

because until the officers are all appointed the regiment is not established, it is not organizecl; it is only partially established and partially organized. But when those offices have once been filled, then 

tho regiment has been established, aml all vacancies created thereafter must be 1illed by promotion. 

When the act of 18G6 provided for the re-establishment of the Quartermaster's Corps and went into effect, the corps was not established 

and not organized until the number of officers which it bad by ln.w 

had been appointed. It was only part;ially establishetl and partially 

organized until that time. It was an org_anizeu corps, it was an establi ;hod corps, until this act went into ettcct providing that it sbonlu con ist of a certain number of officers; but when the act wont into 

efl'cct and there were vacancies created by tho act, then tho corps ::tS 

an established corps was a tlifferent corps. It was only partially or- ganizecl and 1)artially cst.ablished; and until tho e offices had been 

till d which were created by the act it ·was not e tablished and not 

organized in the· sense of the Army re!!ulation which I have read. That was the view taken of the law by Secretary Stanton; it was the 

view of the law taken by General Grn.nt, then General of the Armies; 

it was the view of the law taken by the President of the Uniteu 

Stat.es. Taking that view of tho law., they appointed to fill some of 

the vacancies in the office of colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and major 

in the Quartermaster's Corps men from the volunteer forces of the ni~eu States who had distinguished themselves by meritorious serv- ice . Who were the men thus appointed f The object of this measure is to l)I'Ovide by this bill and others to follow it (because the amendment which is now rejected was bimply providing that after this bill 

pa ·ed matters should remain as 1.hcy wore) that those who bel<l office 

in the Quartermaster's Department in the regular Army before the war shall outrank aU those who have boon appointed from the volnnte •r service. I have in my hanu a book--

l\Ir. WEST. I do not think that statement of the Senator ought 

to go nnchallenJ:(ed. This bill only refers to one officer. 

:1\.lr. WADLEIGH. Bnt the amcnclment agreed upon by the chair- man o:J!. the Military Commi tteo and myself provided that this should <TO no further. That was agreed to solemnly, and it was agreed that 

this shoulu be an end of the matter. nut this conference committee 

have struck out that amendment ·which confined it to this officer, and 

loft the matter open so that other officers may come in and ask the 

same thing. As I was saying, I holu in my hand a hook entitled "The School 

and the Army," by Brevet Major-General W. B. Hazen, UnFed States 

Army. He goes on to speak of the staff officers of the regular Army 

a.t the time t.he war broke out, and of the necessity of keeping up a st.aff organization in the regular Army. He !Says: 

It ca.m1ot be sam that it is necessary to keep up this organization for nse in war, for it then a.t once fails, and each Army and corps commamler is compelletl to orl!::mize his own dopartments1 as these offieers have ueen found to be unfitted by 

their routine lives for service m the field. .A.uy one who knew the workir•~ staff of 

Grant, Sherman, and Shericlan, remembers tb:1t they wore made up of young, active 

civilians. The busy commercial life and experience of tho na.tiou is its strongest arm, and is what it must inevitably depend upon in time of _war to supply the want.~ 

of its Armies. • 

M:r. President, what this bill proposes is simply that the men who cam~ in, as that book says, and uid the work of the war, the men in 

whose favor the law was construed in 186G, are now to be made by the 

action of Congress to stand back and give place to those men who were found upon tho breaking out of the war unfit to perform ilhe 

duties of their position . They are to be degraded and set a ide for 

t.he men who were found to be totally unfit to perform those duties, 

according to this military writer, and whose duties were performed 

by these men from the volunteer service who received appointments 

in 1866, which appointments it is now claimed were illegal and 

invalid. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire whether General Myers di<.l not perform a good deal of service 

and very efficient service during the war 'l 

Mr. WADLEIGH. As I ~:>aid before, I do not undertake to say that 

Captain Myers diu not perform efficient service. 

Mr. F RELING HUYSEN. He was a general of volunteers, I believe. 

Mr. W .AD LEIGH. I do not undertake to say and did not say that ; 

but he performed no more efficient service than those men performed 

who it is now claimed shall be displaced for him. I say further that 

it was agreed between the chairman of the Military Committee, 

acting in behalf of Mr. Myers, and myself, that this bill should pass 

with a section that the Qnarterma~:>ter-General's Corps, after this promotion, should remain as it is. That amendment has been struck out 

by the conference committee, and it is upon that that I am speaking. 

Mr. WEST. The Senator says that under that statute volunteer 

officers were promoted. I ask him jf he does not know that lmder 

that statute four regular officers were promoted and four volunteers, so that justice was done to each branch of the service 7 Does he know 

that fact or not 'l 

Mr. WAD LEIGH. Certainly I know it, and that strengthens my 

argument. Now, Mr. P:oosident, it is proposed not only t.o do that as 

a~ainst these volunteers, but it is proposed by this bill to Ilh'tke a discrimination against those men who entered the regular Army from 

civil life in favor of the men who came into the rerrular Army before 

t.be war from the Military Acauemy. I find as one of the men who arc to be degraued, as this Mr. Myers calls it, by this bill is James 

Belger who went into the regular Army in 11338 and has serveu over since. 

Mr. WEST. No; the Senator is mistaken. He was suspended 

three years. Mr. ·w ADLEIGH. I find ho was appointed from tho Army :md not 

from the Military Academy. The only ground on which it is claimed 

that this bill shonhl pass is that under the Army rcgnlution which I 

have read it was illegal to appoint Colonel Batchelder and the other 

o1licers to the places which they now hold. Vlbn.t I have to say in 

regard to that matter is simply this: that t.ho Army Regulations of 

1857 and 18G3 were simply a 1·evision of the Army Regulati(lnS which 

had been in use before that time from 1813 uown to 1857. If any 

member of the Senate will turn to the Army Regulations of 1857 and 

1863, he will find that tbey are entitled the ''Revised AI·my Regulatious," anu to the lawyers in this body I need not say that tho rule 

for the construction of a statute revised is, that it shall not be presull'ed that any change is made or intended unless t.he statute a.s reVIsed clearly shows that such was the intention. This revised army 

regulation does not show that. It provides, as I said, that promotions 

in established regiments and corps are to be ronde by seniority; bnt 

the view ! take, and the view taken by Secretary Stanton and by 

everybody else in 1866, was that the new Quartermaster's Cm:ps proviucd for by the law of that year was not established when the act 

went into effect until its offices bad been filed. 

Again, another familiar rule of L1>w for the construction of statutes 

is that the contemporaneous construction, the construction .put npon 

them at the. time they were passed and the construction which has 

long been given to them, shall be held to be the proper construction. 

Now what is the case in regard to this law of 18GG f Very soon after 

tho passage of the :taw, the President of the United States sent in 

by the advice of the Secretary of War, Ron. E. M. Stanton, these 

appointments. At thttt time this question of law was fully con idered by them. It was nuder discussion. These gentlemen were there :md prcsent.ecl their claim to Secretary Stanton, and all those 

who had part in those appointments and in the confirmation of them 

decided t.hat it was legal to make the appoin;tmcnts in the way they wore made, and gavl} a construction of tile law of 186() which has 

prevailed till now; and what I say is that this statute, having been so construed by the President of the United States and by the Sec- retary of War in 1866 in making these appointments and by the con- firmation of tho al?poiutments by the very Senate that helped pass 

the act, that should now be held to be tbe true construction and we should not come in after t.hls lapse of timo, upon the l)etition of Major :Myers or anybody else, to decide that tho construction put upon b~ act at that time was wrong and that whatever was done at that 

time in the way it was done was illegal. 

:M.r. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Senator from New Hampshire is familiar with this subject. Let me ask him, does the Attorney-General 

of the United States hold to that construction of the law' 

Mr. \VADLEIGH. I was about comin~ to that. Mr. FRELING HUYSEN. Did he not dtssent from that conclusion f ~lr. WADLEIGH. I will say what I am going to say about that in one moment. I have stated the way this matter stood in 1836. Tho 

gentlemen, to whom that decision of the President, of tho Secretary 

of \Var, and of the Senate a,t that time was distasteful, in 1872 proceeded to procure a reversal of that action; and-I state it upon 

authority-there was procured from a subordinate in the Attorney- General's office an opinion as to the illegality of the proceedings under 

the law of 1 66. I am informed further that that opinion was not 

made up by the Attorney-General; andiamfnrtherinformed, although 

I do not know bow that is, that if this· matter wa-9 brought to the 

Attorney-General and he himself gave an opinion, the opinion of his 

subordinat.e in 1872, which he signed without due consideration, would 

be reversed. · 

That was not all that was done, Mr. President. After this opinion was procured these gentlemen, Mr. Myers and the rest, went before a committee of the Senate ; they represented that what they sought 

to obtain wars perfectly sat.isfaotory to Colonel Batchelder: aml tho 

officers whom they sought to outrank and degrade, the men who had won their pla-ces by their services in the war. Upon that representation the committee of tho Senate reported in favor of the bill ancl it 

went to the Honse committee. A full hearing was had before the 

Honse committee, nl•tlce being given to those who were to be affected 

by the action of Congress, and that commiUee unanimously reported 

against a bill similar to this or any hill of this kind. 

Then they claimed that if Con~reBB would only pass a bill giving 

them the rank of major and putting them precisely where they are now that should be a final sett.lemont of this whole matter. I made 

this statement the other day in the Senate, when the chairman of the 

Military Colll.lllittee was present, anu no contradiction wa made of 

it. I am authorized to 11tate that these gentlemen agreed that that 

should be all they would ask, that that should be a compromise which 

should stand; and if any member of the Senate will turn to what was said at the time the bill which gave thorn the rank they now bold wa6 

passed, he will find confirmation of what I say in this respect. 
5132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

Undemtanding that tht1t was to be a compromise and was to be an end of this matter, those gentlemen whom H is now sought to 

degrade stepped asiue ancl allowed that bill to pass. Two years 

have pa sed since then. Now comes up this Mr . .Myers again, anu again asks that the action of the President, of the Secretary of War, anu of the Senate in 1866 shall be reversed as illegal. That was objected to by the parties who are to be affected and degraded by it. 

They are not here to object personally; they were not here as was .MaJor .Myers in Wa hington spending his winter and importuning 

Senators and members of the House to go for his bill ; they were not here upon leave of absence working in the lobby of Congress to 

obtain the pa. sage of laws favorable to them. A gentleman who is 

a1fected by this bill, who came from my State, is in Oregon attending 

to his arduous duties; others are far away; but Mr. Myers is h ere, 

where he can see members of Congress, where he ca.n importUne 

them, where he can bring to bear upon them the social intluences 

which so~etimes affect legislation in tills body. Accoruingly he ha.s 

rrocured this bill to be brought in. Objection was made to it, as I 

have said; and objection was made to it not only that to promote him over the heads of those men whose appointments predated him 

would degrade them, a he says it was degrading to him to pnt 

them over him in 1B66, but that this bill was only the precursor 

of many others of a similar character; and it was proposed by the 

chairman of the Military Committee himself that the second amendment which this conference committee st1·ikes out shonlll be put upon 

this bill, so that after the passage of this bill matters in tho Quarter- master's.Departruent should be settled. I agreed to that compromise; 

and members of the Senate will remember that when the chairman of 

tile Military Committee presented the bill to the Senate he stated that 

there had been an agreement by which all matters in conflict had 

been adjusted. With that section put on by that agreement this bill 

pa ed the Senate, and now the committee of conference have struck 

out the section which was inserted by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs anu by the Committ.ee ou Military Affairs of 

the Senate, which prevents further action of this kind in regard to 

otiler cases, so that the whole status of -the Quartermaster Geneml's 

Department may be upset by future legislation, so that other men may · come in here and claim that they shouJU· be put over the heads of the 

officers who were appointed from the volunteer service. I hope that 

this Senate is not prepared to take action of that kintl and that the 

bill will not pas in this shape. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I unqerstand this case to 

be imply this : General Myers, when the Quartermaster's Corps was increased, wa.s a captain a.ud entitlo(l to be a major. President John- on appointe(l his jnniors over him. The Attorney-General has deciued, and we have his written opinion, that that was an illegal proceeding, that the appointment should have been made according to 

eniority. Now, General Myers does not alter the grade of any one whom he pas es over. If they are majors they remain mnjors, and. if colonels they remain colonels. The bill only alters his file, as they call it, in the majority. This was an illegal proceeuing, as the Attorney~General tolls us, performed by President Johnson. General 

Myers was a most efficient man dnring the war ; he had the cha.rge 

of the quartermaster's department in the valley of the Mississippi, 

tUld no one rendered more efficient service. I hope the report will be concurred in. 

:Mr. SPENCER. I have nothing to say in addition to what the 

f:lenator from New Jersey has said. He has stated the case fnlly. I 2 k for a vote. 'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in 

tile report. 1\fr. WADLEIGH. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 

4ii, nays 3; as follows: 

YEAS-Messrs . .Allison, Anthony-, Bayard, Bofcr, Boutwell, Buckingham, Carpc ,otcr, Chandler, Clayton, Cooper,__Davis, Dennis, Fl:ma~~n, Frelin~huysen, Gil· 

be 11:, Goldthwaite, Gordon, &ger, tlamilton of Marsland. tlamiltonof Texas, llam· 

lit, JlarYey, Hitchcock, Howe, Ingalls, Johnston, Kelly, McCreery, Merrimon, 

1\l itr.hell, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, P atterson, I!ansom, 8ar~ent, SaulRbury, 

SriJHrz, Scott, Spencer, Stevenson, Stewart, Stockt~n, Thurman, Tipton, West, and Wli~! ht-46. 

'Jr; YS-Mes~rs. Crn,!tin, Fenton, and Wadlei,.,b-3 . .A.liSEr..TT-Me srs. Alcorn. Boremau, Bro~~ow, Cameron, Conklin~. Conover, 

Dor. o_v, Eclmunds, Ferry of Uonnecticut, Ferry of :Michigan, Jones, Lewis, Logan, M•nTill of Maiue, Morton, Oglesby, Pease, Pratt, Ramsey, R-obertson, Sherman, Sprague, Washburn, anu 'Vindom-24. 

So the report was concurred in. 

1ESSAGE FROM TITE IIO SE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, b.v :Mr. McPHERSON, _ its Clerk, aunqunced that the House had passed the following bills; 

in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

A bill (H. R. No. 2174) for the relief of Edward Cavendy; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2834) granting the right of way through t he public lands to the Arkan as Valley Ra,ilway Company; , A bill (H. R. No. 3362) for the relief of Mrs. Samh H. Forest, widow 

of Lieutenant Dulaney A. Forest, late of the United State Navy; 

A bill (H. R. No. 36 0) for the government of the District of Columbia, anrl for other purposes; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 3743) to reimburse the city of Boston for certain 

expenses incurred in the improvement of Chel ea st.reet, (formerly 

Charlestown,) in coauection with tho United Sta.tes navy-yaru. 

The message also ~ounced tha.t the House had passed the bill 

(S. No. 17G) to encourage the establi hment of public marine schools, 

with an amendment iu which it requested the concurrence of the 

Senate. 

The message further announced that the House had concurred in 

the report of the committee of conference on the ilisagr eing votes 

of the two Houses on the bill (H. ll. No. ·3421) making appropriations 

for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States 

for the year ending June 30, 1875 . 

The message also announced tha.t the House had pa ed the bill (S. 

No. 71n) for the better government of the Navy of tho United States. 

Er..""R.OLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message further annonuced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the following enrolleu bills; and they were thereupon signed 

by the President pro tempore : 

. A bill (S. No. 41) ~rrauting a pension to Margaret E. Alexander, 

widow of Edwin A. Aiexander, deceascti, late a private in Company 

K, Eigh'-h Regiment of· Indiana Cavahy Volunteer, known as the 

Thirty-ninth Indiana Regiment; . 

A bill (S. No. 503) for tho relief of Susan R. Moore, the relative and 

legatee of Phrebe Sofield, a pensioner; 

A bill (S. No. 536) granting a pension to Livanna Ingraham; 

A bill (S. No. 571) to a,uthorize the Baltimore aud Ohio Railroad 

Company to construct a branch, and to change the location of its road 

within the Disti·ict of Columbia, and for other purposes ; 

A bill (S. No. 609) granting a pen ion to Margaret A. Hoffner; 

A bill (S. No. 613) granting a "pension to J efferson A. French; 

A bill (S. No. 690) granting a pension to Thomas Smith; 

A bill (S. No. 767) granting a pension to Andrew J. La ley; 

A bill (S. No. 768) granting a pension to J ohnS. Long; 

A bill (S. No. 814) granting a pension to Ebenezer W. Brady; 

A bill (S. No. 877) granting a pension to John \V. Truitt; 

A bill (H. R. No. 792) to amend and snpp1ement an act entitled "An 

act to establish a 1miform syl'tem of bankruptcy throughout the Uniteu 

States, approved March 2, 1!:)67, and for other purposes ; 

A bill (H. R. No. &6) to provide for the election of Congre man at 

large for the State of Alabama; · 

A bill (H. R. No. 1227) granting a pension to Eliza A. 1\faxham; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1t148) granting a pension to Mary J. J3lood; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2095) granting a pension to Charle .McC:trty; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3606) granting a pension to Mary E. Grosvenor; 

and . 

A bill (H. R. NQ. 3652).. providing for publication of the revised 

statutes and the laws of the United States. 

PETITIONS ..A..l\TD MEMORIALS. 

Mr. SCOTT. As an item of morning business which has by the 

Chair this morning been ruled to be privileged, I now call up the re- port of the conference committee on the mOiety bill for the consideration of the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro ten~pore. Is there objection t 

1\Ir. CHANDLER. There is some morning busine s to be done. Mr. SCOTT. This is morning business. The report wa made and 

at the request of Senators laid over to be printed. The printed report 

is on our desks, and I ask that it be considered. Mr. CHANDLER. I desire to present a memorial. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The .Chair will receive the memo- rial. 

Mr. CHANDLER presented a memorial of citizens of the eighth 

congressional <listrict of Michigan, remonstrating against tile importa.- tion into the United States from Canada free of duty of such articles as can be manufactured in the United States; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

Mr. SCOTT presented the petition of public-school trustees of Washingt6n, District of Columbia, praying that the statute of Jefferson now on the lawn east of the Executive Mansion be transferred to the 

reservation in front of the Jefferson public-school buil<ling; which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grom1d . He also presented a memorial of members of the Legi lature of 

Pennsylvania, in favor of an appropriation in aid of tho American 

Printing-bon e for t.ho Blind anu the American UniYersity for the 

Blind, located in the District of Columbia; whic:P, was referreu to the 

Committee on the District of Columbia. 

MOIETIES U~TDER CUSTO)fS LAWS. 

The PRESIDENT pro umpore. The report called up by the Senator from Pennsylvania is before t.he Senate. Mr. RA.i\lSEY. I desire to make a report. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp. ore. There is a report now before the 

Senate which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the following report submitted by Mr. ScoTT on the 16th instant: · 

Tl1e committee of conference on the disa.greeiug vot.()S of tho two HouPes on the 

bill{H.r ... No. 31711 to amend thecustoms.re,enuobwsand to repeal moieties. having 

met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and uo r ecommend, 

to £h~~ t~:~~~~I: ~g~!"fi.~r!~\~~t~~ndments num bored 7 and 10. That tho Houso r ecede from its djsa!IToemont to tho mue11dmcntR of the Sm:mte numbered 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, ::!5, 27, 29, and 34, and agreo to the same. That tJJe H~userecede from its di a;.rroementto the eig-hth amenclm<'nt. and arrrep to the same With an amentlmcnt as follow<~ : Strike out all after "court," inlliP 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5133 

21, to and including "United St.at.es," in line 26, and insert in lieu thereof as follows: 

A.ntl if produced, the said att{)ruoy sl1all be pe.TIIlitted, under the direction of 

the conrt, to make examination (at which ex.'lmination the dcfpnrlant or claim- ani or hi. :1.gent may be pre ent) of such entries _in saitl book, invoice, or pa:per ll;S 

rolato to or tend to provo tho alle~ation aforesa1d, and may offer the same rn eVI- dence ou behalf of the United States. 

And the Senate agroo to tho same. That the Honse recede from its amendment to the thirtoonth amendment of the 

Senate, :mil agree to said Senate amendment. That the 8enltte recede from its twentv-sixth runenrlment (striking out certain 

worlls) mth an amendment as follows: Page 7,line 13, after '·court" insert "or the jutlg:e ther eof;" anrl tho House to agree to tho snmo. That the Senate recede from its thirty-first runontlment, sh·ildng out section 14, 

and agreo to tbe same with an amendment as follows: Strike out "been" in line 

1, page 9, antl in ert "have been;" and the House a,_ITJ'ee to the sn.me. That 1.he House recede from its disagreement to the t.hirt_\-second amendment, 

and a~me to the same with an amendrilent as follows: Strike out "16" and in- sert "17:" and the Senate a~ree to the same. Tha-t the House recede from its disagreement to the thirty-third amendment of 

tho Senate, ant! aj!l'ee to the same with an amenclment as follows: Strike out "17" ann insert "18;" anu the Senate agree to tho same. That 1 be House recede from its amendment to the thirty-fifth amendment of the 

Senate, and arrreo t{) the same with an amendment as follows: Insert in lieu of the worus proposed to be stricken out the following: 

SI;;c. 19. That it shall not be lawful for any officer or officers of the United States to compromise or abate any claim of the U.nited States arising under the cuRtoms laws for any fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred by a violation thereof; anu any officer or person who shall so compromise or abate any uch claim, or attempt ~o 

make such compromise or abatement, or in any manner r elieve or attClmpt to re- lieve from such fino, penalty, or forfeiture, shall he deemed guilty of a felony, anu on convictiou thereof shall ufl'ei' imprisonment not exceeding ton yearR and be 

finc1l not exceeding $10,000 : Provided, however, That tho Secretary cf the Treasury shall have power to remit an.' fines, penalties, or forfeitures, or to compromise the samo in accordance with existing law. 

Anu the Senate agree to the same. That the Senat~· recede from it.'l thirty-sixth amendment., with an amendment 

striking out "18" (the number of the section) and inserting "20;" and the House agree t.o the same. That the House recede from its disagreement to the thirty-seventh amendment, 

and agr·ee to the same with an amemlnient as follows: Strike out "18" (the num- be.r of tho Rection) and insert'· 21 ;" and tbe Seuato agree to the samo. That the House receue from 1ts amendment t{) the thirty-eighth amendment, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: Strike out "throe" amt insert 

"one;" and tbe Senate a~ee to the same. . That the Rouse r ecede from its disagreement to the thlrty-ninth n,mcndment, and 

aj!ree to the . ame with an amendment sh'iking out "l:J" (the number of the sec- ticln) and inserting " 22;" and the Senate agree to tho same: That the Jiouse recede from its amendment to the forty-fourth amemlment, and a '!l·ee to the same with au amendment as follows: Insert in lieu of the wortls pro- posed to IJe inserted by the Senate the following : SEc. 2-'3. That in lieu of the salaries, moieties, and perquisites of whatever name or uature, and commissions on disbursements, uow paid to and r eceivetl by the coll ectors, naval officers, and surveyors connected ''ith the customs sernce in the several collection ilistricts of the United States hereinafter namcu, there shall be paitl, from antl after the 1st day of July, 1874, an annual salary as follow!:!: To the collector of the district of New York, 02 000. To the collectors of the districts of Boston anu Charlestown, Massachusetts, and 

Philadelphia, Penns.vlvania, each ,000. To the collectors of the districts of San Francisco, California, Baltimore, Maryland, and New Orleans, Louisiana, each 67,000. To t-he collect{)r ofthe ilistrict of Portland and Falmouth, Maine, $6,000. To tho naval officer for t.he district of New York, 68,000. To tbe naval ofiic rs of 1be districts of Boston and CMrle8town, Massachusetts, 

and "an Francisco, California, and Philadelphia., Pennsylvania, each$5,000. To the surveyor of the port of New York, 68,000. To the surve.rors of t.he ports of Boston, Massachusetts, and San Francisco, California, and Philadelphia, Penns~ lvania, each 5,000. 

Anrl the Senate agree to the same. ·That the Ron. e recede from its disagreement to the forty-fifth amendment, aml agree to the same with an amendment as follows: trike out'' 21" (the mnnber of 

the section) and insflrt "24 ;" and tbe Senate agree t{) the same. That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Honse to the forty-sixth amendment, anu agree ro the same mth amcudments as follows: 

Strike out "ten," in sairl amendment, aud insert "thirty;" also, strike out "2-2" (the number of the section) and insert" 25;" antlthe House agree to the same. That the House recede from its disagreement to tho forty-l:leventh amflnllment, 

and aj!l'eo to the same with an amendment as follows: Strikt} out all of saiu amend- ment and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

SF.c. 26. That all act~ and parts of acts inconsistent mth the provisions of this act are hereby repealed; that nothing herein contained shall affect existing rights 

of the United States; and in all cases in which prosecutions havo been actually 

commenced for forfeitures incurred, the Secretary of the Twasnr_y shall ha,;e power to make compensation as provided in the fourth section of this act to the persons who would under former laws have been entitled to share in the tli~Stribution of snch forfeitures. And the Senate agree to the same. JOHN SCOTT, 

T. F. BAYARD. 

Managers on the part of the Senate. 

ELLIS H. ROBERTS, J ... A . SIIELDO" , FE~ .ANDO WOOD, 

Managers on the part of tile House. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpm·e. The question is, Will the Senate 

ngree to this report f 

Mr. SARGENT. I should like to ask a question about the report. 

It is almost impossible to tell from the reading of the report n.t the 

desk what was done with the details of thi!:l bill. I should like to 

know what was done with reference to the amendment providing 

for imprisonment as the alternative punishment for n. violation of 

the revenue laws, which was inserted in the bill by the Senate after 

consideration. l\Ir. SCOTT. The report having been printed and upon the tables 

of the members for the last two days, I diu not propose to say any- thing in explanation of it in detail, unless as C[Llled for. The pro- vision to which the Senator refers is retai.ueu in the l>ill, and the imprisonment, which was in erted, if I recollect aright, upon his motion, 

still remains just as it was. :M.r. SARGENT. I should like to make another inquiry of the Senator. The Senate fixed the compen ation of the collectors of New 

York, Boston, and San Francisco at S ,000, considering that an equitable adjustment on account of the lost moieties, but clid not attempt 

to fix the salaries of these officers in Philadelphia and other places. 

Now I find that San Francisco, which was so arranged by both Houses, 

is struck out and put in at a lower rate and Philadelphia is put in at a rate above San Francisco and even with New YOl'lr. There seems to have been a fatherly care over the port of Philadelphia, which I 

think the Senator is entitled to full credit for; but I should like to 

have some int-elligible reason why San Francisco was degraded in 

order th:i.t PhHadelphia might be considered and mised. 

Mr. SCOTT. Adopting the suggestion of the Senator from Califor- nia, I have no blushes over the paternity of Pbil:.ulelphia or fatherly care over it; and I give him credit for exercising the same over San 

Francisco. 

Mr. SARGENT. I did not have the advantage of being on the 

committee of conference. 

Mr. SCOTT. I havo t he floor now, and I hope the Senator will let me answer his qu-estion. . Mr. SARGENT. ·wm the Senator allow me to make one remark, 

and then r shalluot interrupt him again f 

Mr. SCOTT. I want to answer the Senator's inquiry. 

1\ir. SARGENT. Allow me to make one remark. Yesterclay when 

the Sena.tor was speaking and I asked him one or two quest.ions I 

thought he was impatient, an(l so stat.ed. Immediately afterward, when I had the floor, he interrupted me several times, but I listened 

to him with great patience. Mr. SCOTT. The Senator is either verv reckless in the use of lan- guage which grates upon the feelings of other Senators, or he has intentions which are calculated to aronse feeling in the Senate. Yesterday when I was charged with an insiuions design I did betray that 

kind of feeling which is in my nature upon being charged "\"\--ith anything that is underhanded or covert. If the Senator sees proper now to refer t,o what occurred upon an entirely different bill, I simply say 

to him that I extend to him as to every member of the Senate the 

utmost courtesy in interruption. I a,m always glad when it is done 

in such a spirit as shows that it springs from a desire to be courteous 

and fair or to elicit information; but I cannot help it, when C]Uestions are put to me in s1.1ch a manner as to convey imputations, if I answcF 

them as I think they de erve. The Senator put an inquiry to me, and when I was in the midst of 

answering, he interrupted me for the purpose of putting another or for intm:jecting an argument. Now 1 will come to his inquiry, and I 

trust that hereafter there will be no occasion for this ma.nifestation of 

feeling which somehow or other seems to IJe an inseparable inciclent 

to every interruption the Senator from California seeks to make. Mr. SARGENT. Thank you. 

:Mr. SCOTT. It is not my fault, Mr. Presid~nt. I disavow any intention of being discourteous or unkind or intemperate to any mem- ber of the bouy, and I do not think there is anyth.iug in my manner that i calculated to warrant such an imputation. 

The Senator asks me why it is that the salary of the co:lector at 

San Francisco is placed at $7,000. This is the reason: when the bill wa in the Senate certain amendments were made, fixing the salarie 

of these officers at New York, Boston, and perhaps San Francisco; I am not certain; three or four ports at all event . 'Vhen the bill went 

back to the House, upon a motion made there, Philadelphia was inserted at $8,000. 

When the question came into the conference committee I myself 

raised the question whether wo had. jurisdiction over other ports than 

those t,ha.t. had· l>een named in the Honse and in the Senate. I ha1l 

my view about that and of our powers as a conference committee; 

but a large majority of the conference committee, ohler parliamentarian than I am, were so decided about it that we had power over the 

whole subject of salary at all the ports named iu the bill, that all 

these were taken up, and the object was to classify the e ports so that 

the reduction might be made to extend in some degre-e with the effect of this bill on the moieties. The consequence is that Bostqn, 

which last year had about 48,000, is ftxed at ,000 for the collector. New York, which had not much more than Boston, is now flxctl at 

12,000. Philadelphia was classified with Boston, owing to the view 

that was taken of the business at that port. San Francisco wus placed along with two others at $7,000. There is no reduction of tho 

salary at San Francisco. The salary proper is now fixe(l at 6,000. 

This report puts it at , 7,000. The moieties were 2,000, if I recollectj' 

rightly, at the port of San Francisco, while at New York anu Boston 

they were in the one case :10.000 and in the other 40,000. ' 

Mr. WEST. I will ask the Senator from Pennsylvania why he has 

put New Orleans at ."'7,000 and Philadelphia at ,000 f I n k him 

further what is the relative amount of duties collected at Philadelphia in proportion to the amount collected at New Orleans 

Mr. SCOTT. I cannot answer the Senator in figures; but I can say that subject was discussed aml with a member of the conference committee from the district of }J"ew Orleans this result wa-s acqniesccu 

in as altogether ri:;ht and proper. Mr. WEST. I will ask one more question. Is not t.he amount of 
513-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

duty and revenue derived from the· custom-house at New Orleans 

]argcly in e:s:cess of what it is in Philadelphia 1 

:Mr. SCOTT. My impression is that it is not. My recollection of 

tho fignres is that the imports into the port of New Orleans for last 

;year,Ycre stated, whether correctly or not, at twenty-three or twentyfour millions; those into the port of Philadelphia at twenty-nine 

millions. Thee:s:ports rnayhave been rnnchlarger fromNewOrle:ms, 

as uonbtless they were, than from Philadelphia; but this arrangement of salaries was made after a very full conference among mem- Lers of the committee, and I do not now remember that there wa.s auy disagreement on the subject. 

Now, .l\ir. President, I have replied to the question put to me, and I 

wish to sa.y, lest there ma,y be any misapprehension on this subject, 

that I should be glad to have any question put to me with reference 

to any sul)ject of this bill that I am able to answer. I do not wish by 

an,Ything that has occurred to convey the idea to any Senator, not even to the Senator from California, that I have any disinclintotion to answm· his questions. 

l\lr. SA_RGENT. .Mr. Pl·esident--

Mr. BAYARD. I w~sh to say one word with the permission of the 

Senator from California and the Senator from Penmwlvania. This 

:wJell(lment is not an amendment of the Senate. By lookin~ _at the 

hill as it passed the &mate, it will be found that Philadelpniu, was not :1Dl.ong the enumerated ports at all, and the Semttor from Pennsylvania is not in any way responsible for the first insertion of that 

amendment or the classification of the ports. The Senate will remem- ber that the House struck out, on page 15 of the original bill; Senate 

amendment No. 44. The House t.herefore struck out all in regard to 

the sala.ries at the port of New York and some other places; but 

Phil::ulelphin, was not enumerated in that amendment at all. The 

proposition which we aecepted was a proposition from the House, 

and I ma.y say to the Senator from Louisiauar--it is not improper to 

s::ty it-that on that committee wa-s a gentleman from the State of 

Louisinua, representing the city of New Orleans, I think, Mr. SHEI.- DO~. The proposition we now ftnd before us came from the House, auu cu,me from a commit.tee, a very active and prominent member of 

which was Mr. SHELDON, a Representative of Louisiana in the o\her 

House. It was not the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania 

that plaeed Philadelphia in one category aml New Orleans and San 

Fnmcisco in another. Therefore when tho Senator from California. 

supposes that there was anything like a "paternal care" in respect 

to that, I beg leave to say to him, as I may, that tlte proposition classifying Philadelphia with Sau Fr~tncisco ::.nd Boston was a House 

1n·oposition which the Senate conferees agreed to. We know that in 

all these cases of disa.greemeut between the two Houses it is necessary 

for each House to yield something. 

:Mr. SAHGENT. San Franci co is not cla~sed with Philadelphia 

and Boston. There is just the mistake made here. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It i ,only a matter of five hundred or one thousu,ud dollars. 

1\!r. SARGENT. No matter whether the money involved is only 

five Inmdred or one thousand dollars, it is a ' 'ery important matter. 

I was speaking of Sau Francisco. The Senato ft:s:ed the salary there 

at the same rate as Now York and Boston, as it should be, consiuering 

the amount of revenue that passes through the hands of the collector there. I asked·w hy San .Francisco was degraded, not w by Phil a- . delphia. wa.s put in~ If I had wanted to know why Philadelphia was put in I would not ask the Senator from Pennsylvania. I read 

in the Philadelphia Nort-h American within one week a most boister- ons and insultmg article against the delegation in both Houses of 

CougTess from Pennsylvania, because they allowed Philadelphia to be 

left out, and a call wa.s made on the citizens of the Stat-e to sont.l some- body here who would attend to the interests of the State and of the 

port of Philadelphia, and not allow them to be overslaughed in thjs 

way. I think it was an insulting art.icle. I supposed that of course it would call the attention of the Senators and members from that 

State to the proposition, and the natural relief woul(lbe furnishefl 

and Phihulelphi~• would be put in the proper place. I do not object 

to where you put Philadelphia in, lmt I do object to degrading the 

third port in the collection of revenues dmvn below the fonrth, down 

to a point IJelow where the Senate put it. 

Tl..te Senator asks me why I did not attend to it. I did keep a supervision over it while the bill was bt'fore the Senate; I wa.s attending to it all the time; but in the committee of conference, where 

there was no representative from the Pacific coast, it was stricken 

down. That is what I object to. I say it was unfair, unkind, unjust 

to those officers, unjust to the Pacific c-oast; tu1d remember, sir, it was not a proposition made by either House. The House of Representatives bad not a.cted on it except by n general non-concurrence 

in. the Senate amendments; but Philad.elphia, which the Senate had 

not covered, was put in by the conference committee, and put in over San Fr~ncisco, and San l''rancisco was pulled down. I think 

that is a matter of legitimate comment, even though the actual 

amount of money may be but five hundred or a thousand dollars a 

yeN·. One other remark and I have done. This is not a matter of feeling 

b etween the Senat-or from Pennsylvania and myself at all. I simply 

w:wted to call attention to the fact that these cities have changed 

places; that was all. Tho Senator from Pennsylvania. seems detcnuiucd to consiucr, because my man11er is somowh:1t earnest, that 

I am discomteous. I asked him a question and he replied, ''Why did 

not the Senator attend to it." I rejoined that I was not on the com- mittee of conference. He seemed to take offense at that, because I 

injected it into his explanation. I then rmninded him that yestor. 

clay-and the RECORD bears me out-when he waH proceeding to ~ 

make a statement, I asked him a question or two; and it seemed to me he was impatient of questions; so much so that I said to him, "I am sorry the Senator is impatient of questions; I will not intennpt 

him again until he gets through with his speech;" and I did not interrupt him further. But, sir, I had hardly commenced my r emarkti 

in reply to him when the Senator rose and asked to be heard. I 

listened to him for three or four minutes until be got through anu sat down. I then replied to what he said. Almost immediately he rose and interrupted me again, as the RECORD shows. I listened to 

him patiently a1Jd replied. You will find four or five interruptions 

of that kind in the midst ·of my speech, and there was no occasion 

for the Senator to show any impatience of interruption. I believe 

I have always been particularly careful and courteous to my brolhet· 

Senators in this regard. Whenever any ono has risen to ask a q ucs- tion or call my attention to anything, I hu,ve yielded immediately, or just as soon as I could :finish my sentence. That courtesy I will c:s:- tend to the Senator from Pennsylvania on. all occa ions, and I will 

always endeavor not to encroach on his rights or to be discom·teous 

to him. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. INGALLS in the chair.) The 

morning hour having expired, the Senate resumes the consideration 

of the unfinished business, which is House bill No. 2797, maJting 

appropriations for the payment of claims reported allowed by the 

commissioners of claims under the act of Congress of March 3, 18il. 

l\Ir. SHERMAN .. I hope this moiety bill will be disposeu of now. There will be no further debate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection T 

Mr. SARGENT. Yes, sir; I object. . Mr. SHERMAN. Then I move to postpone the present and all 

prior orders tmtil this conference report is disposed of. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tho question is on a"reeing to tlte 

report of the conference committee on House bill No. 3l71, known as the moiety bill. 

Mr. ll.A.GER. As I tmderstand it the port of New York rnnks first 

in point of dignity of revenues; Boston, I believe, is secon<l; and San 

Francisco is third. Now, it seems to me the proper way to graduate 

the salaries would be in accordance with the amotmt of revenue that 

is obtained for the Government in the particular ports. I presume the duties are exalted just in proportion to the amount of rcveune that is yielded to the Government; and why Philadelphia should Le 

exalted over Baltimore and San Francisco I have heanl no reason expressed here even by the Senator from Pennsylvania. He says it is in· 

consequence of the abolition of the moiety system that has heretofore 

prevailed. Perhaps they are not as sharp on moieties in San Francisco and Baltimore as they ·are in Philadelphia; but I cannot see that that has any relation or bearing on the question. The abolition 

of moieties will apply to every port, San Francisco, Philadelphia, 

Baltimore, aml all of them alike. I see no reason why Philadelphia 

should be ~:;elected and placed in the position that it occupies here 

with a salary above San Francisco and Baltimore, which rank highel' 

in point of revenue than Philadelphia. There can be no reason for it. 

Mr. SHER~1Al'i. I wish to make a suggestion to the Senator from 

CaJifornia. I know he is decidedly in favor of the passage of this 

bill. Here is a report of a committee of conference which the1·e is no opportunity to amend. The only way in which this report can be 

amended is by disagreeing to it and asking for another conference. 

The mattor now under discussion affects the salary of the collector of 

customs at San I<'rancisco $~00. Vve bud better make up the amotmt 

in the Senate and send it to him rather than postpone the passage of 

this bill bv such a. discussion. 

Mr. HAGER. That may be; but I think every Senator hilS a right 

to put his protest on record to show the injustice in the aiTangernent 

of the bill. It may stan<l on the record for f11ture le~islation at all 

events. If it ha~ no effect o~ the present legislation 1t may at a futme period show the injustice done by the arrangement that has been 

made bore without any regard to actualities. But, sir, I do not suppose I ca.n chan...,.e this matter; .neither did I 

expect to speak on this subject.; but when such discriminations are made as have been made here, I do not think it is anything more than 

right that they should be pointed ont before the Senate. 

Mr. SHER11AN. They can be corrected at any time. 

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I was not able to agree t o the report 

of the committee, and ilirl not sign it, and shall not be able to vote 

for it in the Senate. "I did not vote for this bill when it passed the 

Senate the other day. I was one of the three, I believe, in the Senate who voted against the passage of the bill. I shall vote against the 

adoption of this report. When I voted against the bill the other <.lay 

in the Senate I really did not understand it very thoroughly. I bad 

not then had an opportunity to examine it ' rery closely. I harl run over it; I had scrutinized some features of it; I had a very strong 

impression as to the effect of the hill; and it was because of that impression that I was induced to vote aga-inst it. Since then I h avo examinecl tho bill more .ca.refully, and those impressions are strength- ened. The bill which passed tho Senate the other day, in my juug-
1874. CONGR~SSIONAL RECORD. 5135 

ment to-day, was a worse bill than I then thought, and I then thought 

it a very bad bill. The bill which you are asketl to sanction to-day 

is a worse bill than that you ditl sanction tho other day. The changes 

which have been brought about by the negotiations of your conferonce committee have lessened rather than strengthened the efficiency 

of the bill. That is my judO'ment. 

I said the other day that I thought it was a profound mistake for 

you now to repeal the whole moiety system, and I thought it was a profound mistake for yon to preclude the Government from all opportunity, allpos ibility of obtaining informati~n as to misconductn:om 

the books of the merchants themselves. I said I thonght tl.Jo effect 

of these two provisions would be to go very far to prevent honest 

importations of foreign merchandise. I believed that under the 

operation of those two provisions your duties must he diminished; I 

believed your importations must be increased; I believe<! that homo 

productions and home inclustry must be crippled by being fmther 

exposed to the influence of foreign competition. If I shall fin<l myself, after a year or two, mistaken in these ~tnticipations, I shall be 

glad; but if the near future should verify these predictions of mine, 

I hope the Senator fTom Ohio and other Senators on tbis floor who 

have been so very .active in the passage of this bill will take notice 

of the fact, and I hope they will then be ready to tender a remedy. 

Mr. President, I have heard it sa.id repeatedly tha,t these changes were demanded by the importing merchants of our cities. While the 

bill was under debat.e here the other day the testimony of one of the 

largest of these importers, 1\Ir. A. T. Stewart., was read. I understand 

that testimony to oo flatly a~ainst the provisions of this bill. Since 

that time the Senator from uhio has placed in my hands the t<:stimony of another importer, the fum of Messrs. E. D. Morgan & Co., 

merchants well known to the people of Now York, well known to the 

Senate. It is very evident to me that the Senate (loes not care much 

what E. D. Morgan & Co. may have to say. That is manifest from 

the whole attitude of the Senate. Bnt I think jt due to them and 

perhaps due to the country that what they haYo said shoultl be ruade 

known, should be placed upon record, so that hereafter if Congress 

shall be compelled in the interest of the revenue to take this statute 

from the books, if hereafter Senators shall plead, "Why, we wero simply a.nswerin~ a demand made by the importing merchants of the 

country," it s11:1ll be known tbat E. D. Morgan & Co. were not among 

those merchants who made that demand; and therefore I propose to 

read what Messrs. E. D. Morgan & Co. ha,ve to say on this snbject. The letter is addl:essed to the Senator from Ohio, the chairman of the 

Committee on Finance, dated New York, May 20, 18G4: 

DRAR SIR: We desir~ to call your attention to the dan:;rer which we apprehend 

from a change in the existin.,. laws for the protection of tho nnrenuo. Any la.ws le s (~ ffectual in restraining fraud in the importat·ion of merchandise will surely 

work to the detriment not only of the revenue, but to that of honest importers. If 

there ar·e errors in the existing laws, let them he corTccte1l; but do nut abate in any way their efficacy. If, for example, the laws now in existence shonhl be altere<l so that reference to throo merchants, to be selected by tho Secretary of tho Trca nry, coulrl be made before any action against any a-ccused plilty is commenced, it could 

hardly fail to be satisfactory to all-parties concerned. We have in past years, in common with many others, boon se>ere sufferers by 

fra.ud in the importation of sugars and we wero obliged almost entirel." to withdraw from that business for a period of two or three year ; ami we therefore write 

with n. full knowledge of the subject. 

Very truly, yours, E. D. MORGAN & CO. 

llon. JoHN SHERMAN, . Ohairman, &c. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I ought to state that the difficulty of which they 

complained grew out of tbA classification of sugars and is not aftected 

by this moiety question in a,ny way. We changed the classification 

to meet that difficulty. The duty on sugar was specific, but the class- ification being upon the Dutch standard, a rather uncertain standard because of the change in the habits of su~ar dealers, a difficulty 

grew up. That has been corrected, so that I JJelieve there is no con- troversy in regard to the business these gentlemen are engaged in. 

The moiety question does not affect them at all, a-s I under~;taml. 

Mr. HOWE. They are under the impression that tho moiety question does affect them. They know tha,t the only protection an honest 

importer has is in efficient laws energetically enforced, and they tell 

you, ''Amend your laws but do not make them less efficacious." That 

is what these merchants say; and yet in the face and eyes of that 

protest from men who do not want to cheat the Treasnry antl do not 

want to be cheated in their business, here is a long bill which in my 

judgment from 11eginning to end makes your laws less efficacious, makes the securities to the revenues less tha,n they are now, makes 

the protection to honest importers less than it now is. * 

~Ir. President, I have not had the opportunity yet of hearing it 

explained on this floor-perhaps it has been explained but not when 

I was present-why it is thought necessary at this clay to withdraw 

from everybody all inducement to watch over the action of your cus- toms officers and the adion of your importers. I have not heard 

any one explain yet bow the Government or how honesty in business suffers because you offor large inducements to men to cletect autl. to 

c. po ·o fTaudulent dealings with the revenue. I shall be glad to 

11 u.r that explained. I have heard a, great dea,l saill in a declamatory 

way a bon t tho infamy of informers and a, bout the general demoralization t:ha,t comes from moieties. What the illustrations are I have 

not heard and.! do not know. I have heard dociamation lwro over and over aga,in a..bont honest merchants being pursnotl and hunted 

.town, mistakes taken advantage of by informers in order to enforce 

penalties. What a,re the instances'¥ Has that been done, or boo it -not Y How many cases are found in your records in which bonest 

importers have suffi red from their mistakes or suifered through the 

malignity of your informers as you call them, your spcci::Ll agents f 

I have not heanl of one. There may be many. 

Mr. President, I have heard the special agents of the Treasnry 

denounced. The other da.y one of them, a ir. Jayne, wa.s arra.ignctl 

here. Later than that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAY .A.lill] introduced another, a namesake of my own, Colonel Howe. I do not 

know but that both these men are great rnscals; but I think itwonl<l 

be simply fair when their names are intro(luced here, when their 

official conduct is arrai~rned, to state wha,t their misconduct is. 

They are not hero to defend themselves and I think the least that 

could be done is to state what their offenses are, and I think this 

should be, observed more especially because they wero in service, when 

they were in service, under the direction of your Sec1·etary of the 

Treasury, under his control. Did any complaint over come from any 

quarter of the country to the Secretary of the Treasury of their misconduct'¥ If so, dill he listen to it, or wa8 be deaf to i tf If I lm<.l 

been Secreta,ry of the Treasury an•l heartl these men, subordinates of 

mine, denounce-d as they have been denounced on this tloor, I shoulu 

feel as if a great w1:ong were done me, the head of the service. It 

was unquestionably tho business of the Secretary of tho Treasury t o have corrected these wrongs, to have righted the o alm es if they 1\'ore 

complained of. If they were not complained of to him, 1 should re- gard it as vory strong evidence that t.bey did not exist; that the 

abuses were fictions, not facts. 

But, Mr. President, 1 dill not mean to say as much as this upon the 

question of moieties, upon the question of tho seizure of books and 

papers. Thoro are other features of this bill which diu not attract ruy 

attention the other day, and on which I wish to make a word of com- ment: 

A good deal has been said upon the point that the penalti~g for 

franilil a,nd wrongs against the revenue laws provided in this bill are less than the poualties in the existing law. I do not care so much 

about that myself. The penalties in this bill are enough if yon will 

enforce them. The features in this bill that I complain of is not o 

much that the penalties are not severe enoughbbut that tboso peu- alties never will be enforced for two reasons. ne is that yon b:.we 

made the l::l.w so loose that it cannot be enforced if your officers do not 

want to enforce them; and the othor and the stronger reason, if possible, is that you have instructed the counti·y by this bill that tho 

officer who undertakes to enforce your revenue laws becomes infa.- mous in doing so that be is an offender against public sentiment, that 

you do not mean to have your mercantile community interfered with·; 

they must be respected, whatever becomes of the revenue. I shonltl 

be entirely content with theso penalties if you woul<l give us some .mason to hope that these penalties would be enforced. Mr. Presiclen t, w bile I have almost been touched to see the exhlbi tion 

of sympathy here in the Senate for those poor importers who have 

been made to pay enormous fines, heavy penalties, simply for cheating the Go-vernment of tbe United Stat-es out of its 1·evenue, I am glad to see that the Senate does not moan to take sides with all sorts 

of raacality. There aro some oftcnses, it is evident to me from tbis 

bill, tllat the Senate is willing to soo punished. It has given us an ex.n.mplo. Hero is one section of the bill-! 1·ead it by way of cou- trast--which declares: 

That any owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person who shall, with in· tent to lleframl the revonue, make, or. ttempt to make, any entry of importell mer- chandise by means of :wy fL-amlulent or false invoice, affidavit, l etter, or paper, or ll:y means of any fal e statement, written or verbal, or who shall be guilty of any willful act or omission by means whereof tho United States shall be dcprh·ed of the lawful duties, or au.r portion thereof, accruing upon the merchanlliso, or any portion thereof, emln-a.cod or refeiTed to in E!Uch bJ.>oice, affidavit, letter, ~per, or statement, or :ill'ectetl by such act or· omission, shall for each oll'ense be !inctl in :my sum not excecclin~ the thou ancl clollars nor less than fifty dollars, or be impris- oned for any time not exceecling two yearn, or both. . 

And in a.d(lition to that tho goolls 130 brought in shall be forfeited or the p:tckage in which tho item is shall be forfeited. You know, Mr. President, how severe the stl'uggle was to provide any iruprllionment whatever for any possible o1fense against the revenue ln,ws. The Senate pnt it in; the Honse wonhl not agree to it. The confer- ence committee, as I undorstand, finally kept it in by putting cqui v:tlcnt provisions in the bill, which wake it very certain in m~· judg- ment that nolx>tlv ·will ever be imprisoned, because nobody will ever be convicted nm\er this Jaw. 

But here is another crime which this law points out. Here is 11 j 

crime that the Senat.e means to set its foot upon; here is a, crime that' 

tho Senate means to crush out. What is it Y 

It sl1a.ll not be lawfulSays the sectionIt shall not be lawful for any ofticer of customs, special agent, or district attor- ney t.o compromise or settle an·y claim of the United St-ates arising under the cus· toms laws, or relieve from any fine, p enalty, ot forfeiture; an.d any ollicer or person who shall so compromise or settle any such claim, or attempt to mako such com· promise or settlement, or relieve or attempt to relieve from such :fute, penalty, or forfeiture, sha.lllJe guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall suifer im· 

prisonment not oxce ding ten years ami ue fined not exceeding $10,000 . 

And after a,ll that thlJlldering t.lle section concludes : 

Provid.ed, however, That the Secretary of tho Trea ury, in- accoru::mce witb general r egulations, to bo 1•re cribntl by him, not in conflict with existl g: lawR nor with 

the provisions of thl~S act, ma.y r emit any fines, penalties, or fol'feitllres upon sufli. 
5136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

cient proof that there was no intention of fr:1ud or willful neglect upon the part of 

such person or persons a'"':1inst whom such fines, penalties, or forfeitures shall have .~ccrnetl, or on the part o1 his or their agent or n,gents. . 

That is not precisely the way in which the provision stands in the 

biL. n,..,.roeu to bv the conference committee. I see here a late Secre- t~u-y ~f the Tre:isnry. I should like to kno~ whether the o.ffens~ de- nonnceu in this section has ever been comm1tted, or how many tunes 

it has been committed U.nring his administration of the Tren.snry Department to hi.s knowletlge. Ur. BOUTWELL. Never, to my knowledge, at alL 

Mr. HOWE. I he::u·the Senator from Massachusetts, the late Secretary of the Treasnry, say that that offon e against which you are careful to pronounce ten years' imprisonment and $10,000 of fine was never committed to his knowledge; and yet you ask the Senate to 

get up bristling with indi&"nation at a crime wh~ch. never has been 

committed, while the whole power of Congress 18 mvoked here to 

tone down, to smooth the way for these great overtowering msealitics which are committed daily and repeated da.ily in every port of 

the conn~ry where goods are received D:om :tbroad. 

Mr. President, let me ca,ll the attentwn of the Sena,te to .another 

fea,tnre of this bill. I said that the Hquse of Representatives had 

manifestetl its evident hostility to allowing any penalt.ies, even so mild as those mentioned in the twelfth section, to be retaineu in this 

bill. It seems the conference committee, however, has agreed to keep 

them there; but I find another amendment which went to t.he Homm, 

to which the House did not agree, from whieh the Senate committee seems to have receded. The Sena,te struck out the sixteenth section 

of the bill as it passed.this body, that sectiof! which declared that the 

question of ~uilty intent or fr3:udulent intent sho~d ~e submit~d to 

the jury not merely as a questwn of f:.wt ne?essarily mcludec~ m the 

definition of the offense to be t1ied, but that 1t should be subm1ttetl to 

the j nxy a.s a separate a,nd di tinct issue: '~he Senate struck out that 

section. I find that the conference comiDlttee has concluded to re- tain the section. That "becomes very significant, and I think very 

important when you look a,t it in connection with a previous section 

of the bill. The eighth section of this bill declares that a person en- titled to compensation aa an informer under the provisions of. the uill 

shall not be disqualified tbS a witness on the trial of the cause be- cause of that interest in the recovery; but it declares that if the 

Government does put the informex on the tand and exa,mino hinl as a witness the defendant himself shall have the xight to testify. · fr. CARPENTER. Will my colleague allow me to call his attention to that section as now remodeled 'f It fu t a,llows the informer 

shall testify; and then atlded to that is a substantial substantive 

provision : 

And in evt>.ry such caseThat is," any action, suit, or proceeding for the recovery, mitigation, or remi sion" of the forfeitures provideu for by this actAnd in every snch c:tse t.he (lefendant or defendants may appear and testify and 

be examined and cruss-ex.'l.mined in like manner. , 

Mr. HOWE. I a,m much obliged to my colleague. I had not read 

the section as it is printed in the bill submitted to us from the con- ference committee. I think my colleague is clearly right that in 

every case untler thi law the defendant has a right to take the sta,nd 

himself and be sworn as a. witness in the cause, not merely a witness as to what he has done or not done, but a witness upon that separate 

distinct issue as to whether he did it fraudulently or not with the 

actrutl intent to defraud, about which he is the only being on earth 

who ca,n speak with positive knowledge, and you ha,ve furnished no p,rocess here by which you cau bring witnesses from any other place. He is the only witnes who ca,n speak with positive lm.owlooge; and 

if he will take the stand and swear "Yes, I did this; I received this 

ca,rgo on such a day, and I present.etl to the custom-house in which 

the goods were appra,ised so and so; I had another invoiee sent me whiob is entered in my books and on which I soltl the goods; but 

then this waa all the result of a mistake; I was 111isleu by my corre- spondent in Liverpool or Birmingham or elsewhere; it was a mistake;" and if he swears to that, what jnry woul<l venture to say not 

merely that that defendant is guilty and shall pay a fine, but that he 

is guilty of perjury as well f 

Mr. Pxesiuent, that is all I care to say on ·that point. Now I wish 

to call the attention of the Senate for one moment to the question 

of salaries. I do not care much about them. I hear the Senators from 

California complain tha,t the salary provided for the collector of the 

port of San Francisco is less than it ought to be in comparison with the 

salaries provided for the collectors of other ports. I cannot explain that 

unless the explanation is found in thef::wt that the representation from 

Ca,lifornia. conld not do much to secnre the pa sage of this bill, while 

the representatives from Eastern Sta,tes were more numerous and could 

do more. I do not believe, however, that consideration affected the 

action of th~ members of this House. I do not say anything abont 

members of the other House. I want to add my testimony right here 

to the testimony of the Sena.tor from Delaware that if there is anything w1·oug in the discrimination ma.de between the port of Philadelphia, and the 11ortof San Francisco, t he Senator from Penu~:~ylvania 

who sits on my left; [l\1r. Sco'IT] is not responsible for tha,t :wrong. 

I llave hatl the means of qualifying myself to speak on that point. 

H is simply due to that Sena,tor that the fact shonltl be known, and 

it gi vcs mo great pleasure to state it. But, A-fr. President, I willuot 

undertake to explain these things, I wish some Senator, some mem- ber of the Committee on Finance, some one somewhere wouJd tell me why you put the salary of the collector of the port of Now York at :12,000, while the Secretary of the Treasury works for $8,000. Wha.t 

claim has the collector of New York upon a salary 50 per cent. greater 

than is paid to the Secretary of the Treasury. Here is a, list of officers, quite a number of them, who are paid as high as or higher tba,n 

the Secretary of the 'l'rea nry Y Does any one of them incur a responsibility or perform an amotmt of labor grea,ter th.:m is performetl lJy 

the Secretary of the Treasury t My ltonomble friend from New York can doubtless explain how this is. I cannot. 

:Mr. CONKLll~G. Having the permi sion of my friend from 'Vis- cousin, I venture to answer in part so much o:f his question us relates 

to the collector of New York. He inquires why does tho collector of 

tho port of New York receive 12,000, for example, and thou suggests, 

in comparison, to point his question, that a very high officer of the 

Government receives but ,000. I answer tha,t the reason con ists in 

part in the bet of t-he enormous pecuniary responsibility which the 

collector of the port of New York assumes anti for which he gives 

very heavy bonds. A ha,lf million dollars in a day i not unusual, is 

less than the ordinary occurrence of his responsibility. He is liable 

not only for himself but for his subonlina,tes; and I venture to say 

there is not a solvent insnrance company in the country which for a. premium amounting to the salary fixed by this bill for the collector 

of the port of New York would insure the pecuniary respou ibility 

of the collect-or and his subordinates, for which he and his suretjes 

a,re liable. Therefore, so long aa men measure, as they always have measnred, compensation in re pect to pecunia....7 trusts by risks rnn, so long I humbly submit to the Senator it will be fallacious t-o com- pare mere duties, mere labor, mere official ca,res in the sen e of exer- tion, with the same care when coupled with enormous pecunia-1-y re- sponsibility. Mr. HO,YE. The honorableSenatorfromNew York has given an ex- cellent reason why the collector of the portof New York should have a salary as high a.s $12,000 ; but a,fter all he has not given a reason"for 

that vast disparity of salary which is paid to other ·officers of the 

Treasury Department, and which is proposed to be paid to the collector of customs at the port of New York. If this means to measure out sa,laries proportioned to the weight of pecUlliary r esponsibility 

devolved upon the officer , why do you make no gTeater ili.il"ercnce 

between the salary of the collector of New York and the sala1-y of tho 

collectors of Boston, San Francisco, or Phila-delphia Y New York co 1-

lects I suppose about three-fourths of the customs revenue of the whole 

country, and ti·ied by that te t the collector's salary should be three 

timed as much as the salary of all other collectors. But there is another officer in New York to-da,y whose pecuniary 

responsibilities I take it are even heavier than those of the collecto1· 

of customs there, anu that is the sub-treasurer, and I take it there is an officer in this city, to say nothing about the Secretary of the 

Treasury, to wit: tho Treasurer of the United States, who e pecuniary 

responsibilities are greater than those of any other collector in the 

United States. I believe the sub-treasurer in New York works for a salary of $7,500; I be-lieve the Treasurer of the United Stat.e~ works 

for a salary of $6,000. I am corrected on both sides of me; it is saitl 

he has the same salary a the sub-treasnrer a,t New York. I am not 

finding fault with the sa.laries which you propose to pay to the collectors under this bill. They are as low as they ought to be. I simply 

want to know what consideration there is that moves ns at this time 

to do justi~e in the way of salaries to these few officers, and to leave 

this great injustice upon those other officers who do more work, assume more responsibility, and are yet unpaid. 

.Mr. HAGER. Will the Senator allow me a wordY 

Mr. HOWE. Certainly. 

Mr. HAGER. I desire to say in justification of what l stated that 

I see upon' reference to the departmental report that the imports at 

the port of San Franci co are nearly tlouble those at the port of Philadelphia. I men-tion this as a. justification of the rema,rks I made before in regard to this arrangement of salaries. 

Mr. HOWE. .M.r. President, let me ca.ll attention to one o.the.r sec- tion of this bill, and I now have before me the bill printed in pnrsu- ance of the recommenda,tions of the conference committee. Let me call attention to the twenty-fourth section and I shall be done with 

this subject for the present. The twenty-fourth section proviues: 

That the Secretary of the Treasury shall, from time to time, make sucl1 re!mlations as he may tlcem necessary for the conduct and managemf'nt of the bonded 

warehouses, general-order store , and other depositories of the imforted merchan- <lise throughout the United States; all regulations or orders issuet by collectors of customs in regard thereto shall be subject to revision, alt-eration, or revocation by 

himSo far I understand, it recites substantially the law as it existsand no warehouse shall bo bonded and no general.order store established without 

his authority aml approval. And it shall be theduty of the Secretary of the Trca~­

ury, in granting permits to establish general-ortler warehouses, to require such 

warehouse or warehouses to be located contiguous, orasnearasmaybe, totbol:mdlng places of steamers anU ve sels from foreign ports ; and that no ofticer of the cuR toms shnll have any personal ownership of, or interest in, auy bonded warcl10use ur general-order store. 

Now, according to my understanding, the only effective words in 

that long section are those requiring that general warehouses shall 

be 'located contiguous, or as near as may be, to the Janiling place of 

steamers and vesselR from foreign ports." Those, I think, are the 

. 
1874. CONGRESSlON.A.L RECORD. 5137 

only words in this section which will alter the law. Those words 

will have, as I understand them, just this effect and no other: to secure to three great steamship companies, not one dollar of the capital in any· one of which is owned by an .American citizen, and to secure to them absolutely, the storage of all the goods they bring into the 

country, not merely of the general-oruer goods, but of all the goods 

they bring in . . The Cunard line, the North German Lloyds, and the 

Hamburg line haveat last obtained or will when this law is put upon 

your statute-book, have obtained from an American Congress a na- tional decree that they shall have the exclusive storage of all the 

goods which they bring into the country and which go into bonded 

warehouses or into general-order stores. That may be a wise thinnto do; it does not seem to me to be so; and it is one of the reaso~ why I will not consent to the passage of this bill. If I am mistaken as to the practical effect of this section I shall be glad to have my 

mistake pointed out. That is just what I unde~'Stand it to be; anu yet it pa.ssed the Senate, I believe, the other day, without any criticism or attracting any attention whatever. I do not know whether 

it was the design of the framers of this bill or whether it is an accident which has crept into the bill. That is the way I regard it, and 

that is one of the reasons why I shall not vote for it. 

Mr. President, I will occupy no more of the attention of the Senate. 

:Mr. CARPENTER. When this bill was before the Senate the other 

daty I voted against it. I did so because in my belief it would defraud 

the revenues twenty-five millions annually. But that is not all. We 

might be willing to pay twenty·five millions a year for a great reform. 

We are paying pretty dearly for all our great modern reforms, and 

twenty-five millions a year might be cheerfully paid for this. But 

the evil does not stop with the twenty-five millions. Such is the 

nature of the importing business that a very slight discrepancy in 

the duties paid would enable those who pay lesser duties to control 

the market and ruin all the men who pay the higher duties. 

This bill, as it seems to me, from beginning to end is a bill to favor 

smugglers. It is the mo t tenderly drawn bill to punish smugglers 

that ever was devised. Our fathers, in the infancy of the Repnblic, 

devised a system for collecting the revenue with a keen knowledge 

of the nature of the subject to be regulateu, taking into account the 

temptation which existed to violate the law, and the evil conse- quences that would follow from its violation, and they framed and 

matured a complete system which has been in existence for nearly 

eighty years, and U.nder which our duties have in the main been impartially and honestly collected. Now it is proposed to change that 

system in many important particulars, and we have this bill for the 

purpose. The two sections to which my colleague has already re- ferred clearly indicate the spirit of this bill. We are told ibat the 

merchants, the importers, demand a reform in the law. What kind 

of a reform f .A. reform, we are told, that shall impose less severe penalties for a violation of the law. That is, the reform, as far as it ~oes in that direction, is to encourage the violation of the law, make 

1t easier to violate the law, make it more difficult to convict a man for violating the law, make the penalty for violation after conviction 

less severe, and to remove the instrumentalities by which the law 

has been enforced. As illustrating this, the eighth and fourteenth 

sections seem to me to be conclusive. The eighth section reads: 

That no officer, or other person entitled to or claiming compensation under any provision of this act, shall be thereby disqualified from becomin~ a. witness in any action, suit, or proceeding for the recovery, mitigation, or remissiOn thereof-

" Thereof" means nothing, and I believe is a misprint. The "fines, 

forfeitures, and penalties prescribed by this act" are referred to by 

the word "thereof." I proceed with the sectionbut shall be subject to examination and cross·examination in like manner with other 

witnesses, without being thereby deprived of any right, title, share, or interest in 

any fine, penalty, or forfeiture to which such examination may relate; and in every such caseThat is, referring back to the previous language, "in any action, 

snit, or proceeding for the recovery, mitigation, or remission, &c., of 

the fines, penalties, and forfeitures imposed by this act." Tha.t is what 

is meant by the phrase " every such case." 

And in every such case the defenrlant or defendants may appear and testify and 

be examined and cross-examined in like manner. 

Then section 14 requires the judge not only to have the jury find 

that the def!:)ndant has volated the law, has smuggled article , and 

entered them falsely by p~rjured affidavits; but after all these facts are established and after the jury are satisfied that the man has com- . mitted the offense within every legal definition which ever applied to 

such a subject, then the jury are to be brought to another question 

that is separate and distinct from the question of the man's guilt 

arising from the facts proved, what he has done and the legal presumption arising therefrom; and the jury are to be told in substance, 

"Although you may find that this defendant knew that there were diamonds in that chest of tea, and that he made a false affidavit when 

be entered the package, you must, notwithstanding, answer this further 

question, yon must say upon your oaths, upon all the testimony in the 

<lase, that the defendant did this thing with' an actual intent'" to do 

what 7 Defraud the revenue law! · 0, no; that is not it, but "to 

jl].efraud the United States." 

My honorable friend from Pennsylvania would say that defrauding 

;the United States in this connection means defrauding the revenue laws of the United States. Very well. My honorable friend would 

p ot smuggle; he would not commit perjury to cover smuggling; he 

322 

would not swear, if he had done such a thin~, that he had not done 

it. I am not speaking of him; but let us taKe the case of a man who 

believes that free trade is for the true interest of this country. Suppose a man thinks every article ought to be imported free of duty, 

and he simply swears that he had no actual intent to defraud the 

United States. Then the jury when they come to that part of the case have heard the only witnes~ who, as my colleague has said, can really 

know what his intentions were. Anyone may judge of his intentions 

fromhisconduct. Wehangmurderers,weconvictmenofeverycrimein 

the catalogue by testimony of this kind, by tho legal presumption from 

the acts performed by the party; but that is too severe for smugglers. 

Our hearts relent when we come to a smuggler. We would hang a man charged with murcler upon the presumption of the law arising 

from his a.ct ; but we are not to convict a smuggler by the same rule. 

'Ve must go beyond the fact and the presumption arising from it and 

prove that be actually intended to defraud the United States, and we make him the witness ; and in the nature of things he is the only 

witness. 

Now, I want to know if any lawyer who has been in the habit of defending thelile cases and other criminal cases for years believes that a conviction can be had under these two sections, that a jury will find a man guilty of the actual intent when he swears positively that he 

had no such actual intent and when the judge must tell the jury "no 

matter what you conclude from the fact that he did certain things, the 

law requires not only that but it requires in addition to the legal presumption from the act done that you should find as an independent, 

yes, and as a separate, distinct fact by a special finding, that this man did actually intend to defraud the United Statesf" Suppo ethe 

jury should happen to be free-traders, and suppose they should find 

that the man did intend to defraud the revenue laws; but they being 

free-traders think the revenue laws are against the interests of the 

United States, and consequently smuggling does not defraud the 

United States taken as a whole, but is in the interest of the people, 

and if such a jury would acquit every man of smuggling because 

they are opposed to paying duties f This is a penal act, and is to· be 

construed strictlv. 

Does anybody 'believe, Mr. President, that the honest merchants of 

this country want such a law passed 7 Willsuch.alawhelp anybody 

in the importing business except thieves 7 Certainly not. And yet 

for voting against such a bill and opposing it I have been handled 

rather severely by the New York press; and while I do not expect to 

take any notice of what any newspaper may say about me as an individual, when I am charged as having acted corruptly as President of the 

Senate, I think the case is different. After having criticised my 

opposition to the bill the New York World says: 

The President of the Senate pro tempore need not imagine that the commercial 

community does not see through his maneuvers. ,He appointed Senator HowE on the conference committee. 

Then it goes on and abuses my" colleague, w hicb !rejoice at, [laughter,] 

for I have been abused individually so much that to be yoked to another man and have the lash come over both of us at once gave me infinite 

delight. 

Nor will it be overlooked that Senator HoWE is not even a. member of the Finance 

Committee, and that it is customary for a bill perfooted and considered in the Finance C~tee to be referrred to a. conference of members of that committee. 

I need say nothing about that criticism in this body where parliamentary usages are known and where everybody knows that a con- ference coiD.Ii:littee should be so made up as to represent both sides of a question; and in this case the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 

Senator from Delaware [Messrs. ScoTT and BAYARD] were both mem- bers of the Finance Committee. I may state the further fact that 

after the chairman of the Finance Committee [Mr. SHERMAN] had 

declined to serve on the committee of conference in consequence of 

his other engagements, I called him to the chair and consulted with 

him about the committee, and the committee that was appointed was entirely satisfactory to him. 

But this criticism is followed by a statement which leaves the inference, and was undoubtedly intended to create the impression, that I 

had acted corruptly in the chair in consequence of what is added in 

the next paragraph, namely: 

The merchants of New York know very well that when the Phelps-Dodge case was in its inception the lawyers of the spy Harvey telegraplled for Senator CARPENTER, and that SenatorCARPE.TI'ER came here and gave his legal advice to aid the 

prosecution in realizing their $2TI,OOO. · 

Now, merchants of New York, do you not see whythismanhasacted so corruptly in the chair f Do you not see why he did not appoint 

the conference committee all on one side f Because he had been 

retained for the spy Harvey and was his legal adviser. Three things are aflirmed here; first, that Harvey's lawyers telegraphed me; second, 

that I went to New York; and third, that I gave legnJ. advice in aid 

of that prosecution. . There never was a greater falsehood. Neither Harvey nor his lawyers nor his friends ever telegraphed to me to my knowledge about 

any subject whatever. I never went to New York in consequence of 

such telegram. I never aided by advice or otherwise the prosecution 

in realizing $271,000 or any sum whatever. I never aided them at ·av., nor gave them any a-dvice whatever. 

I voted against this bill because I thought the bill was an exceed- in~ly bad one, because I thougl!t it would defraud our revenue and rum all honest importars, that smuggling would become the rule and 
5138 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

must become the rule, and honest importers must abandon the mar- ket; but when I resumed the chair I acted as I have tried to act in ~ll cases, appointing the committee of conference according to the 

rules of parliamentary law. 

Mr. SHEID1AN. I desire to say, if the statement of the Senator 

from Wisconsin really needs any corroboration, that the eilitor of the 

paper was entirely mistaken in regard to the organization of this con- ference committee. It was made in exact accordance wHh the rules 

requiring a majority of the committee to conform to the vote of the 

Senate. That was done in this case by appointing two members of 

the Committee on Finance who reported tllis bill on the committee 

of conference and appointing also a gentleman who had voted again t 

the bill. That is the uniform custom of the body, and the appointment of the Senator from Wisconsin [ fr. HoWE] I think I suggested 

myself, because the Senatorfrom Wisconsin had voted against the bill 

and had shown himself very much opposed to it, and thereupon, when 

he was appointed as being opposed to the bill, I handed over to him a number of papers against this bill. Although I was strongly in favor 

of the bill, I felt it dne that the conferees should have all the information to be had on either side of the subject, and I am perfectly satisfied with the result of their labors. 

:Mr. SCOTT. I do not rise to enter into this controversy about the 

New York World, for I have come in for my share of editorial abuse; 

but as my fuiend from Wisconsin has commented on a portion of the 

eighth section, which enacts that the party sued for a penalty may 

become a witness, I simply want to ask him whether he thinks that 

is introducing any new principle into our Federal legislation in view 

of the act of 1 64, which provided" that in the courts of the United 

States there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the issue 

to be tried f" I am not aware whether the question bas ever been met as to whether this section covered a civil action for a penalty, although 

the language I think is broad enough to do so, unless there has been a decision to the contrary. My friend fromDelaware, to whom I suggested this question, hands me this ruling: Under the act of 1864 the 

claimant of property seized for a violation of_ the internal-revenue 

law is a witness in his own behalf." (United States vs. Ten Thousand 

Cigars, 1 Woolwo~tb, 123.) 

Mr. CARPENTER. There is no doubt about that. The new principle introduced here is that while you leave him to be a witness 

and he is authorized to swear, he is the only man who can swear as to his actual intention as distinguished from· that intention as presumed by his conduct, and you then require the judge to put that as a separate and distinct question to the jury, whether they find him 

guilty of an actual intention. There is the new principle. 

Mr. SCOTT. I understood the comment which my friend ma-de on the two sections taken together t-o animadvert principally on permitting the defendant to become a witne s. Mr. CARPENTER. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. I simply wished to call his attention to the fact that 

it was only a re-enactment of what had already been the law. 

Mr. CARPENTER. That I understand; but that taken in connec- tion with the other provision makes a new principle. .Mr. STEW .ART. The title of this bill suggests to my mind some very grave considerations. The number of case of fraud exposed by 

this detective system demonstrates the amount of smuggling to some extent, and demonstrates the nece ity of a very rigorous admini - tration of the law. It shows that the amount of robbery in the collection of our revenue is perfectly enormoM. But the public entiment will not tolerate moieties, which appear to be the only inducement yon can offer in order to get at the e frauds, and when the e spies are taken off we may reasonably suppo e that the amount of 

frauds must increase immeasurably. I have no doubt of it. Good 

judges estimate that there will be twenty or thirty millions stolen 

annually in consequence of this measure; that is, our revenues will 

be reduced that much; and into who e pocket will this money go f 

Into the pockets of honest men f No ; into the pockets of smugglers. 

If this business of collecting the revenue by tariffs is liable to these enormous abuses, a very ~rave question arise . We have been told 

that in a single year, of the number of ca.~es detected and unearthed 

forty-eight judgments were obtained and enormous amounts of money 

made by the officers as moieties. These moieties alw::tys come out 

of the fraudulent importations. They are the divisions of the spoils 

of those that are overtaken. I say there is enough developed in the course of this controversy to cast a very grave suspicion, a very gi'ave 

doubt, upon the possibility in the United States of collecting revenues by imposts, by duties. If the system is such that no honest man can be engaged in importing- and I believe it is a-dmitted that in cer- tain branches of trade .American merchants have been driven out 

entirely- if the system is such that enormous wealth can be accumulated by people who are willing to be dishonest, it seems to me it ere-: ates a necessity for remodeling your tariff so that these revenues can be collected and collected honestly. It is a most conclusive argument against your general ad ·valorent tariff. The developments in the course ?f this discussion furnish a strong argument against your pres- ent tariff system. ~t appears that spies will not be tolerated in this country; they are odious; but when we reflect upon what has occurred during the la-st 

year, what may we expect to happen when they are taken off f It 

shows that we mllst :remodel our tariff law, and impose duties upon 

only a few articles, and those of such a character that there can be no fraud in them. 

I have voted consistently since I have been here for tariffs. .A 

tariff is a tax directly upon my people. They manufacture nothing; 

they produce gold and silver, and buy everything. The people of the 

Pacific coast have stood up for tariffs, and they have believed that in 

the pro perity of the whole country, in the employment of laborers, 

and in keeping up the price of labor throughout the country, their 

prosperity would be enhanced, because they are a part of the same common country; but I tell you, if you cannot unearth these frauds 

of smuggling without crea.ting such scandal as calls for legislation 

to repeal the laws by which they are unearthed, then you mu t 

change your tariff laws; you must do it as a necessity; you must 

have nothing but pecific duties, and those on but a few articles that can be understood. . It may be that the pa sage of this bill is nece sary to stop moietie , because they are odiou , but the system of moieties has been in exist- ence long enough to develop a state of things which, without the 

moieties, will sap the foundation of all government. If you have 

laws whereby men can by evading them accumulate millions, you 

saddle all the burdens of crovernment upon the laboring classc . .After all, they all come upon labor. If you have ncb laws, you must 

obtain your revenue in some other way. If you repeal these law , you cannot prevent this system of corruption. I have examined this 

subject enough to be thoroughly satisfied that if you take away your 

spies and your moieties, the smugglers will rob the country. You 

say you will not have these spies and informers; and I think there 

is great deal of reason why you should not have them. Then it is 

the first duty of Congre s to take hold of this question and remodel 

the tariff, have nothing but specific duties, and put those on so few 

articles that the world may kuow where you get your reven1fe . .Although this bill will not relieve the burdens of the people, although the prices. of all articles will remain the arne, and the tariff 

the same, we are told by men who pretend to understand the subject 

that it will considerably reduce your revenues. Suppose it doe not 

reduce your revenues more than $10,000,000 ; those · 10,000,000 are taken from the people and put into the hands of those who are willing to evade the laws. The estimate is that the reduction will amount 

to _$30,000,000. Can we stand by a system of revenue whereby 

thirty or forty million dollars may be filched in a year, which mu t 

eventually be supplied by the people f The price of everything will 

be raised in consequence of it. I do not believe, with your present 

complicated system of ad valorem, duties and tariff laws, that it i 

po sible to a-dminister them without spies and without agents and 

without offering inducements for the detection of fraud. You mnst 

give inil.ucements to men to watch the smu(J'glcrs; you must employ 

detectives if- you spread out before the whole country opportnniticR 

such a are spread out by means of the present tariff law. You talk 

about gettin~ honest men and getting men who will do t.heir duty! 

You cannot nire men to act as detectives without giving them a bounty. I have not the highe t faith in detectives; I do not believe 

much in them; but if you continue this system, if you give so IIL:'tny 

opportunities for rascality, you have got to pay a pretty hi~h price 

to detect it. It is a commentary upon your loose tariff system 

that yon cannot avoid. It must be reorganized and remodeled. It 

is the duty of Congress to pass such laws a will not drive hone t men out of trade. Then you c:m. dispense with your moieties. "With 

this system and without moieties the people are to be robbed almost 

ad libitum. There is no doubt of it. 

Mr. THURMAN. I only rise to say that I hope the vote will be 

taken on this report. The bill p· sed the Senate by a vote of 40 to 

3, I think. The subject has been amply discus ed; ancl if we are to 

do any more business at this ses ion, we shall have to agree to abbreviate our speeches. I hope the vote will be taken. 

Mr. FENTON. Mr. President, I suppo e discussion has closed on this bill, and I rise merely to congratulate the Senate and he country 

upon its passage. I assume that there will be none or very few votes 

against it. The bill as agreed upon by the conference committece is 

not alliihat I could have de ired. But upon the whole it is in the 

direction of reform, and ought to be pretty satisfactory a-s a beginning. If I had been here last week during the discussion I should 

have tried hard to maintain orne other point which I deem important alike to the importers and the Government, and to li.ave U.efended 

the bi~ against the opposition which was made to it. But I am pretty well satisfied with what we have, and after stating my regret 

that business of a private character, which I could not disregard, 

compelled my absence, my object in rising is imply to expres the 

earnest hope that the Senate will now without further discus ion 

adopt the report of the committee. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. L~GALLS in the chair.) "\-Vill the 

Senate agree to the report of the committee of conference f 

.Mr. SCOTT. If we can have a vote I do not desire to say a word. 

Several SENATORS. Let us vote. 

The report was concurred in. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. SCOTT. I move that the Senate resume the consideration ol 

the unfinished business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania 

moves to resume the consideration of House bill No, 2997, which was 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5139 

the unfinished business of yesterday but was laid aside this morning 

by a vote of the Senate. 

1\lr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Committee on the Judiciary imposed 

the duty on me of bringing before the Senate a bill for the enforce- ment of law in Utah. The bill has passed the House of Representatives. In its form it is a mild measure, only calculat-ed to promote 

the enforcement of law. Th~tt bill has been further amended in the 

Judiciary Committee, so that I think there can be no objection to it. 

I have received this morning a communication from the AttorneyGeneral stating that it is of the :first importa,nce that that bill should 

pass. I read a part of what he says : 

I think it is indispensable to the administration of justice in that Territory that 

there should be some legislation upon the subject. The people there have !:>een 

practically without _courts fo~ ~o or tJ;lree. ye:n-s .. It will _b a. very gr~at diS?-P· 

pointment, and I think calam1ty, if nothing 18 done m tha.t ilirection at this sess1on 

of Congress. 

Now, it is very clear tha,t with the an1endments reported by the 

committee the bill has got to go back to the House. I think that 

bill can be passed in half an hour ; and therefore I move that all 

other orders be laid aside and that we proceed to the consideration 

of that bill. _ Mr. SCOTT. I that motion-in order peniling the othert 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that motion 

not to be in order at present. The que tion now is on the motion 

made by the Senator from Penn ylvania, [Mr. ScoTT,] which mnst 

be voted upon. If that should be voted down the Senator from New 

Jersey can then make his motion. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Then I would simply ask the Senate, in 

view of the statement which I have made, and of the fact that our friend from Pennsylvania while he had one measure before the Senate has introduced another which has occupied two or three hours, 

that we be permitted to dispose of this bill. I am the more earnest 

about it ina much as I am expected to take care of the bill, and 

to-morrow I must be engaged probably all day in an important con- ference committee. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the measure to which the Senator has referred was one in which the Senator from Pennsylvania might ·be supposed to 

have any personal intere t, the appeal might have some force. I 

have simply been acting as the organ of the Senate, as chairman of a committee of conference, and now as chairman of another com- mittee, in bringing before the Sena,te bills of large public importance. 

This one has already been discussed at such length that I hope to be 

able to get a vote npon it in a few minutes. 

M.r. FRELINGHUYSEN. I did not think the Senator from Pennsylvania had any personal interest in either of the measures except 

that personal intere t which a Senator alway~ bas to dispatch the 

business which is specially committed to him as soon as possible. 

111r. DAVIES. I hope the Senate will continue in the line it was upon yesterday. We had up a l>ill, and it is the regular order to-day, 

in which a thousand persons are interested. It is the work of the 

claims commission for a whole year. Therefore I hope we shall con- tinue its consideration without laying it aside. 

Mr. ALLISON. I desire to give notice that I shall ask the Senate 

to consider the bill providing for the government of the District of 

Columbia, and I would move to set aside the pending order but for 

the fact that the Senator from Pennsylvania says it will occupy only a few moments. This District bill if passed at all must pass the Senate to-day, and I trust Senators wm give it that consideration which 

its importance requires. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the 

Sena,tor from Pennsylvania to proceed with the. consideration of the 

claims bill. 

The motion was agreed to. 

JOSEPH .MONTA..."AJU. 

111r. BUCKINGHAM. I beg leave to make a statement preparatory 

to submitting a motion. Some days ago the Senate passed a bill for 

the relief of Joseph :Montanari, and for other purposes, to allow the 

Secretary of State to audit a claim which he bad for services as viceconsul at Port Mahon. In connection with that ection, the first sec- tion of the bill, it was also voted and the bill which passed here 

repealed the old law which prohibited the payment of consuls and 

vice-consuls for services who were not citizens of the United States. That bill went to the House of Representa.tives, and the Honse 

struck out the section which relates to the payment of consuls and 

vice-consuls who were not citizens. It was put in at the suggestion 

of the Secretary of State. When that bill was returned, a motion was made that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House 

anrl a-sk for a committee of conference. That committee was appointed ; but about that time, perhaps on the very day, the House 

put into the appropriation bill for consular and diplomatic service 

of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1874, a provision 

like this which they rejected in this bill. Now I ask the Senate to 

reconsider the vote by which that committee of conference was 

appointed, and request the House of Representatives to return the 

bill to the Senate, and then I shall make another motion to concur in the House amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the motion of 

the Senator from Connecticut to reconsider the vote by which the 

committee of conference was appointed on the bill indicated by him t 

The Chair hears no objection, and the House of Representatives will 

be requested to return the bill to the Senate. 

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. Now I move that rhe Senate concur in the 

amendment of the House to the bill (S. No. 311) for the relief of Joseph 

Montanari, and for other purposes. 

The motion was agreed to. 

P.ERSOXAL EXPLANATIO:N. 

Mr. FENTON. I ask the indulgence of the Sen~te for a moment to 

make a brief statement. 

Mr. ALLISON. May I ask what is the regular order 7 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from NewYorkhas the 

floor. . 

Mr. FENTON. 1\lr. President, my attention has been called to a newspa,per paragraph which relates to my colleague and myself, about 

which I wish to make a remark. I will send it to the Clerk's desk 

that it may be read . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will read it if there be no objection. 

The Chief Clerk reac:l as follows : 

Alludino- to a streak of unusual com-te y, which it ha.s observed in Senat{)r Co~-x­

~G s behavior toward his colleague lately, the Utica Observer says: " The explanation of it, as it comes from the lips of Senator FEXTON himself, is, to say the least, curious. He say : 'I have CONKLING by the throat. If he dar to open his mouth against me he is a ruined man.' This, of course, may be mere idlo 

boast, althourrh it comes from a man not given to idle boasting." It is assumed to come from a man who, moreover is not "given to boasting" at all, least of all when he has the power to do what he will. .Any one who knows 

Senator FEXTON will understand what ineffable bo h this talk of the Observer is. 

We would lay the extravagant odds of the EA.']lress against the Observer that the 

latter invented the -whole paragraph. 

Mr. FENTON. I think it is due to my colleague that I should say 

that I did not use the language attributed to me. · :Mr. CONKLING. If I may be allowed, I wish to say one word. I, 

too, bad observed this statement. It originated in an obscure print 

of limited and local circnlation; but after a fashion so prevalent in 

the e times, many newspapers thought it worth while to repeat it 

again and a~ain. It is due to my colleague to say that I never believed he had said any such thing as t.he statement imputes to him, 

and I accept as an act of courtesy and fairness his disavowal and denial. It is bad enough that we should be rudely and falsely aspersed as in a greater or less degree we are by those not of this body. Silence 

however is the best answer to the general storm of abuse. When, 

however, libelers pretend to quote one Senator against another, and 

especially a Senator against another from tJ;te same State, I. think it 

worth while, as my colleague has thought It, to record a disavowal 

and denial of injurious untl:utb. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. PRATT. Is morning business in ordert I have some reports 

to make and I wish to introduce a bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that by a vote of the Senate House bill No. 2797 has been taken up and is before 

the Senate for consideration. If there is no objection the Chair will 

receive morning business. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me inquire is there anything the Senator from 

Indiana wishes to have considered at present 1 

Mr. PRATT. No, sir. 

lli. SCOTT. If it is simply to make a report, I shall not object. 

lli. PRATT, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was recom- mitted the bill-(H. R. No. 2456) to amend an act entitled "An act to 

revise, consolidate, and amend thelawsrelatingtopensions," approved 

March 2,1873,reported it with an amendment,andsubmittedareport 

thereon; which was ordered to be printed. · Mr. SPENCER, from the Committee on Cominerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2541) giving the consent of the United 

States to the erection of a bridge across the Arkansas River at Pine 

Bluff, Arka,nsas, reported it with amendments. . Mr. BOREM.AN, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the bill (H: R. No. 3679) defining the .qualifications of territorial Delegates in the House of Representatives, reported it without 

amendm nt. BILL L.~ODUCED. 

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

introduce a bill (S. No. 957)chartering a double-tra,ckfreight-railway 

company from tide-~a,tex: on the Atlan?c to the Misso~ Rive~ an?- to 

limit the rates of freight thereon; which was read tWice by Its title. 

Mr. PRATT. I introduce this bill by request. So far a-s I have 

examined the bill I approve it. I move that it be referred to the 

Committee on Railroads. 

The motion was agreed to. 

REGULATIO~ OF GAS-WORKS. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I desire to get a committee of con- ference ordered on a, bill which is on the table in relation to gasworks. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania, consent that I may have 

it taken up and the amendment of the House to that bill non-con- curred in 7 . The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania 

consent 'I 

Mr. SCOTT. To the appointment of a conference committee I con- sent; but for no other purpose. 
5140 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD. JUNE 18, 

There being no objection, the Senate ~roceeded t~ consider the 

amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 733) 

re!nllatino- a-as-works; which were in section 11 to strike out "coal," 

before "g~~" and insort ''illuminating;" and to add to section 11 the 

following proviso: 

Provided, That when the price of gas coal delivered at the W?rks of the Washington Gas-light Company shall advance to per ton, the pnce of gas to con- sumers may be advanced 10 cents per thousand cubic feet, and an additional-10 cents per thousand feet for each additional dollar per ton that gas coal may advance in price· and in like manner a reduction of 10 cents per thousand feet shall be made 

for each' and every dollar por ton that gas coal may full b~low 1 per ton; and f?r 

that purpose the Washington Gas-light Company shall m the month of May m each year furnish the Secretary of- tlie Interior with a. statement of all their coal contracts or purchases for the ensuin"" year, sworn to befor~ a justic~ of the peace by their engineer or secretary, and the advance or reduction of pnce shall take 

pl'a.ce on the 1st of Jnly ensuing. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I move that the Senate non-concur in the amendments of the House, and a-sk a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and .Messrs. MORRILL 

of Vermont, COOPER, and .ALLISON were appointed. 

EXECUTIVE CO:i\IMUNICATIO~. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo-re laid before the Senate a report of the 

Secretary of the Navy, in answer to a resolution of t.he Senate of 

June 13, 1874, ac~ompanying the rep?rt and m!'l'ps <!f the sru;ey to 

ascertain a pra.ctwable route for an mteroceamc ship-canal VIa. the 

Lake of Nicaragua; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be 

printed. 

PETITIONS AND l'tffiMORIALS. 

Mr. FENTON presented a petition of citizens of the United State~ 

praying for a revision of the pension laws; which was ordered to lie on the table. - Mr. CONKLING presented a memorial of Messrs. Hards & Co., 

Kutter, Lnckermeyer & Co., _Herman Baker & Co., and _other ~erchants and importers of the mty of New York, remonstrating agarnst 

the passage of the law imposing a tax on sales of stocks, bonds, coin, 

and other securities; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION. 

Mr. ANTHONY. I offer the following concurrent resolution, which 

I ask to have referred to the Committee on Printing: 

Resowed by the Senate (the How;e of Representatives concurring,) That there be 

printed for the use of the Department of the Interior eleven thousand copies of the 

annual report of the Commissioner of Education for 1873. 

I wish to say in reference to this resolution that the Committee on Printing have received numerous communications from the Departments and from the Bureaus thereof asking for the publication of reports and documents for the use _of ~he Departments. It h~-s been ~ustomary for the Committee on Prrntrng to recommend from time to trme some of these publications as supplemental to the edition ordered for 

the use of Congress; but after the evident indisposition of the _Senate 

to sanction any printing of this kind the committee have declined to 

introduce any further resolutions. ~ it is prol?er that these ~ep?rts 

should be printed they should be estimated for m the appropnaf.lons 

for the Departments, should go before the Committee on Appropriations and should be itemized in the appropriations like any other ite~ of expenditure. Therefore I hope that the heads of Bureaus 

and Departments who desire publications of this kind will make their 

communications to the Committee on Appropriations, where I think 

they belong. . . . The resolution wa.s referred to the CoiD.IDltteQ on AppropnatH,ms. 

REPORT (}F TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the Senator from Rhode Island is through, I must 

ii:lsist on the regular order. 

l\1r. ANTHONY. If the Senator requests me to do so, I will introduce a resolution that I have attempted several times to have acted 

upon, and to which I believ:e there is now no objectio_n, for publishino- the report of the committee on cheap transportation to the sea- bo~rd. I will do that at the request of the Senator from Pennsylvania, who I believe is very much interested in it. 

Mr. SCOTT. No doubt I am very much interested in it; but many 

Senators complain that unless this bill is put through, and unless I 

adhere to it, it is interfering wi~h th~ir busines~, a_nd if that resolution will give rise to the least discussiOn I must msiSt on the regular 

order. 

l\1r. ANTHONY~ I do not think it will give rise to any discussion. 

I believe the only Senators who objected heretofore h~ve ~thdra~ 

their objections. If it givesrise to a word of debate! will w1thdraw1~. 

The resQlution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to, 

as follows: 

Resolved by the &nate, (the House of Representatiwes concurring.) That on~ thousand 

additional copiM of the reiJort of the Select Committee OJ?- Trltnsportati'6n Ron~s. 

with the appendix and evidence taken, be printed, of wh1ch three hundred cop1es shall be for the use of the Senate, six hundred copies for the use of the House, and one hundred for the use of the Select Committee on Transportation Routes; and 

that there shall also be printed five thousand copies of said report and appendix, without the evidence of which fifteen hundred shall be for the use of the Senate, 

three thousand for the use of the House, and five hundred for tlie use of the Select 

Committee on Transportation Routes. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

On motion of l\1r. PRATT, it wa-s 

Ordered, That Henry C. Smith have leave to withdraw his petition and papers from the files of the Senate. 

HOUSE BILLS. 

The bill (H. R. No. 3680) for the government of the District of 

Columbia, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask that that bill may be taken from the table 

and proceeded with as soon as the bill now under consideration is disposed of. 

J\.1r. SCOTT. Let it lie on the table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (l\1r. !~GALLS in the chair.) The bill 

will lie on the table. -The bill (H. R. No. 3740) to create the Bozman land district in the 

Territory of Montana was read twice by its title. 

Mr. KELLY. I should like to have action on that bill now. The 

Senate has already passed a similar bill. 

l\1r. SCOTT. I cannot consent that any bill shall be taken np for 

action now. l\1r. KELLY. It will not take one minute. 

Mr. SCOTT. I cannot consent that any bill shall be taken np for 

action now, and I hope the Senator will not make the appeaL . Mr. KELLY. Then let the bill lie on the table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will lie on the table for the 

present. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED 

The following bills from the House of Representatives were sever- ally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Naval 

Affairs: 

A bill (H. R. Nq. 2774) for the relief of Edward Cavendy; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3743) to reimburse the city of Boston for certain 

expenses incurred in the improvement of Chelsea street, formerly 

Charlestown, in connection with the United States navy-yard; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 3362) for the relief of Mrs. Sarah B. Forest, widow 

of Lieutenant Dulaney A. Forest, late of the United States Navy. 

CELEBRATION OF BOSTON TEA PARTY. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore ]aid before the Senate the following 

resolution of the Honse of Representatives: 

Resolved, (the Senate concurring,) That the woman's centennial executive com- mittee of the city of Washington have leave to occupy the Rotunda of tb.e Capitol, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Publio Buildings and Grounds, upon the afternoon and evening of the 16th of December next, for the :purpose of celebrating the destruction of the tea in the harbor of Boston on the mght of the~6th 

of December, 1773. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I hope that resolution will pass. There is no objection to it. · 

J\.1r. SCOTT. If there will be no debate upon it, very well. 

l\1r. WEST. There will be none. l\1r. SCOTT. Very well. 

The resolution was adopted. 

PRESIDElt.'TIAL APPROVALS. 

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. 0. E. 

BABcocK, his Secretary, announced that the President had on the 18th 

instant approved and signea the following acts: 

An act (S. No. 533) granting a pension to Uriah W. Briggs; 

An act (S. No. 624) to authorize the issuance of patents for lands 

granted to the State of Oregon in certain cases; 

An act (S. No. 658) granting a pension to Martin V. Jackson; and 

An act (S. No. 876) to amend the law relating to patents, trademarks, and copyrights. 

AMENDl\ffiNTS TO APPROPRIATIO:N BILL. 

Mr. CHANDLER, :Mr. FLANAGAN, Mr. 1\fERRIMON, and 1\Ir. 

SPENCER submitted amendments intended to be proposed to the bill 

(H. R. No. 3600) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of 

the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875, and for other 

purposes; which were referred to t.he Committee on Appropriations, 

and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted an amendment intended to be propo ed to the bill (II. 

R. No. 3600) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the 

Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875; which was r e- ferred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, submitted an amendment ~tended to be proposed to the bill (II. R. No. 3600) making appropriations for sundry civil e~enses of the Government for 

the fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1873; which was referred to the Committee on Appropniations. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed 

to the bill (H. R. No. 3600) making appropriations for sundry civil 

expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered 

to be printed. 

Mr. DENNIS, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate sn bmitted an amendment intended to be 

proposed to the bill (H. R.No. 3600) making appropriations for sundry 

civil expenses of the Governm~mt for the fiscal year ending June 30, 

1875; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5141 

ORDER OF :BUSINESS. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I desire to appeal to the Senate and ask unani- mous consent to permit me at five o'clock to-day to call their attention to bills reported from the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I gave notice yesterday that I would ask the 

Senat e to give the Committee on Indian Affairs a short time to-day, 

and I thought five o'clock would be the proper hour for them. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. INGALLS in the chair.) The Chair 

will inform the Senator that there is no motion pending. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the Senators are through offering amendments to 

appropriation bills, I now insist on the regular order. If there are any more of these amendments to be offered, to facilitate business let 

them be offered, and then I shall insist that the Chair recognize the 

demand for the regular order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. House bill No. 2797 having been 

t ak en up by a vote is now before the Senat e. Mr. PRATT. I desire to appeal to the Senate that the bill amendatory of the act of February 14, 1871, giving pensions to the soldiers 

of the war of 1812, which was sent from the House to the Senate on the 17th of March last, and in which so many hundreds, I may say 

thousands of the widows of those soldiers are interested, may be 

taken up to-morrow morning after the morning business. I wish to 

say that I am overwhelmed with applications from all parts of the 

country, from members of the House of Representatives, from mem- bers of this body, to have this bill taken up for consideration. I want 

to escape the necessity of going to the mad-house. [Laughter.] I 

want that the responsibility of disposing of this bill shall rest with 

the Senate, not with me. There is intimation pretty frequent that I am not doing my duty in this matter. I have importuned and begged 

the Senate from time to time to give this bill a hearing, and I beg, if 

they have any respect for me, if they desire that I should continue a few years later upon this earth a sane man, that they will giYe me to-morrow morning after the conclusion of the morning business for 

the consideration of this bill. 

1\Ir. SCOTT. I call for the regular order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. House bill No. 2797 is the regular 

order. 

1\Ir. PRATT. Have I lost my posi.tion on the floor! 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is entitled to the floor if he claims it. 

Mr. PRATT. I wish the question fairly put to the Senate. I want 

to press the question whether this bill to which I have referred shall 

be t aken up to-morrow morning after the morning busrness is through, or if that does not suit the Senate, then to-night at seven o'clock, at 

nine o'clock, at midnight, at almost any hour the Senate please, we agree to proceed to- the consideration of the bill, and I entreat t h at 

the Senate will give me some time. 

1\Ir. CONKLING. 0, make it daybreak. [Laughter.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana appeals 

to the Senate for unanimous consent to consider the bill indicated by 

him, at the close of the morning hour to-morrow. 

Mr. ALLISON. I object. 

Mr. PRATT. Then I ask a vote of the Senate on that proposition. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not in order. 

1\Ir. SCOTT. I rise to a question of order, that pending the pres- ent amendment to the bill before the Senate the Senator from Indiana 

cannot make that motion. 

The PRESIDll~G OFFICER. The Chair has alreadv so h eld. 

Mr. PRATT. Will the Chair indicate when I can make that motion 

and be within the rule! 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not feel called upon 

to indicate to the Senator from Indiana when he can make his motion. 

Mr. SCOTT. I ask for the reading of the pending amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will read the pending amendment. 

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. Is it not in order for me to make a motion 

that at five o'clock to-day the Senate consider bills reported by the 

Commi tee on Indian Affairs 'I 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that the motion is 

not in order. 

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I gave notice of this motion yesterday, as I w a then told it was out of order but would be in order to-day. 

Mr. SCOTT. I rise to a question of order. I have called for the r eading of the amendment, the Senator from Connecticut being informed that his motion is not in order. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 

t ak en his seat, and the order is that the pending amendment be re- ported. 

11-Ir. SCOTT. I have called for that, and that is certainly in order. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. The Chair recognized the Senator from Rhode 

Island about :five minutes since, and before he had stat ed his case f ully, the Chair g-ave the floor to some other Senator. The request 

t hat I made, ano. I wish the Chair would put it to the Senate, was 

that after :five o'clock this evening the Senate shall give attention to 

bills emanating from the Committee on Public Lands. They are of no 

concern to me personally; I do not care anything about them; but 

they are reported at the request of Senators and members of Congress 

from the West, in which they are more interested than in any other 

class of measures I suppose before the Senate. I make the request at 

this time that after five o'clock the Committee on Public Lands may 

have the unanimous consent of the Senate for one hour. 

1\Ir. SCOTT. I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. One objection is sufficient. The 

Senate has already voted upon the question and ordered this bill 

which was under consideration yesterday to be taken up. No other 

motion can be ent ertained except upon a vote to lay aside this bill 

and proceed to the consideration of other business. The Clerk will 

report the pending amendment. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Allow me to suggest to the Senator from Rhode 

Island that he can get unanimous consent after six o'clock this evening, and if he will make the time six o'clock instead of five o'clock no doubt he will get consent. 

CLA.Il\18 REPORTED :BY THE CLAIMS COMMISSIO"NERS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill (H. R. No. 2797) making 

appropriations for the payment of claims reported allowed by the 

commissioners of claims under the act of Congress of March 3, 1871, 

is before the Senate a-s in Committee of the Whole. The pending 

amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 2 of the bill the Committ-ee on Claims 

propose to strike out: 

To William Bailey, $45,161.72. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is o~ the amendmenb 

of the Committee on Claims to strike out these words. 

1\fr. WASHBURN. Mr. President, I should not detain the Senate by 

any remarks on this question were it not for the fact that the course Qf the committee in recommending this amendment has been called 

in question, and I wish in a few words to give the reasons for its action. 

The Senat e will bear in mind that before the act passed creating 

the commi sion which reported upon these several claims none of 

these claimants could present his claim before Congress or before the 

Court of Claims. The other branch had passed an act forbidding the 

presentation of the claims of persons residing in disloyal States. 

The act creating this commission was passed after due consultation 

with the representatives of those States concerned in the operations 

of the commission. After the act was prepared it was submitted 

to, and the wording of it was in accordance with the desires of, the r epresent atives of those sections. It was provided that it should 

apply only to the claims of those persons whose loyalty during the 

entire term of the rebellion was unquestioned. So far as that act is concerned, no matter how loyal a man may have been during ninotenths of the rebellion, if there was any act of his during .the other 

tent h or during an hour which showed that he wa-s aiding in the 

least degree the rebellion, he has no claim to be recognized. 

Now, the question is has the individual who e claim is proposed to 

be stricken from the bill any reason to be considered as one of those 

who were guilty of any disloyal act. Far be it from me to desire to 

have any claimant here robbed of any just right or title he may have. 

The Committee on Claims have been criticised for desiring to send 

this claim back to the commission. I wish to call the attention of 

the Senate to the condition of this bill. Here are nearly eleven hundred claims in the bill, and of those eleven hundred claims only a little over sixty have been established by the investigations of any 

committee of this branch. In that examination of about sixty ca-ses three cases have been found which the committee were not satisfied 

should pass; and from the fact that we are in the last week of the 

session and that it is impossible for the committee to have an opportunity to examine into these cases fully and determine them, we rec- ommend that the commission, who have all the papers and who have 

given examina1iion to those several cases before, shall take them up 

again and examine them with the new evidence which has come to 

light, and report to Congress what action should be taken. 

Now, sir, what do we do if the Senate pass the bill as it ha-s been 

reported by the committee 'I You will bear in mind that in 5 per 

cent. of the cases which have been examined the committee have come to the cor.clusion that they cannot report favorably. If it is a fair presumpti ;n that that is true in regard to the other cases con- tained in this bill, then if you pass the bill according to the report 

of the committee you pass some :fifty-odd cases which the committee 

would not agree to if it had time to give them a thorough examination. . But it is said there is not time to examine eleven hundred cases. The Sen ate must bear in mind that this commission was not established as a court; it was simply a body "to examine claims presented on ex pm·te evidence. The Government is not represented there by counsel as it would be before an ordinary judicial tribunal. Accordingly each one of these caliles is presented upon and has had simply an ex part-e hearing, and the only representation on the part of the 

Government is the same representation that a committee of this body or a committee of the House of Representatives would give in its 

examination. 

So far as I am concerned as one member of this body, I do not believe that any of these claims ought to pass without a thorough examination by the proper committee of each branch of Congress. When 

this commission was established it was established with the distinct 

understanding that it was merely to be a preliminary examination, and that its finding wa-s to be reported to Congress, that committees 

might be appointed in each branch whose business it should be to 
5142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JuNE 18, 

examine the commission's reports when they should be presented. 

The case we have under discussion now is one in which the committee on examination thought there was evidence on which they could 

not report favorably. They had not time to go into a full examination. They had either to let the matter lie over until the next ses- sion of Congress and then take it np when they could, or.they had to 

report in favor of sending it back to the commission, who had exam- ined it once and had all the papers and could consider the case in the 

light of all the evidence. 

But the Senator from California [Mr. SARGE~] says that this 

commission sent additional evidence to the committee of the House 

which they had no business to do in reference to this case. Here is a commission established; they heard the evidence ex pa1·te, and they 

reported the claim to the House of Representatives, and it was passed 

there and came to this branch. Here it was dropped out because the 

Senate were not satisfied; they had not seen the testimony; it was not sent to them; it went into the files of the House. This was the case at the last session. Then this year the papers being on the files 

of the House the House acted upon it again. But before it was acted 

upon again our Government came into pos ession of the archives of 

the rebel government in regard to the transactions in cotton in this 

particular section of the country, and upon an examination of those 

archives it is found that there was a transaction in which this individual claimant was concerned. Now, I ask the Senate if this com- mission is faithful to its trust, if it has secured any additional evidence upon any one of these cases which it has reported, is it not its 

duty to present that evidence to Congress Y Suppose one of our com- mittees report a case to this body, and after the case is reported additional evidence comes to their attention either in favor of the claimant or against him, is it not the duty of that committee on that 

additional evidence, no matter on which side it bears, to bring it to 

the attention of this body if it be of such a nature as to cause an alteration in their judgment t Most certainly. Our committee in this 

instance, as we have no time to examine it, propose to let the claim 

go back to the commission with all the papers and let them examine 

and decide on the additional testimony which has come to light and 

report what the conclusion should be. 

Mr. President, it has been a-sked time and again, what evidence is 

there in this case which the commission did not have when they 

examined it originally and when they reported upon it And it has 

been said that as they had no additional evidence, therefore this 

claim ought not to be stricken out of the bill and referred back. If 

that statement be true, most undoubtedly it ought not to be sent 

back; but there is additional evidence, and that additional evidence is so stl·ong that the Senator from California, if yon look to his language 

yesterday said that the commission who originally examined the case decided against the claim on the additional evidence. The com- mittee did not understand that to be so, but they understood that the 

commission reported the additional evidence to Congress for its con- sideration. But if the Senator from California is correct, then what 

he a ks the Senate to do is to pass t")lis claim with the committee of 

the Senate opposed to it and with the commission opposed to it also, 

for the Senator from California says that the commission with this 

additional evidence stated that the case ought not to pa-ss. Does 

the Senator from California tmder that state of circumstances, with 

the commission against it and with the committee against it, without 

there having been an examination, wish it to pass Y 

But, said the Senator, is there not additional evidence f I answer yes. The only evidence in the original testimony on the point now _involved was the question put to Mr. Bailey, "Have you committed. 

any act during the rebellion to aid and assist it Y" and his answer, 

"I sold five hundred bales of cotton, but I sold it under duress. I 

needed money to pay my taxes, and there was an armed force there 

that threatened to burn my coMon, and if I did not sell it I could 

not pay my taxes, and if I did not sell it it would be burned." That was the evidence before the commission. If he was forced to do it, 

if he did it contrary to his will, if he did it under duress, there was nothing disloyal in it, and the commission had his testimony to that 

effect, and that was all they hn.d. But what are the facts Y Five hundred and thirty-six bales of cotton he says he sold in order to obtain 

money to pay his taxes. I believe an examination will show that the 

facts are that this transaction took place in the fall of 1862, and that 

there was no duress in that section of country to compel men to sell 

cotton during the year 1 62. It was sub equent to that time, before 

any force was brought to bear there, and no evidence can be produced 

to show that either this man or any other person was forced to sell 

his cotton to the rebel government at that early date. 

But take the other dilemma, if you please, and say that he waa forced. Was this a loyal man f Was he throughout that country un- uer tood to be a loyal man f I appeal to members who have been in 

the outh and who know the circumstances, if there was an armed 

force that compels a truly loyal citizen to sell them his cotton, would 

they have paid him for itt If that state of things existed, they would 

have taken his cotton, and not have gone to him and made a bargain 

and paid cash for it. If be was a man who had stood up there as a loyal citizen, a wealthy man, well known throughout that region, and 

they had come to impress cotton, we know what the history waa of 

that state of things. They went to such a man when they could find 

him, and he was a rare specimen throughout that broad country; it was rare to find a rich planter with his broad acres who was a truly 

loyal man from beginning to end. Where you find such a man, I 

want to pay him every dollar of his los es, for he is a monument 

worthy of being recognized in those dark hours of our country's history. 

"Ah," asks one member in his remarks, "was selling cotton aiiling 

the rebellionf" Does not every member of this body know that it was not men which the southern cause lacked simply, but if they hau 

had the means to pay their men and to clothe them and to furnish 

them with the supplies which the North had they would not have surrendered at the early day that they did surrenderf The man who 

went into the service and buckled on his armor and carried his mus- ket and fought for the cause of the rebellion clid not help it and 

leng hen it out as did the man who furnished $100,000 or more to 

sustain their cause in that trying hour, for they needed the means more than they needed the man. Yet members get up in the en- ate and ask whether, if a person furnished cotton, that was a illsloyal act. Sir, the Senator from California wants to know what difference it makes whether he sold his cotton and took money, or whether he sold his cotton and took confederate bonds. The evidence 

shows that in the first sale he took 20 000 in confederate bonds and 

18,731.46 inca h. I will tell the gentleman the difference it makel'l. 

Here is this man j we will suppose he is an honest, true man ; he goes 

before the comiD.lssion and under his oath he says, "I sold my cotton 

to get money to pay my taxes tmder duress; it was a necessity that was brought upon me." And the evidence shows V! hen you come to 

look over the record· that he took 20,000 of confederate bonds. \Vas 

that a necessity to pay taxes withY . What else f He says he did it under duress to get money to pa,y 

his taxes and to pay his hands. He made a sale of 38,731 worth of 

cotton on January 1, 1863, two months after. Did he want that 

money to pay his taxes again f How much Y Six hundred and eightysix bales he sells at that time, and he gets for them $54,101.64, of 

which he takes $24,000 in bonds. What immense taxes this claimant ·had to pay that be must in two months after the first sale do this! 

But the Senator asks, did not all this come out before the commission f Not any of it. These six hundred and eighty-six bales he hacl 

forgotten all about. He did recollect that under dure s he had solcl 

five hundred, but his memory was so poor that the six hundred and 

eighty-six bales he had forgotten all about, and he did not refer to 

them at all. . . 

But the Senator from California says that so difficult was it for a planter to maintain the cause of the Union in that ection of country 

that he was looked upon in such a light that his life wa in dan O'er, 

and hA was pointed out a.s a conspicuous mark of hostility all thro~~h that region. That was the language of the Senator from Califorma. 

I accept it; but when you come to examine the evidence of Mr. 

Bailey, the question was put to him, "Did you have any trouble with 

the confederacyf" that is, was he disturbed; and he replied that he 

did not have any. 

My view in reference to this case is that Mr. Bailey previous to 

the rebellion was undoubtedly a loyal man, as thousands of others 

throughout the confederacy were, and that he, like many others, 

when the rebellion was at an end so far as his particular section was concerned and our forces went and took po ses ion, was ready to 

welcome them back there, and was loyal from that time on; but I can- not believe that he remained always loyal, and maintained all that 

property and that plantation and suffered no disturbance and had no difficulty. There is not an individual who lives in that section of the 

country, it seems to me, who can believe that that could be possible. 

Gentlemen say this claim must be pa 'ed now. If he ha.s been 

really a true, loyal man, is there any objection to the fact coming to 

light and all the proof coming out f As I said before, if Mr. Bailey can explain away these circumstances so that he can show that be was a true, loyal man, I would not wish to have him defrauded of one penny. But I feel in regard to this matter that as the claim bas 

not been examined since this additional evidence has come to light, 

either by a committee of this branch, they not having had time, or by 

the commission, it is due to justice that it should he sent to some com- mittee or some body for examination. . 

Mr. CONKLING. May I ask my friend a questionforinformation f 

He remarked some time ago that in this bill are nearly eleven hundred cases and that but about sixty of them had been examined or could be examined by the Senate Claims Committ ee. Am I right in 

thatf 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONKLING. Then as to there idue of all the e cases the com- mittee relies upon the investigation made by the commis ioners of 

claims, and as to these three cases they have information from the 

commissioners of claims that they themsel >es are not satisfied iu r e-! 

gard to them and that they want further investigation and f-urther ... opportunity before recommendin(J' them. .A.m I right in that f 

Mr. WASHBURN. Not preciscly. Sofarasthecommi ion is concerned, I wish here t.o state that, so far a.s my knowledge goes, the 

commissioners have not interfered with any claim after they have 

reported it to Congress. They did, after these records were discovered and this additional evidence came to light in regard to Mr. 

Bailey, send the additional evidence to the House committee without, as I 1mderstand, any solicitation; but I do not know that they have 

said anything in regard to any other claim except as the committee 

in the examination of a claim, if they found any difficulties, sent to 

the commission and asked their opinion in reference to it. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5143 

But, sir, it was said yesterday by the Senator from California that 

this commission had decided a~ainst the case and therefore it should 

not be sent back. They deciaed in favor of the claimant, and the 

committee thought that they having decided iu favor of the claimant it was fair that they should have the case again and decide 

whether on the additional evidence they would change their former 

decision. It seemed to me that they were committed on the side of 

the claimant. They had so decided; they had so reported. But, if 

iu view of the additional evidence which they have communicated 

they think that that additional evidence decides against the claimant, a the Senator from California said, then you have got to go against 

the report of the commission and against the report of your com- mittee in deciding to retain this claim in the bill. I do not so understand it, however. I do not understand that they decided it at all, 

but they did what was their duty-just submitted the additional 

evidence. · But the Senator says the commission cut down the claim from 

$100,000 to 45,000, and tbere.fore they are not to be trusted. Sir, if 

that is to be a test, what will you say in regard to this body or in 

regard to the cominittees of this body We ha-d a report from the 

Committee on Claims a few days ago where the claimant asked for 

140,000 and the committee reported to give him 5,000, and this body 

discussed it for some time and said $5,000 was too much. Why not 

condemn the Committee on Claims for cutting that down T If the 

Senator thinks that this claimant has been cut down unjustly and 

that be is really ent-itled to more than the 45,000, why not agree to · let his claim go back before the commission where you have your 

lawyers and your claim-agents and your ex parte evidence to get the 

commission to allow all that is possible and nobody to represent the 

Government to cut it down T The Senator himself or any person could 

then go before the commission and say to them, "This case is re- opened, you have allowed the clai~ant but 45,000; you ought to allow 

him more." Is there any objection to that if they have cut it down 

too much T I do not see any objection if this is a fair claim, if it will 

bear investigation, if the charges can be met, to sending it back for a rehearing. 

There is another fact that is somewhat singular in this case which 

I will call to the attention of the Senate. 'When you look over the 

evidence and the papers in this case. this fact appears, that a gentle- man who was a witness before the commission for Mr. Bailey, who 

testified for him, and whom he relies more than upon any other 

witness to prove his case, and who testified not only to the loyalty of 

Mr. Bailey but to the fact of his property bein(J' taken, claimed in 

his testimony that he had been loyal himself to t'he cause of the Government of the United States, but . when these records came to be 

discovered and brought forth, this witness, W. W. Withenbury, turns 

out to have been an agent of the confederate government, acting 

under McKee, taking the cotton which McKee was purcha in(J', and 

transporting-it to market and receiving his pay from the confederate 

government. He te tified before this commission that he not only 

had been loyal and true to the Union cause himself, but he was one of the main witnesses relied upon by Mr. Ba.iley to prove his loyalty 

and establish his claim. Will any member of this body assert that 

this person who was employed by the confederate government in 

this matter was a Union man f When it came out that this rebel was one of the main witnesses, it seemed to the committee that it threw a shadow over this whole case. If you were a loyal man during the 

war, and the neighborhood in which you dwelt knew that you were true to the Union in her dark hour, would you take an agent of the 

rebel government who had 'done what he could to support it and to 

overthrow the Union, to prove your loyalty byf Would he be the man that you would bring forward to swear that he not only had 

been true to the Uuion himself but that he could vouch for your loyalty Hut, T • . I d t t d . . . . . this rt b f srr, o no asser , an m JOmmg 1n repo as a mem er o the committee I have not asserted, that all this evidence should be 

taken to condemn 1\fr. Bailey; I simply ask that Mr. Bailey and the 

Government shall have a fair chance under this new evidence and all 

these new document which have been brought to light. If this com- mission is not a fair board to send it to1 send it to any committee you 

choo e in this branch. If the Colllilllttee on Claims has reported 

against it and you do not wish it to go there, send it to the Judiciary 

Committee and let Mr. Bailey establish his loyalty during the entire war before that committee or any other committee that may be se- lected, and if he can do it there is no member who would more freely or more readily vote to pay him than I would. . But when I take into account that the very first cotton which was purcha ed in this region was purchased by the rebel agent appointed 

for that specific purpose of this very claimant, and that there were planters all through that region who had cotton; that the agent went 

to this man's house and made it his domicile; that he was a married 

man, and married the daughter of the claimant, and was iu his family 

iu 1 63 as a married man-the day that he was married I know not; 

but the sale of the great part of this cotton was on January 1, 1863, 

and as early as the summer of 1863 he was in this claimant's family 

with his wife; when I take into account that it was not a single 

tmnsaction as he testified to, but a transaction repeated over and over again to the amount of $100,000, I do not believe that there is any 

way in which you can explain his conduct except that during that 

trying hour and under all the circumstances and surroundings this 

claimant felt that he must make his peace with the confederacy for a period of time at least. 

I do not propose ro occupy any more time upon this question. I 

have no feeling in reference to it excepting this: I know when the 

bill was drawn up under which this commission was orrranized it was drawn np with the understanding that there were so~e people 

in the South-it was said the number was very few-who had given 

their lives to the Union caase and who had suffered and been per e- cuted and stripped of· their property on that account, and that this 

Government could afford to make exceptions of that cla of citizens. 

No allusion was made to the great and wealthy planter, but I 

recollect very well that instances were brought forward where a man's sons in certain portions of the South had enlisted in the Union 

Army, and it was said that after those sons ha-d left their homes and 

joined the Unionforcesthe Union .Army even bad taken what little had 

been left to support their families, and it was said that those cases ought ro be recognized. Accordingly the bill was drawn very care- fully that whoever received aid or recompen e from this Government 

through this commission should prove clearly that at no period during 

the entire rebellion he had given any aid or encouragement or strength 

to. that cause. Now, sir, I cannot feel that this is one of those cases. I believe I owe it to the Government, I owe it to those who will be 

taxed to pay these bills, to see that any man around who e history 

there is so much doubt as this record throws around •this man's 

history, shall not be paid until there has been a full examination. 

When this commission was established it was said "we do not expect 

these claims will be paid at once." 'l'he very claimants that pressed 

your committees to pass upon these clainls day by d.:'ty said, "We do 

not ask that they be paid to-day, but givens a commission in order 

that the evidence may be :filed and that we may know there is a time 

when we are to present our cases and prove ·them." This commission composed of three members pass ex pa1·te upon eleven hundred 

claims in a year and then they go through- here without their being, 

with the exception of about sixty, pass upou by any committee of 

the Senate. I ay it i a most O'enerous act if you do that. But if in 

addition to thttt you override the report of your Committee on Claims 

and override the report of the com mission also in regard to a claim, 

it is taking a long stride in regard to a matter of this kind a-s it seems to me, and I hope the Senate will not do it. I hope this claim 

will be investigated; and if this is a truly loyal man give him his 

pay. If the amount the commi sion has allowed him is not what is 

his due,· give him more. If he is really and honestly entitled to more let him have it; but if he was a support to the rebel cause do not 

bring him in under this bill. 

If the time ever is to come-and I hope it never will-when those 

who did give aid to the rebellion are to receive a sistance from this 

Government and their claims are to come in, let it not be done 

until you repeal the act which cuts them off; let it not be done 

under this act which forbid any such claimant to receive any 

aid or assistance from the Government. You cannot say that this case has been examined, because there is new evidence and there are new documents which neither our committee nor the commission have 

had an opportunity to investigate. "Ah !"but it is said," it is neces- sary that it should be passed at once." Never has there been a bad 

claim but it has been necessary that it be rushed through in the 

speediest possible manner. I recollect perfectly well when the celebrated Sue Murphey case was up, that it pa ed through this branch 

twice and was rejected twice in the other branch, and the third time the 

application was made and it was said that it was important it should 

pass at once, that it could not be delayed any longer. A bad case cannot afford to be delayed. A true and honest case which will bear 

ivestigation may be delayed and investigated, and the party owes it tohinlself, if he has been true, to have afull investigation and let the 

counti·y understand that he has been misrepresented and that he has 

been a true and loyal citizen from the beginning to the end of the 

coutest. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives,. by Mr. 1\IcPHEnso~, 

its Clerk: announced that the House had agreed to the report of the 

committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two House, on the bill (H. R. No. 3166) to correct the date of commission of cer- tain officers of tb,e Army. 

'l'he message also announced that the House had passed the following bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

A bill (H. R.No. 3745) to remove the disabilities of James Howard, 

of Baltimore, Maryland; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3747) to amend the ad entitled "An act for the 

erection of a pu'Qlic building for the use of the United States in Covington, Kentucky;" and 

A bill (H. R. No. 374 ) directing the Secretary of the Treasury to 

report upon the nece sity for a public building at Brooklyn, New York, 

and the cost of the same. 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AT BROOKLYN. 

Mr. CONKLING. I venture, notwithstanding the objection of my 

friend from Pennsylvania: as I shall be compelled to leave the Senate 

before the day is over, to ask permission to do a mere formal thing, 

which is to concur in a House bill just received simply directing the 

Secretary of the Treasury to make and answer an inquiry, and I hope 

my friend will not object. It will take but a single moment. 
5144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

Mr. SCOTT. Unless I can be assured that it leads to no other 

requestMr. CONKLING. If it leads to anything else I shall withdraw my 

request. 

Mr. SCOTT. Has it been to a committee here f 

Mr. CONKLING. It is a House bHl, and if the Senator will hear 

.it read he will see that it does not need to go to any committee ; it 

is a mere inquiry. • By unanimous consent, the bill (H. R. No. 3748) directing the Secretary of the Treasury to report upon the necessity of a public building at Brooklyn, New York, and the cost of the same, was read three 

times, and passed. 

CLAIMS REPORTED BY THE CLAIMS CO:\IMISSIONERS. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole,· resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2797) making appropriations for the payment of claims reported allowed by the commissioners of claims under 

the act of Congress of March 3, 1871. 

Mr. STEW ART. Mr. President, I voted in favor of establishing 

this commission. I belieyed that it was a very desirable thing to do. 

We should have had claims amounting to an enormous sum of money 

pressed upon Congress in a very irregular manner which could not 

have been investigated if this commission had not been organized. I 

believe in the main they have discharged their duties faithfully, and 

they should be commended. When we passed the act crea~ing the 

commission it was provided, and it was done after discussion, that 

these claims should again be brought before Congress for their approval. What was the object in view f It was to see whet.her new facts might not be developed, that improper claims should not go 

through. This investigation relieved your Committee on Claims from a vast amount of duty they could not have performed. After the 

committee have looked over this work and suggested that there are claims here which sh8uld go back for further examination it seems to me that the rule should be followed. We should follow our com- mittee in this regard. It may be necessary to extend the time for the 

commission; but whatever we do, it seems to me a very regular and 

safe course to follow the committee and let such claims as th~y say 

ought to be reinvestigated be reinvestigated1 because to think of discussing the merits of particular claims in the Senate is impossible. 

We cannot determine these cases. We might do great injustice for or against particular claimants. I think it is best to follow the com- mittee and the commission, and then we shall not do any great outrage 

to our constituents. I hope the recommendation of the committee will 

be followed without forcing us into the investigation of particular ca es, which they say should be further investigated by the ·commission. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. My attention had been called to this 

general proposition, so that I had examined the leading features of 

it, and having some impressions on the subject I am impelled to state 

them. · I agree with my honorable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. WASHBURN] that the utmost diligence of inquiry should be made into the ex- amination of all this class of claims. I agree with him that the rule of 

evidence is inflexible, that the party must be loyal in order to be entitled 

to remedy in this forum. But, glancing at the principal facts in this 

case, it occurs to me that the real question here is not so much the 

merits of this claim as the status of the individual. In fa-ct it all 

turns on that. .AP, I have listened-as I always do with great pleasure-to the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. ScoTT,] who 

reported the bill, it is a question of the status of this individual : was he loyal or was he not f There are certain conceded facts, as I understand, in the case. I am not going to argue the proposition at alL 

I rise simply to state, aa I have only glanced at the case, the impressions upon my own mind from the conceded and incontrovertible 

facts before us. In the first place it is incontrovertible, as I gather from all the 

papers in the case, that this man was reputed throughout the confederacy to be a Union man, was treated as a Union man, and put into 

prison on that account during the war. That is so stated. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is a mistake. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That may be or may not. I am only 

lookinO' at the case as it comes to me in the papers. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the Senator means the papers in evidence, that is a mistake. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No; I mean that statement was made 

in the House of Representatives by the chairman or a member of the 

Committee on Claims, and as it was not contradicted I supposed it 

mirrht be assumed. · Mr. SCOTT. I will state.to the honorable Senator that that is a mist3.ke of fact. I have read every word of the testimony of General Bailey himself, taken before the commissioners of claims, and he 

stated in answer to their questions that he never was molested by 

the rebels. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If the Senator will look at the proceedings in the House he will find that Mr. HAzELTON, the chairman or a member of the Committee on Claims, in summing up, stated that as a fact, and it was not controverted. That this man therefore had a reputation throughout that country as a Union man I think it rea.- sonable to conclude from the papers in the case. How did he stand on our 11ide f That was his reputation on our 

side as yet, from the statement of General Sherman, General Banks, 

General Howard, and sundry other generals whom I do not stop to name. They went so far as to trust this man within our lines with a permit to travel within our lines. That seems to have been the general reputation of this man. Now you come down to the examination 

of the question before the commission to see how it stood there. One 

of the first questions, of course, which the commission were to satisfy 

them.Selves about was his loyalty. I am not going into the merits of the case, for so far as we are concerned at the present time that 

does not seem to be the burden. It is the status, I repeat, of the individual himself with which we are concerned. Was that examined 

by the court 'f Was that an issue before the court and was it exam- ined 'I Certainly it was. Let me read now w ha.t the commission say 

upon that subject: 

William Bailey is a native of Virginia; is seventy-one yeal'B of age; was the owner of a large plantation DaM' .A.Iexa.n<lria, on the Red River, emb1'acing over fifteen hundred acres i the chief product was cotton; when the war broke out he was residing on this plantation. After a careful examination of the testimony and all the papers in the case, and after the most thorou~ and searc~ inquiryhwe find Mr. Bailey to have been a constant and consistenliUnion mandnrmg thew ole war. 

That is the finding of this court. That is the finding of a court of our own selection. Aft-er the most thorough and searching examination they find that this man was a consistent and constant Union man during the entire war. It is said by my honorable friend that there 

has been a fact discovered since which throws great light on this subject, which was not then in issue before this court, and which he 

thinks is a very significant fact and which I agree with him unex- plained would be a significant fact. What is that fact f It is that 

this man had sold cotton to the rebel government. If you look at the 

papers, Mr. President, you will see that that precise issue was before 

the court. The court knew that. The court knew that this man was dealing in cotton with the confederate authorities. They took cognizance of that fact, and they investigated that fact thoroughly. 

They sent, as the ca-se finds, an agent or agents into that country to 

investigate that fact ; and notwithstanding that fact, notwithstanding they knew that he had been dea.lin~ in cotton, that he had solcl 

five hundred bales of cotton, yet they did not hold that that was absolutely inconsistent with the idea that after all, at heart and really, 

he was and might consistently be a Union man. I do not go into the 

reasoning on the subject at all; I only allude to these principal facts as affecting the sin~le question which my honorable friend alleges 

here should be conclusive. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Did the Senator hear me! I stated very plainly 

that so far as that evidence was concerned it was understood that he 

had sold the cotton under duress; and if it was done under dure 

their decision was correct; but they then knew nothing about the 

subsequent transaction, they knew nothing about the circumstance 

that the principal witness relied upon to establish his loyalty at the 

time, and who swore that he had been loyal, himself was a rebel and a supporter of the rebel cause. What I stated was that where a mau sold his cotton under duress, as they supposed in the first examination this man had done, it was not evidence of disloyalty; but it is 

the subsequent acts and the newly discovered testimony, none of 

which was before the commission originally, that throw doubt upon 

the case. 

1\Ir. MORRILL, of Maine. Undoubtedly; and I was about to ex- plain, if my honorable friend had not anticipated me, that the rea on the court deemed it consistent to find loyalty with knowledge of the 

fact that he had been dealing in cotton, waa that they found that jt 

was not a voluntary act on his part. They could not have found it 

in any other way. Now the question arises, if that did not make him 

disloyal in the estimation of this court, would another act, which 

would be liable to the same explanation a-s my honorable friend will 

agree and as the chairman of the committee undoubtedly will agree, 

make him sot 

Then, Mr. President, looking at all these facts, the case comes. simply 

to this, a.s I conclude, and it leaves this impression on my mind: having established a court of our own creation and having limited its 

jurisdiction and having prescribed the rules of evidence upon which 

it shall admit parties to contest or to prove their cases, the court having 

settled that this man had a claim and that he was in a condition to 

present it, on the evidence here it is simply a question of probable cause. Is there probable cause now to suspect that this man was dis- loyal contrary to the finding of the court, who investigated precisely 

the point upon which it is suggested that the case ought to go back 

for further examination f I submit that if this were a proceeding in a court of law it would be precisely a case of newly discoverecl evi- l 

dence tending to raise a probable presumption that the verdict or the 

judgment was wrong, and that it would have been otherwise if this : evidence had been in the case. That my honorable friend thinks it 

would be so is undoubtedly clear, or at le~st he has a suspicion that 

it would be so; whether his judgment is clear that it would be o or not I do not know, but he has a belief that cextainly it ought to be 

examined into. 

But, :Mr. President, it should be remembered that this case has been 

before the House of Representatives since, and it should be remembered 

also that at a former session this same question was before the Senate 

and the claim was stricken out of the bill on a suspicion, and the only 

result of it is what ioi produced here. There has been no examination 

into the case, as I understand, on the part of the Government to elicit 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5145 

the fact of this man's disloyalty. The same question being before the 

House of Representatives again this winter, the suggestion has come to the House of Representatives which has come to us from this court, 

that there has been cumulative testimony upon a point which was examined by that court. The House of Representatives have considered it, and it will be seen that from the fact that the House of Representatives have sent it here for our examination they at least have 

not attached the same importance to this cumulative evidence which 

my honorable friend from Massachusetts and the chairman of the 

Committee on Claims seem to have done. 

Therefore, Mr. President, I am disposed to regard it eimply as a question of probable cause. Do these additional facts show to our satisfaction or render it probable in view of all the facts that this man was a disloyal man 7 If he was, theu I agree that this case ought 

to be recommitted to the commission. Otherwise I hardly see the 

necessity for it, because of com·se there should be an end of this litigation. 

.Mr. SCOTT. Before the Senator takes his seat, I know his sense of 

justice so well that I wish to call his attention to what the facts were upon which loyalty was found. Loyalty was fo1md by the commissioners upon the testimony of General Bailey himself; ofT. S. Walker, 

who wa-s an assistant adjutant-general upon General Emory's staff, and 

knew nothing of General Bailey until he went there in lt!64 with the 

Army; and of Mr. Withenbury, who was his agent on the plantation, 

and he swore to his loyalty, and yet he was in the employment of 

the confederate agent for the purchase of cotton I These were the 

only three witnesses examined before the commisioners of claims, 

and it was on that testimony that the loyalty was found. The other 

facts, the number of bales that were sold, the time of sale, the cor- respondence between 1\Ir. McKee and Rhorer about the bonds, and 

all these other facts, came ont after that finding upon the testimony 

of these three witnesses. I simply wish to get these facts before the 

Senator's mind when he comes to view the question whether they 

bear upon that finding of the commissioners. 

1\Ir. MORRILL, of Maine. I take occasion to say in the beginning 

that I had not looked at the evidence, but I had glanced at certain 

principal facts which seemed to be taken for granted; and the main 

fact upon which I relied, or which made the deepest impression on my mind, was a fact which is certified to in the judgment of the court. 

Let me read it and see whether such a judgment as that, such em- phasis of language, such conspicuousness and force of language, could ··be applied upon evidence such a-s is cited here: 

Alter a careful examination of the testimony and all the papers in the case, and 

after the most thorough and searching inquiry, we find Mr. Bailey to have been a. constant and consistent Union man during the whole war. 

As I was corrected on another point about the imprisonment, I will 

read from the remarks of 1\Ir. HAZELTON in the other House: 

I will say further, before taking my seat, not only did he exhibit the ordinary tokens and evidences of loyaltyto the Government, but he was absolutelyarresteCl and cast into prison by the confederate authorities on account of his loyalty. He was treated as a loyal man all the way through the war by the confederates, and 

recognizet:l as a loyal man by every general of tne Federal a.rmies having control in 

tha.t region of country, and after a. thorough investigation was ad,judged to be loyal b:v the commissioners of the southern ciaims commission. It seems to me that 

there is no room for a doubt, or the possibility of the sba.dow of a doubt, of his acknowledged and genuine loyalty and devotion to the Government. 

I knew I hacl seen the statement somewhere, although I said in the 

beginning that I had not analyzed the evidence in this case; I simply 

glanced at what I understood to be the leading and principal facts 

which I understood to be uncontroverted. 

Mr. SCOTT. As this alleged and asserted fact has evidently made a deep impression on the mind of the Senator from :Maine, I will ask 

leave to read a portion of General Bailey's testimony, on page 4 of 

the written testimony: 1 

Question. Were you ever arrested by the confederates W 

.Answer. I was not; but I was threatened with arrest. 

He ne.ver was arrested, never was imprisoned. 

Mr. CONKLING. 1\-Ir. President, it has recently pleased some author to entitle his book "Drifting." That is not extraordinary; 

and yet considering that. that book was written and the title bestowed 

upon it before heariv.g the speech of the honorable Senator from 

Maine, I think more genius was evidenced in the selection of the 

title than could be proved by anybody that should select it after 

hearing the somewhat remarka.ble speech which has fallen from my 

honorable friend. He concludes it by violating the rules of the 

Senate in reading from the debate which took place in the other 

House; and the Senator from Pennsylvania, as wholesome comment 

upon it, shows how useful the rule is. Some gentleman in the other 

House made an assertion, it seems, unfounded in evidence, and ex- pressly disproved by the claimant himself. My honorable friend 

i'rom Maine reads that, and then the Senator from Pennsylvania, turning to what is before U8, takes up the testimony of the claimant 

himself and shows that he under oath declares that he never was cast 

into prison. That is wholesome comment upon the fact, it is whole- some illtistration of the wisdom of that rule which says that the sayings in one House shall not be brought into another and especially 

to influence the doin~ of that House into which they are brought. 

This, however, is a tnvial circumstance; and it was not to comment on it that I rose. The Senator from Maine several times refers to the claims commission a.s a. court, and actually proposes to fiay that we shall vote to 

pay a large sum of money from the Treasury and establish a precedent, in so far as it may be a precedent, because the claims commission has once expressed an opinion on this subject. Notwithstanding the fact of newly discovered evidence, notwithstanding the recall 

and reversal of that judgment as the Senator from Maine would 

make it, he proposes that, proceeding upon the original saying of the 

claims commission, we shall treat that saying as the finding of a court-such were his expressions- and shall proceed to pay the mone~ 

unless, as he says, we can find probable cause to suppose that tho 

court has fallen into error. Mr. President, it must be wit.hin the fresh recollection of the Senator from Maine: for hardly three years have rolled between then and 

now, that there came into the Senate a proposition, explained ca.re- fu).ly at the time, to create the so-called claims commission. That 

proposed legislation encotmtercd active opposition. The most thorough 

opposition it received was drawn by' way of forecast and prediction 

that the time would come when some such claim would be set up as to the function and authority of the commission as the honorable 

Senator from Maine has to-day propounded. It was insisted that, 

passing beyond its original intention, it would in a short time come to be regaaded as a court or a quasi court, a tribunal to decide, ancl 

that we should be in some sense bouud, or estopped, or concluded- all 

these words I think will be found in the debate- by the doings of this 

proposed commission. That argument, that apprehended danger was scouted by the advocates of the claims commission. It was vehemently disclaimed by many Senators, some of whom remain, some of 

whom are gone. The debate, I think, will show that in support of 

the proposed commission it was, as far as paxliamentary rule and 

courtesy would permit, charged as unfair, as unreasonable, as disingenuous to pretend that there was danger that it would ever afterward be insisted, as my honorable friend from Maine has to-day insisted in respect of the power, the function, the nature, and the 

authority of the claims commission and its acts. What was the ground on which the commission was planted f It was said that the tooth of time would eat away fresh and unmistakable evidence and proof; that when tho dust of years should cover. them, when the a-ctors in the drama which had just pa ed by had 

gone, when their heirs and as ignees and representatives, when adventurers, and claim agents should occupy the ground, many claims 

would be exhumed and pre ented to us fabricated or exaggerated; 

and therefore as a stitch in time, which might save nine, as an anchor 

cast in season, as a bond taken of fate in advance, it wa.s wise and 

provident for the min_isters and tru.<>tees of the public and of the 

Treasury to make record of the truth while yet the truth was fresh, 

rn_ lawyers' phrase to perpetuate the testimony, to take view and 

inquisition in season and in ad vance in order to close the door again t 

the exaggerations, the frauds, the fictitious claims with which otherwise we might hereafter be inundated and which in the chances anu changes of political fortune might by some congressional majority 

and some administration be favorably entertained. Such were the 

arguments of safety, of provident security against a pos ible future, 

which ca.rried the legislation establishing the commission of claims. It was said in every form that the opinions they expressed were to 

have none of the attributes of the judgment of a court; that they were to bind no one; that no right was to ensue in consequence of 

what they might say or do; but that as an instrumentality of the 

Government they were to occupy themselves in ascertaining and mak- ing record of facts to be usecl on all future occasions and in all pro- ceedings when these facts might be of use. I think every Senator 

who hears me and who participated in the discussion and the proceeding to which I refer, will confirm my recollection and I feel confident 

the record also will bear me out. That was three short years ago; but now what do we seeT Yesterday was taken up in the Senate a bill covering sixty-six quarto page , containingnearlyelevenhundred southern claims, and appropriating 

money to pay them, only sixty of which the Senator from Massachusetts tells us have been or could be investigated by any committee of 

this body ; and without even reading the bill, without its undergoing 

the formal process of stereotyped parliamentary proceeding, the Senate turned to three amendments and confined its attention to tho e. As to the rest of this bill, appropriating I know not how much moneythe total has been stated I believe and if it has been I will borrow 

it from my friend from Pennsylvaniar--

Mr. SCOTT. A little over $600,000. 

Mr. CONKLING. A little over $600,000. That fraction of a million 

dollars which before we had become used to vast sums told largely in 

any national account, $600,000, was accepted virtually by the Senate as a matterof course, it not being deemed worth whiletoread the bill or the items, and that because the claims to be satisfied by the money 

ha-d received the expression of a favorable opinion from this same commission of claims- a commission, I repeat, established under the assurances ·that nothing it could say was to operate as a judgment, 

nothing it could do was to bind Government or people, and specifically that no money was to be taken from the Treasury in consequence 

of any opinion or any views the commission might express. I said, Mr. President, something when I commenced about "drifting," and I submit that considering that the span of time is so narrow the Senate ha-s drifted r ather rapialy in three years. To prove that, 

however, I have more abundant evidence than that to which thus far 

I have adverted. 
5146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JuNE 18, 

In this bill is fotu1d a claim of General Bailey. It is not my fortune 

to know General Bailey. It would be supertluous to disclaim any 

feeling of hostility or ill-will. I see his name as a mere sign, and I 

comment upon his case as if it were, as it is I think in respect of us, a matter wholly impersonal to every Senator. He claims a large sum of money. Upon that claim the commis ion exprc san opinion which 

has been read with iterateu emphasis. The Senator from Maine [Mr. 

1\lORRILL] read it; the Senator from Louisiana [1\Ir. WEST] read it yesterday; the Senator from California [Mr. SARGENT] read it. It is an iuwspensable part of every argument in favor of the claimant. Having expre eel that opinion, which I deem it unnecessary to repeat, 

the sam!3 commission, which the Senator from Maine now styles a court, proceeding upon that ground which can never he answered in 

any court where justice is administered so far as I know, the ground 

of newly discovered ~vidence; not cumulative; not evidence in de- ~ree merely and therefore of the'kind in the pre ence of which courts nave refused a new trial; but upon newly discovered evidence in that sense which summons every tribunal to allow a rehearing-the com- mission, not officiously, not blamably, not as volunteers, but in the 

performance of a conscientious and of a sworn duty, address to the 

ch..'l.irman of the Committee on War Claims in the House of Representatives a communication, which communication recalls, retracts, 

and unsays that expression, here treated by some Senators as a judgment upon which it is proposed we shall go forward as trustees and 

pay away this sum of trust money. . Is not that very extraordinary, 1\Ir. President, regardless of the 

merits of this particular case t Suppose the claims commission to be a court, as is insisted; suppose it to be a quasi court ; suppose it to 

be a mere committee; suppose it to perform any of the functions and 

to possess any of the attributes which may be attributed to it ; is it 

not remarkable that a parliamentary body, or any other body, should 

proceed to pay out a large sum of trust funds belonging to others 

upon the judgment or statement of a court, committee, or tribunal, 

after that statement has been retracted upon the ground that since 

it was made newly discovered evidence has been prought to light, in 

the face of which those who rendered the judgment or made the statement feel bound to bring it to attention and withdraw what has been 

said t Would not that, I submit to my honorable friend from Maine, 

be remarkable, regardless of the merits and without looking into the 

merits t If the honorable Senator from Maine will treat this as res nova, if he will -go back and examine it from. the beginning without 

I'eference to the commission of claims, he will avoid in whole or in 

part my present suggestion. But is it not, I submit to him, remark- a,ble to plant himself upon the saying of the commissioners of claims 

when we have a notice served on us that they withdraw that statement and have discovered evidence since in the presence of which 

they never would have made it. Let me read the last statement from 

the commissioners of claims, signed by every one of them, and dated so lately as the 26th of ~larch, 187 4 ; 

OFFICE OF THE COliMISSI011.'Ens OF GLADis, · Washington, D. 0., March 25, 1874. 

DEAR Sm: The records of the trans-Mississippi cotton bureau, purchased by the 

G<>vernment since the eportwa~ made in the case of William Bailey, No. 980, show 

facts which we deem it our duty to report to your committee. The case having 

been reported by us to Congre. ~.:we do not feel at liberty to make any fmther in- ve tigaton of it unless specially airected by that body to do so. It clearly appears that General Ba-iley solu to the confederate government on the 14th of Noverqber, 1 62 fi:ve hundred and thirty-six bales of cotton. His son- in-law, Andrew W. McKee, had been appointed by the confederate government, 

namely, in October, 1852, general agent for the purchase of cotton. m Western 

Louisiana. and Texas. The first sale ma.de was by General Bailey, November 14, 

1862. This five hundred and thirty-six bales of cotton was no part of the eight 

hundred and thirty-four bales litigated in the United States district court for the eastern district of Louisiana. in 1 64. It may be, perhaps, the cotton r eferred to by General Bailey, (see his testimony before the commissioners of claims of November 14, 1871, p!l.,(!e 5,} in his answers, as follows: 

"Question. lJid you contribute anything to aid the confederate cause~ 

"Answer. Never, one farthing, neither directly nor indirectly. 

"Q. Did not you have to pay tithes 7 "A. I had; and I was compelled to sell five hundred bales of cotton to the con- fenera.te government. or have it burned and destroyed, in order to pay my taxes. I sold it to a youn"' man, an agent of the confederate government there." He sub equently tells of an armed force comin~ out to burn his cotton; of his 

telling them he woulu sell it, &c. The statement 18 confused and inconsistent, the 

date uncertain, but might be November, 1862; and if the young man, the agent, was his son-in-law, it may identify the tran action, but will make the story of duress or an armed force very improbable. It would seem to be clearly established by the papers now obtained that General 

Bailey, on the 14th of November, 1862, sold voluntarilyNot under duress-and if I can have the attention of the honorable Senator from Maine I beg his attention to this point-not under 

<luress, but in the language of these commissioners, "sold voluntarily." . My honorable friend from ~Iaine said that the only way the com- mi sion in the first pla-ce satisfied the law and their conscience in 

saying what they did favorable to this claim was that his acts had 

taken place under duress. Here comes an after-statement from the 

same commission saying : 

It would seem to be clearly established by the papers now optained that General 

Bailey on the 14th of November, 1862, soltl voluntarily five hundred and thirty-six bales of cotton to the confederate government; that he was the first lea,ding planter to sell his cotton; and that his son-in-law wa.s the confederate agent who bought it. 

Mr. Pr~sident, although I do not mean to discuss this matter long or to discuss the merits at all, I call attention to the fact not only 

that the tribunal has reversed its first expre sion, by whatever name it should bo called, but states as matter of fact that the very thing 

. upon which it relied in its first expres ion turns out to be an error, 

and that the contrary is true. · Yesterday when the Senator from California was on the floor, he or some other Senator told us that ~1r. McKee, who appears to be a son-in-law of the claimant, was not his son-in-law at this time; that 

he was upon very bad terms with him; that he was hostile to him. 

Since yesterday I have seen a letter- and I ask the Senator from 

Pennsylvania to correct me if I am wrong-a letter written by ~1r. 

McKee himself in August, 1 63, saying that he will be at a particular 

place at a time named, and saying that his wife will accompany him. 

That was in August, 1863, was it not 

Mr. SCOTT. August, 1863. ~1r. CONKLING. I think there can be little mistake about the 

fact, then, that in August, 1863, ~1r. McKee was the son-in-law of this 

claimant. 

Mr. WEST. But he might have been on very bad terms with him 

in 1~62. 

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator from Louisiana, who is deeply_read in 

the book of human nature, says to me that he might have been on very bad terms with him in 1862. Yes, Mr. Pre ident, he might have 

been ; but considering that the first sale of cotton that we hear of 

took place in the middle of November, 1862, within ix weeks of the 

end of that year, and considering that in August, 1863, this gentleman 

had been married for some time-it does not appear how long, but 

anybody who reads the letter will see that he was not on his wedding 

tour, and was then a settled, married man, according to that letter, as far as you can infer anything about it-and considering also that some intima-cy of acquaintance usually precedes marriage, I think it 

will be a little difficult for the Senator to find any period of time 

during this little interval which will uphold a notion that :Mr. McKee and General Bailey were enemies during all the e transactions 

which commenced in the middle of November, 1862, and extended 

from that time on. That would be so remarkable if it were true that 

I should want this ca e referred back for a rehearing on that question alone. 

Let me go a little further. 

It further appears from the •· day-book" of the cotton agency in the custody of 

the Secretary of the Treasury, (to which our attention has recently been callctl,) 

that A. W. McKee, as confederate agent, bou~ht of William Bailey, November 14, 

1862, five hundred and thirty-six bales of cotton, and paid him therefor, in cor~:fed· 

erate bonds, 20,000, and in notes, 18,731.44, 'Titaking a total of $38,731.44; also that on the 1st of January, 1863, McKee bought of Bailey six httndredand eighty bales of 

cotton, anf!. paid him, in bonds 24,100, and in notes · 0,001.64; making $.)4,101.G4. 

This, the Senate will see, brings it a good deal nearer. There was a transaction in January, 1863, and we find that in August, 1863, at 

all events, Mr. McKee had then for some time been married to the 

daughter of General Bailey. Now, ~1r. President, if this case has no better foundation to rest 

upon than the allegation pertaining to that narrow neck of time, 

that isthmus between January and August, when this confederate 

agent was. the son-in-law of the claimant and had been for some time, that during that narrow isthmus of time a war was raging between the claimant and his son-in-law, I suggest the foundation is 

very narrow considering the dimensions of the claim. 

Bot it was not my purpose to prove, I am not familiar enough with 

the case to attempt to prove, that the merits are one way or the 

other. My purpose is to expostulate against such an act as the Senate will commit if at the end of three years after establishing this 

commission, with every declaration that its statement wa not to be a judgment, that it could make no decision, that it could bind no- bouy, we are first to accept blindly any expression made by the com- mission; that then when they send us notice tantamount to sayil1g 

that in this particular case they have made a mistake owing to the 

want of evidence, and that they deem it their duty to call attention 

to the fact that newly discovered evidence disproves the very snppo ition on which they rested their opinion, namely, that th~se sales 

had taken place under duress, whereas it turns out that they were voluntary; and as the Senator from Massachusetts well said, the 

acceptance of bonds for cotton explodes utterly the idea that this was a sale with the wolf at the door, because nece sity knew no law, 

to obtain the wherewithal to render up immediate taxe that were instantly due-l say my purpose js to expostulate against going back 

to a judgment, if judgment it is to be called, virtually retracted, 

withdrawn, and set aside by the tribunal which rendered it, and that 

upon evidence not merely newly discovered, but newly discovered in 

the technical sense in which a new trial would be awarded in any 

court in which justice is meted out, and particularly in an instance where the facts themselves are so provocative of suspicion aa tliey are here, and thus substantiallyreversing and obliterating the whole design and idea with which the commis ion was created, and saying 

not only that we will pay blindly upon an expression of favorable 

opinion by the commission, but that we will pay without any exam- ination by a committee of our own; and finally, to cap the climax, 

when the committee is able to examine sixty cases, passes fifty-seven of them, and comes in saying "as to these three a mistake has been made, that is our opinion, and not only our opinion, but here is the 

clainls commission itself saying so," that we shall go on and overriuo 

all that·in the hot haste we make to render out of moneys not our own an equivalent for southern war ~laims. 

l\1r. President, I ~ave at all times not only confidence, but great and 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5147 

unfeigned confidence, in any judgment expressed by the honorable 

Senator from Maine, [Mr. MoRRILL,] and I may say, without dealing 

in parliamentary compliment, that I am very careful and reluctant ever to differ with him; but I know wen in my own case the immense 

effort which for some reason has been made in respect of this -particular claim. I know that most plausible and convincing statements 

have been brought to me orally and sent to me in writing; I received a fresh one this morning; and indeed candor compels me to say that so urgent have been the appeals, taken in connection with the allegations contained in them, that my misgivings were somewhat aroused 

about this matter before I heard its merits discussed; and knowing sa I do the appeals which have been made in the name of humanity 

and in the name of generosity, I cannot but think that if the honorable Senator from Maine would sit down and look over these papers, even as far as I have looked them over, which I admit is not very far, 

in place of relying upon statements made in the House of Representatives, which it turns out were made in error, he would modify some- what the judgment which he gave to us, upon which, if we follow it, we are in this case, to be sure, to pay but a single claim, but I fear to 

set an example as to the responsibilities which we take from the 

claims commission and from the committee of this body w.hose busi- . nes it is to explore affairs of this sort and in other respects involved 

in this legislation, which will come home to plague us and to plague 

those who come after us, when perhaps my honorable friend from 

Maine and others not as wise and conscientious as he may not be here, 

familiar with ::ill this. history and able with the same safety to dispense with those rules which we have laid down and to which I 

humbly conceive we must adhere or we shall drift and drift still further in this regard. 

I wish to add a sinule remark. I omitted· to say, indeed I did not 

know one thing which as a fact I think ought to be contributed to this 

debate. It has been alleged that McKee, this agent, was upon bacl 

terms with his father-in-law, or with General Bailey. I am informed now by a member of the committee that the evidence shows that he, as the agent of the Confederate States, in purchasing this cotton from 

General Bailey, paid to him two cents a pound more than the price 

which he paid to others; and I state it as bearing upon the question 

of duress and also as bearing upon this furious internecine war which we are asked to believe was raging n,t the same time between 

the claimant and his son-in-law. 

THE CURRE:XCY-FREE Bll~G. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I ask leave now to submit a report from the com- mittee of conference on the currency bill. I do not ask its consideration at this time unless there be un:tuimous consent, but I ask that 

it be read and printed. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I suggest that it lie on the table and be 

printed. 

Mr. MORTON. I hope it will be read. ~Ir. WRIGHT. Let it be read. The report was read, as follows : 

The second committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 1572) to amt>nd the several acU! providing a national currency and to establish free banking, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 

conference have agreed to recommend, anti do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows: 

That the House recede from iU! disagreement tQ the amendment of the Senate, 

and agree to the same, with an amendnient, as follows: Strike out all of the amend- ment a.:frer "that," in the first line, and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

The act entitled "An act to provide a national currency secured by a pledge of 

United States bonds, and to fi,rovide for the circulation and redemption thereof," 

ap~~g~~-d 4"~t s~c~~!· :f~} " fu~~~~~t;~.~~gts,;;::on:!~~d!~ili!t ~~~ ~everal a sociatiom~ therein provided for shall not hereafter be required to keep on hand any amount of money whatever, b_y reason of the amount of their respective circulations; but the moneys required by said section to be kept at all times on band 

shall be determined by the amount or cleposits in all respects, as provided for in the 

said section. 

SEC 3. !'hat every association organized, or to be organized, under theprovi!rlons 

of the s:ud act, aD!l of the several acts amendatory thereof, shall at all times keep 

and have on deposit in the Treasury of the United States, in lawful money of the 

United States, a sum equal to 5 :per cent. of its circulation, to be held and used for 

the redemption of such circulation; which sum shall be counted as a part of its 

lawful reserve, as provided in section 2 of this act; anti when the circulating notes of any such a sociations, assorted or unassorted, shall be presented for redemption 

in sums of 1,000 or any multiple thereof, to the Treasurer of the United Statesii 

the Rame shall be redeemed in United States notes. All notes so redeemed sha 

be charged by the Treasurer of the United States to the respective associations 

issuing the sam.e, a.J?d he _shall notify them severally on the tirst day of each month, or oftener at his discretion, of the amount of such redemptions; and whenever 

such redemP.tions for any association shall amount to the sum of - 0, such association so notified shall forthwith deposit with the Treasurer of the United States a sum in United States note!! equal to the amount of its circulating notes so redeemed. 

And all notes of national banks, worn, defaced, mutilated, or otherwise unfit for 

circul?-tion shall, wh_en received b:y any as!rlstant trea urer or at any de i!!Ilated 

dcpos1tory of the Uruted States, be forwarded to the Treasurer of the United'States 

for retiemption as provided herein. And when snch redemptions have been so re- imbursed, the circulating notes so redeemed shall be forwarded to the respective as ociations by which they were is ned; but if any of such notes are worn, mutilated, defaced. or rendere<i. otherwise unfit for use, they shall be forwarded to the 

Comptroller of the Currency and destroyed and replaced as now provided by law: 

PrO'IJided, That each of said associations shall reimburse to the Treasury the charges 

for transportation and the costs for assorting such notes ; and the associations her~a.fterorganized shall also severally reimburse to the Treasury the cost of engrav- ing such plates as shall be ordered by each association respectively ; and the amount assessed upon each association shall be in proportion to the circulation 

redeemed, and be charged to the fund on deposit with the Treasurer; And provt".ded 

further, That so much of section32ofsaid national-bankactrequiringorpermitting 

the redemption of its circulating notes elsewhere than at its own counter, except ~s provided for in this section, is hereby repealed. · 

SEC. 4. That any as ociation organized under this act, or any of the acts of which 

this is an amendment, de iring ro withdraw its circulating notes, in whole 01' in 

part, may, upon the deposit of lawful money with the Treasurer of the United 

States in sums of not le~>s than 9,000, take up the bonds which said association 

has on deposit with the Treasurer for the security of such circulating notes; which 

bonds shall be a igned to the bank in the manner specified in the nine enth sec- tion of the national-bank act; and the outstanding notes of said association, to an amount equal to the legal-tentier notes deposited, shall he redeemed at the Treas- ury of the United ~ta tes, and destroyed as now provided by Jaw: Provided, That the amount of the bonds on deposit for circulation ball not ue reduced below $50,000. 

SEC. 5. That the Comptroller of the Currency shall, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may :prescribe, cause the charter numbers 

of the association to ue printed upon all national-bank notes which may be hereafter issued by him. · SEc. 6. That the amount of United States notes outstanding and to be used :Js a part of the circulating medium shall not exceed the sum of $382,000,000, which said 

:~lls~~~~P::~~~~ha ~~:~r statement ~f the public debt, and no part theroof 

SEc. 7. That so much of the net entitled "An act to provicle for the redemption 

of the 3 per cent. t~mporary-loan certific~tes, and for an increase of national-bank 

notes," as provides that no circulation sh2ll be withdrawn, under the provisions 

of section 6 of said act, until after the fifty-four million granted in section 1 of 

said act shall have been taken up, is hereby repealed; and it shall be the duty of 

the Comptroller of the Currency, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treas- ury, to proceed forthwitth. and he is hereby authorized and requirert, from time to tim~, as applications shall be duly made therefor, and until the full amount of 

$54,000,000 shall be mthdrawn, to make requisitions upon each of the nationll 

banks described in saiti section, and in the manner therein provided, organizell in 

States having an excess of circulation, to withdraw and return so much of their 

circulation as by said act may be apportioned to be withdrawn from them, or, in 

lien thereof, to deposit in the Trea nry of the United States lawful money sufficient to redeem such circulation, and upon the return of the· circulation requir rl, 

b~!~: ~:f~~t :C~~e~fr~~i1a~~!~ ~ugh ~!~~~o1r~~~alln~~~~=~ ~!t~ or deposit hall be smrendered to it. 

SEc. 8. Thut upon the failme of the national banks upon which requisition for 

circulation shall oe made, or of any of them. to return the amount required, or to deposit in the Treasury lawful money to redeem the circulation reqnued, within 

thirty days, the Comptroller of the Currency shall at once sell, as provitieti in sec- tion 49 of the national-currency act, approved .June 3, 1864, bomls held tQ secure the 

redemption of the circulation of the a sociation or as ociations which shall so fail, to an amount sufficient to redeem the circulation required of such association or associations, and with the procee<ls, which shall be deposited in the Treasury of 

the United States, so much of the circulation of such a sociation or as or.iations 

shall be redeemed as will equal the amount required and not returned; and if there 

~:~~~~ th! ~~~:Jo~v~~ :~o~:~':! ;;fi~ego~ds ~~!ll~~~~t~~~~\~ti.halJ!d it shall be the duty of the Trea urer, as istant treasurers, des!gnated depositari s, and national-bank depositaries of the United St:ttes, who shau be kept informed 

by the Comptroller of the Currency of such associations as shall fail to return circulation as required, to assort and return to the Treasury for redemption the not of such associations as shall come into their hancls until the amount reguired shall 

be redeemed, and in like manner to assort and return to the Treasury, for redemption, the notes of such national banks as ha"e failed or gone into voluntary liquidation for the Pll11lose of winding up their affair , and of such as shall hereafter so fail or go into liqmda.tion. 

SEc. 9. That from anti after the passage of this act it shall be lawful for the 

Comptroller of the Currency, and he is hereby required, to is ue circulating note , without delay, a applications therefor are maue, not to exceed the sum of 

$55,000,00(1, to a.ssociations organized, or to be organized, in those States and Territories having less than their proportion of circulation, under an apportionment 

made on the basis of population and of wealth, as hown by the returns of the census of 1870; und every association hereafter organized shall be subject tQ, aml 

be governed by the rules, restrictions, and limitations, and possess the rights, privileges, and franchises, now or hereafter to be prescribed by law as to national banking associations, with the same power to amend, alter, and repeal pronded by" the 

national-bank act: " Provided, That the whole amount of Cll'Culation withdrawn 

and redeemed from bankstra.n. acting bnsine s shall not exceed ~5,000,000, and that 

such circulation shall be withdrawn and redeemed as it sha.ll be neces ary to sup- ply the circulation previously issued to the banks in those tates having fess than 

their apportionment: A.nd provided f ltrther, That not more than $30,000,000 shall be 

withdrawn and redeemed as contemplated during tho fiscal year ending .June 30, 

1875. And that the title be amended so as ro read as follows: An act fixing the amount of United States note , providing for a redistribution 

of the nationai-bank currency, and for other purposes. GEO. G. WRIGHT, T. W. FERRY, .J. W. STEVENSOX, 

Managers on the part of the Senate. 

H. L. DA. WES, 

GEO. W. McCRARY, 

S. S. MARSHALL, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I only desire to say that that report has the concurrence of every member of the committee of both Houses. I move that the report be printed. I do not ask for its consideration 

at this time, of course, but give notice that I shall seek to call it up 

to-morrow morning immediately on the expiration of the morning 

hour. 

J.fr. CONKLING. Does the Senator say that the report is signecl 

by every member of the committee in each Honse f 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; it is. The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The report will be laid on the table 

and ordered to be printed. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOCSE. 

A message from the Hou. e of Representatives, by Mr. McPIIERSOX, 

it.s Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the reports of 

the committees of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 

Houses on the following bills: - · 

A bill (H. R. No. 2694) for the relief of Benjamin W. Reynolds; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 3171) to amend the customs-revenue laws and to 

repeal moieties. 

The messa~e also announced that the House had passed a bill (H. 

R. No. 3479) m relation to parties in the Court of Claims; in which 

it requested the concurrence of the Senate. 
5148 CONGRESSIONAL RE.CORD. JUNE 18, 

CLAIMS REPORTED BY THE CLAIMS COMMISSIO~ERS. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2797) making appropriations for the payment of claims reported allowed by the commissioners of claims under 

the act of Congress of March 3, 1871. 

1\-fr. MORRILL, of Maine. I simply wish to say a word or two in reply to the Senator from New York. When I rose to address the 

Senate a while ago I thought I shoulu commend myself to the Senate 

at least for my modesty, if not for the soundness of the suggestions 

that I made. It certainly was in no self-confident spirit; and if I 

should so far forget myself as to talk about" my judgment" and "the 

judgment of a court" in.t~e sense which should take the Senate.off 

their feet and arrest therr JUdgments and force them to a conclusiOn 

of mind without due opportunity for reason on their part, I should 

be very sorry for it. That is all I can say. 

1\-fr. CONKLING. The Senator did not say anything about his judgment. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No; but my honorable friend in con- cluding referred to the Senator from Maine having formed a judgment 

which he was very apprehensive of. 

Mr. CONKLING. That may be; but the judgment which I spoke 

of was the name which the Senator bestowecl upon the filtatement. 

1\-fr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not misunderstand my honorable 

friend, nor will I misrepresent him. Now as to the sense in which I 

talked of a judgment, I said distinctly that I iikened it unto a judgment, and it was only by way of illustration that I called it a judgment, aa my honorable friend, if he had been sufficiently attentive, 

would have seen. I knew this commission waa not a court, and yet 

I knew very well that we invested it with the prerogatives of a court 

to a general intent. It is a commission, but its functions are judicial. 

It has a rio-ht· to examine testimony, swear wituesse , make a con- clusion. That is all I said or ventured to say. I said in concludinO' 

that I likened this proceeding to one that had been 1·es adjudicata, and 

that there was an attempt to reopen it, and on that I held that there 

should not be suspicion merely, but probable cause. 1\fr. President, I said in the beginnino- that I had not examined this 

question in detail; that I had only looked at certain principalfacts; 

and from those principal facts I was not satisfied at all, the burden 

of proof being that way, of the necessity of returning this case to the 

commis ion again. That is all I said; that :is all I say now; but 

after all my honorable friend from New York has said and after all 

the references he has made to the supplementary report of the com- mi ion, as he is disposed to regard it, I am not at all shaken in the 

impression with which I started out. 

Let us look at this case for a moment. I do not care to repeat myself, 

but I insist upon it that these men did undertake to judge of this claim as a court. Calli t a collliirission or whatever you please, they did undertake to examine this man's claim, and they either went out of their 

way or in their way. As an honest court, in the performance of a high duty, they did ascertain an important fact, and they use very 

emphatic and very strong language. They say they have made a very 

thorough examination into the identical question now before us, and 

in conc1uding, as it they intenc.i.ed to pile up this question and emphasize 

this man's loyality, after having said that they hn.d taken particular 

pains on that subject, they sn.y-I am now speaking of what was their decision, not to call it a judgment: 

The cases of loyalty among the large landed proprietors of the South were so very rare, that were felt ili to be our duty to investigate this case thoroughlyAnd having investigated it thoroughly what did they sayAnd after doing so we feel fully justified in reporting this claimant as loyaL 

Hn.ve they ever taken that back f 

Mr. CONKLING. What is the date of that f 

l\Ir. MORRILL, of Maine. There is no date to it, but it is what- ever date the judgment or decision was. I do not know what that was. Have they ever taken that back •t_ 

1\fr. CONKLING. Expressly. 

Mr. MORRILL, of :Un.ine. Never. 

Mr. CONKLING. May I read to the Senator 'f 

M:r. MORRILL, of Maine. No; not now. Mr. CONKLING. I say they have taken it back in terms. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I insist they have never taken it back. 

In the first place, they have never re-examined it. It is not competent for them to take it back. They say in the beginning of the paper 

which has been read that they cannot re-examine it, and for that reason they make an unofficial statement. I do not set the one off against 

the other by any means, nor can it be done by either law or logic. 

One is in court, one is in the exercise of an official position; one is 

affirming solemnly in court or in the exercise of their official functions, the other is extra-official, not to say extra-judicial. But that 

is not the worst of it. They flatly contradict themselves. They flatly 

show that either juclicially they were careless, indifferent, heedles , or that they are a little swift now. One of these horns they must take. 

Nowlwillread. I amalittleinstrncted bywhatmyhonorablefriend 

has said and by what he has referred to. Let us see if they have taken 

this back. What do they say f They say : 

It would seemWhat "would seem?" A court talking about "it would seem!" 

They did not speak in that way when they were talking as a court exercising judicial functions. They said "this man' a loyalty is proven." 

Now, when they undertake to certify something unofficial, they talk 

about what "would seem!" How does it seem, and what seems to 

these men who are now acting unofficiallyf 

It would seem to be clearly established by the.papers now obtained that General 

Bailey, on the 14th of November, 1862, sold voluntarilyIs that a new fact f Why, sir, they had that fact before them, and 

they certified in their recoru that they had that fact, and it was a principal fact. The sale of this very five hundred bales that they 

here talk about it would seem was before the commission, and they 

examined it as a principal fa~t touching the mn.n's loyalty. Let us go a little further: 

sold voluntarily five hundred and thirty·six bales of cotton to the confederate 

governmentMy comment upon tbat is, they did gratuitously certify a fact 

which they were in law bound to find in thn.t judgment, or else they are a little swift on this occasion. Let us go ali ttle further: 

that he was the first leading pla.nter to sell his cotton. 

That is what· they find. That is the finding of this extra-official 

statement-out of court. Now put that against the other and see how . the two things will read: 

The cases of loyalty among the large landed propriotors of the South were so very rare that we felt it to be our duty to investigate this case thoroughly, and after 

doing soThat is, after investigating the case, and after finding that this man had sold five hundred bales of cotton, they were delighted, notwithstanding all the evidence in the case controlling the fact, to cer- tify to his loyalty; and now, out of court, without the sanctions which 

accompany the court-room, what do they sayf I do not mean to say 

anything offensive; but they stultify themselves by saying that he was the first leading planter to sell his cotton, and they say that, re- citing the identical fact that they had examined into in 1872 and 

-reported upon. That is not calculated to weaken my impression very 

much. On the other hand, I should· be inclined to say: 

I thank tliee, Jew, for teaching me that word. 

I am very glad that my honorable friend from New York has been 

solicited in someway, to some end, that his attention had been ca_lled 

to this particular fact, and that he brought it to my attention and 

emphasized it with all that power and eloquence for which he is o distinguished, that he got it through my hen.d at last that there really was very little in this new disclaimer. 

1\fr. President, I attach no importance at all to the f act of thi 

being a "judgment," although my honorable friend seemed to attach 

great importance to the fact that I had in some sense called this a court, and that we were concluded, we were estopped, and could not 

reopen this question. A1l I meant to say was that when a great fact 

is 1·es adjudicata, and particularly when this great Government selects 

its own tribunal, and that tribunal settles the facts in its own way 

and reports its judgment here, it does not become us to throw discredit over that judgment or decision on mere suspicion. That is 

precisely the ground I rested upon before. That is just what I rest 

upon now. 

One word more in this line. My honorable friend says this is not a judgment in any sense, and he protests that the Senate of the 

United States shall not be concluded by my asseverating that this is a judgment. It is no jud~ent at all. Now, sir, there are some eleven hundred of these claims. Am I right about that 'f ~fr. SCOTT. Near1y eleven hundred. 

1\fr. MORRILL, of Maine. Nearly eleven hundred of these claims. 

What are these Are they judgments f No; myhonorablefriendsays 

they n.re not judgments. Are they decisions f Probn.bly, yes. They 

carry with them so much sanction and so much authority, that my 

honorable friend himself was disposed to take them without reading. I asked to have them read; but somebody said he guessed it was not 

worth while, and I thought it was my honorable friend from New York, 

for I hardly know any other man on the floor who could have controlled me on that subject. If I did not submit to him, it must have been to 

somebody. I supposed he made that proposition. At any mte I was a little disposed that the whole bill should be read; but it was said 

"no ; it is not neces ary -to read it." Why f The cases have all come from the commission; they are the judgment of a court; they are en- ti,tled to our confidence; they have been considered and they are entitled to our confidence; you need not read them at all. If it has not 

that significance what on earth has it 

More than that, -they had the action of another body, which my 

honorable friend reprimanded me for alluding to. I withdraw all I 

said about that and we will be quits on that. 

~fr. President I rose in the beginning, upon a cursory examination 

of what I considered to be the principal facts, to state to the Senato 

the impression that those facts had made upon me, that there was no particular necessity disclosed here for the return of this claim to tho 

commissioners of claims. That is a,ll I did say; that is n.il I say now, and the discussion so far as it haa gone rather strengthens that impression. 

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, with the eloquence and the facetiousness of the honorable Senator from Maine, I am too prudent to 

attempt to cope. With his statement of facts, I want for one moment 

to deal. The Senator from Maine cannot offset the second report 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5149 

against the :first report of this commission which he has come to the 

conclusion is not a report and does not render a judgment, and the 

chief reason is that the second report had not those sanctifying in-

:ftuences of the court-room, as he said in one place, and those solemnities which pertain to acts performed by official persons acting officially. 

Owing mainly to these discrepancies, the honorable Senator from 

Maine is not able to repose a-s he would like to do upon the second 

report of the commissioners in order that he may be a-ssisted in doi~g 

justice. In the hope of relieving some of the anxiety and trouble of 

the Senator· from Maine, I wish to call his attention to this second re- port. I really think I can satisfy him that in place of the commissioners being swift, he ha-s been a little swift himself. Here is the 

second report dated thus: "Office of the commissioners of claims, 

Washington, D. C., :March 26, 1874." This report is signed by "A. 0. 

.Aldis, J. B. Howell, 0. Ferriss, commissioners of claims." 

So it had the sanctity of the court-room. All of the influences 

which pervade that place surrounued the incubation and inception 

of this document. It was made and s~~ned by these men officially, 

all of them acting aa commissioners. what, then, is the particular 

absence that the Senator from :Maine so piteously laments f He says 

the case was not before them. How was that Y A case is never before 

them upon a hearing, although he thinks this is so much like a court, 

and no counsel ever appears on the one or the other. On the con- trary, this is a self-sustaining, self-moving, if not automatic machine. 

They proceed, as the Senator from Maine and his committee proceed 

with an appropriation bill, to take it up and read it and investigate 

it themselves of their own mere motion. There is no day when it is 

in court rather than any other day. Therefore this case wa-s before 

the commission in respect of everything save one technical thing. 

What was that f That they had already handed over their statement which the Senator from Maine has read in part again. Although he sai!l he did not wish to repeat it, P.e did read it again. 

Mr. lfORRILL, of Maine. I had not read that before. 

1\lr. CONKLING. My honorable friend may not have read it, but 

the Senator from California read it yesterday and so did other Senators, and although they did not read it as :fluently, with anything like 

the emphasis and solemnity which my friend gave us, nevertheless 

it was ponderously aud repeatedly proclaimed to the Senate and sunk 

deep into my soul, as I presnme it did into the soul of every other 

wember of the body. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I had not heard it, though. 

1\fr. CONKLING. My honorable friend was at that time revolving 

in his mind some of these broad and expansive definitions which he 

applies to this case. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I was in my committee-room. 

Mr. CONKLING. In this second report we have these men acting 

officially, acting as a body, acting in their court-room, acting upon 

this case, and saying what f Not stultifying themselves, if my honorable friend will pardon me. Withasomewhatintimateacquaintance 

with all three of these men, Judge Aldis and his two associates, I 

say they did not stultify themselves in this instance; but on the con- trary, if there be three men who in my belief may safely challenge 

comparison with any others in the employment of the Government 

for the zeal, the fidelity, the discernment, and the candid discrimination with which they apply themselves to their duties, it is these 

tlrree gentlemen who my ho!lorable friend thinks have gone far towru·d making a farce of themselves and their business. What do they 

sayY 

The records of the trans-Mississippi cotton bureau, purchased by the Govern- m nt si,nce the report. WM made in the case of William. Bailey, No. !)80, show the 

facts whfuh we deem 1t our duty to report to your coiDinlttee. 

Do they stultifY themselves because they did not kn?w anything 

about this before 'f But the honorable Senator from Mame, proceed- in~ to read and passing over half this document, falli pell-mell upon 

this, and impales these men upon the glittering cimeter of his wit, 

not to speak of his logic; the Senator says they say "it would 

seem," and Denmark's wayward prince never wrung the changes 

upon that word, as rendered by the great master, as my honorable 

friend did: "1t would seem," and as he echoed himself we might suppose that these men, referring to nothing, speaking of their own con- sciousness and conviction, were uttering something. Why, Mr. President, we need to refer to the context in order to rescue this board 

from the heavy censure of my honorable friend. They go on to say: 

It clearly appears tha.t General Bailey sold to the confederate government, &c. 

Then they say this was the cotton to which the questions and answers related; they set out those questions and answers; they set 

the facts; and then what f They venture to bestow a comment upon 

this. Like a referee who is to hear and Teport, reporting so much of 

this newly discovered evidence as they deemed germane and essential 

and referring to that, they comment thus : 

It would seem to be clearly established-

" Clearly established" how f By the evidence discovered among 

the r·ebel archives, a perusal of which they here set forth. 

It would seem to be clearly established by the papers now obtainedMr.· MORRILL, of Maipe. That what f 

Mr. CONKLING. I will come to that. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Do not forget it. 

Mr. CONKLING. Certain as you live, I will come to that. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That is what I want. 

Mr. CONKLING. I will come to that pivot, that universal joint on which my honorable friend swings round and ronnd, when he says 

that these men stultified themselves because they repeated the very 

fact upon which they had found the reverse. 1\lr. MORRILL, of Maine. Exactly, that is so. Mr. CONKLING. My honorable friend has the courage now, although in a low tone of voice, to repeat that that is so. I am going 

to see whether it is or not. 

It would seem to be clearly esta.blished by the papers now obtained that General 

Bailey, on the 14th of November, 1862, sold, voluntarily-

! wish I could pronounce that word as the Senator pronounced the 

word "seem." How I would wait and vex the drowsy ear of the 

Senate, not to speak of all the other departments of the Government, 

if I could give the penetrating and clarion-like sound to that word 

which was emitted bymyhonorablefriendfromMainewhen he accused 

these men of employing the term "it would seem" so and so. But now it appears that he sold ': voluntar.J.y." Does the Senator mean to say that that fact was before the commission and reported by the 

commission Y 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Will the Senator--

Yr. CONKLING. I will always let the Senator from Maine tell 

what he thinks on a. subject. I will let him tell me now; I shall be 

glad to hear it now; but first let me tell the Senator from Maine 

what I think I heard him say to-day. I think I heard him say in 

reply to the Senator from Pennsylvania that the point on which the case turned before the commission on the question of loyalty, was the 

allegation of duress. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I agree to that. 

Mr. CONKLING. That what this man did be did under duress. 

Well, "in the name of all the gods at once," does a man do voluntarily what he submits to under duress f Somebody has said "necessity knows no law." That is duress. When a foot-pad presents a pistol at the breast of my friend and a-sks for his watch and he gives up 

his watch and gives up his will, to save his life, that is dure s; that 

is what the law calls vis major; and beggars among others are not 

choosers. But, l\1r. President, he who decides for himself whether he 

will sell a commodity or not, he who picks and chooses whether he 

will or will not do a thing, is not acting under duress. He is rather 

of those of whom a great poet said that they walked, 

In maiden meditation, fancy-free. 

He is the freest man on earth, he is as free a-s my honorable friend 

from Maine was in his elocution when he said that those commission- . ers said "it would seem." 

What further Y It appears that he voluntarily sold cotton for what 7 

For something to pay his taxes with, so that you could say there was a kind of duress of the pocket, a certain something_ pinching at the 

groin which amounted to duress f 0, no; that "will not wash." On 

the contrary he sold cotton among other things for "$20,000 of con- federate bonds," lasting securities based upon a bet against the life of 

the Republic. Every confederate bond was a bet -and wager that the 

Republic would die. If the Republic should die the bond would live; 

but if the Republic should successfn+ly assert its right to be, then the 

bond was not to be worth the paper which had been defiled by the 

engraving upon it. That bond to the sum of $20,000 was never taken 

by a man for the purpose of paying taxes. That will not do. 

But, l\1r. President, I wander a little from the point. These men in the first place found that the claimant wa-s loyal because that 

which he did was done under duress. When the rebel archives were discovered and laid before them, they recall that and they say that 

from these papers it seems clear-I do not stop to pronounce the word 

"seem," I merely use it-it seems clear that he did voluntarily do that 

which before it was supposed he had done undet duress. Now what 

becomes of all the distinctions of the honorable Senator from l\faine 7 

I submit to him that they come to one single point, namely: that these men having handed over their schedule of claims, of which this was one, were technically and manually divested of the possession of the 

claim, and therefore they say that if Congress retains possession that 

does not authorize them further, they cannot go on, but speaking as a board and a commi sion in their court-room, upon their oaths, and 

signing this report officially, they feel bound to serve notice upon 

Congress that here is newly-discovered evidence which not only 

changes the case but takes from it that one thing, that sine qua non upon which they rested their first report, and that turning out to be · a fallacy the logic is that the whole thing falls to the ground. 

But my honorable friend says they have stultified themselves. He 

says in the first place they had it not before them, and that they 

ought to have been in their court-room. It turns out that they were. He says they ought to have acted officially. It turns out that they 

did. He says they ought to have acted in reference to this case specially. It turns out that they did. And on the whole he sa.ys 

they have stultified themselves because they had before them originally the fact that this man had sold cotton and having that fact 

before them what more could they want to know f .And although one rise from the dead and make new revelations, or although we are able 

to gather froni the archives of the confederacy that testimony which 

shows that as to the very hinge on which they suppose the case turns 

the truth swin~s the other way the Senator says, "0 no; they have 

passed upon this once; they did it in t·heir court-room; they had no 
5150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

witnesses before them that we know anything about except those 

that appear here in the testimony ; they had no counsel to represent 

either party; they were going on investigating for themselves; and now investigating in the same way they have suddenly discovered 

tllat which startles them with the knowledge that they made a mist!lke and been led into an error; they send it here and certify it." The 

enator from Maine says it amounts to nothing, and he refuses to offset the one thing against the other. All I can say is that I not only 

oftset the one thing against the other, but upon my mind it has the same influence morally and the same influence legally that it would 

have if a jury should come into comt with a verdict and before they were discharged from the jury-box after having rendered it should 

di cover that they had fallen into an error of calculation· or that they 

had made some other blunder, and called attention to it on the spot. 

It has the same influence upon me that it would if a court or a referee or any other tribunal should come in and say : "I rendered that judgment; I made that :finding; I did it in ignorance of this fact; and 

here is evidence which, had it been before me, would seem to mkae it 

clear that the finding should have been the other way." · 11r. MORRILL, of .Maine, and Mr. SCOTT addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SCOTT. .l\fr. President, there are many things that I would 

wish to say, some that I ought to say, perhaps, in r eply both to the 

Senator from Maine and the Senator from New York in reference to 

the action of the committee upon this :whole bill; but we have now been engaged upon it since yesterday, spending the greater part of 

both day on the discussion of this case ; and although these things 

ought to be said, perhaps, and attention called to some details which 

have been omitted, if we can have a vote on this bill-and I appeal 

to the Senate to give us one-I will forbear saying anything more on it. I do not wish to cut off my friend from Maine, for I see he is waiting to reply to the Senator from New York, but having the floor I uo make an appeal to the Senate. Can we not now have a vote on the 

question 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I will not occupy five minutes. 

1\ir. SCOTT. If the enator will not occupy more than five minute and we can then vote I shall not claim the floor again. I shall 

ask for a vote, and hope we shall succeed in having a vote. 

Mr . .MORRILL, of Maine. I know that not the slightest importance will be attached by the Senate to the estimate which the Senator from New York put on one fact and the different estimate which 

I put upon the same fact. His point is that this letter of the e com- missioners is of equally binding force with the judgment or decision 

rendered. My impression is that it is cora1n 1wn judi{Je anyhow, and 

they oust themselves in the first sentence they utter in the letter, 

saying that they did not have any jurisdiction of it and did not 

intend to take any jurisdiction of it. After reciting the fact that 

they hav~ discovered certain evidence they say: 

The case having been reported by us to Congress, we do not feel at liberty to ma.ke any further m,-estigation of it. 

Then what t If they are not authorized to make any further investigation into it, is not there an end of their jurisdiction over it f Certainly. Then what is this f They put this in by way of dissertation, 

I uppose, by way of advice, by way of suggestion. They have been 

looking over the records, and some things have fallen under their ob er- atiou that had not fallen before, and although they pass no judicial 

judgment upon it whatever and say they have no power to investigate and do not undertake to investigate it, they make a suggestion. 

Does th~1t make a judO'menU I submit not. 

My honorable frien8 was a little adroit in quoting from the e per- sons when they say "it seems" that this man had voluntarily sold 

cotton. They refer to one fact, as he will see ; that is the fact of the 

five bundred bales sold in November, 1 62. That is the fact they r fer to when they say "it eems." My comment on that is what I 

have already said: it did not so seem at all when this commission ex- amined that fact, and they ay they did examine it most thoroughly, 

and they :find it was not a voluntary thing.- What has changed their 

minds . Two additional f:wts which have come in here, and not one of them touche that point at all. Here are the papers which they 

call additional facts, and not one of them touches that point, which 

is the principal point in thi case. Let me call the attention of the 

enator to thi . Here is one of the letter which are relied upon to 

throw suspicion on thi~:~ man's loyalty. Let me read it, and see what 

.honorable Senators will say it is entitled to. There is no objection, 

says one of these agent addressing the other-not addressing this 

man-but the fi.l'St cotton was sold in November, 1862, and almost all 

these papers are a year later; and in 1 63 one agent says to another: 

There is no objection to purchase his (Bailey's) or your brother's cotton; and if 

you can pick up enough to pay all expenst~s in this wise, it is all right. I wouldNow here is the point to which I desire to call the attention of the 

SenatorI would not ad vi eHe advises him to boy, butI would not advise any aJliances, however, with General Bailey. 

Here are two confederate agents tra-ding with this man to get his 

cotton, forcing him to sell it-that is the legitimate inference from 

the first findinJ$ of this court-and one says to the other : " Do not you 

trust him at all as a confederate ;.make no alliances with him whatever; he is not reli~ble ;. the Ullionists have confidence in him." That 

is the style of new evidence which has been discovered, upon the suggestion of which we are asked to send this case back to these com- missioners. I there:{ore rise to affirm and repeat what I stated in 

the beginning, that at any rate it does not impress me that it c:uTies 

with it that probable presumption of disloyalty which nece arily 

forces us to any such conclusion. It is little more or less than a sus- picion re ting in the minds of these men, and they make that com- munication for what it is worth. I do not mean to say any more about it. 

1\ir. ALCORN. I regret very much that I hall have to t.respa s on the impatience of the honora.ble Senator from Pennsylvania. If he 

is weary I beg him not to charge it to my account, but rather to the 

account of tho e who have made three and four speeche of an hour 

oi more in length in order to express their views upon this que tion. 

Mr. SCOTT. I have no impatience on this subject, but I would 

call the Senator's attention to the fact that every hour of deilly imperils the interests of l\1is i ippi and every other State that has appropriations in this bill. He can go on. 1\lr. ALCORN. The Senator's statement is true; but" let justice be 

done though-the heavens fall." I cannot permit this discus ion to cro by without saying something upon this case. I owe it to the peopl;I 

represent to expre ·s myself upon this subject. I am not acquaintetl 

with General Bailey. I have never ecn him in my life that I know 

of; and I am sure I never heard of him until I heard of this case of 

his. I know nothing of his family of my own knowledge. I know 

not whether he was a Union or disunion man, so far as my own knowledge goes. But with regard to the claims commission I desire to say that had I been here in my pla.ce when the law of Congress creating it was pa ed I hould have voted against it. It would 

have been wall for the people of Missis ippi and the people of all the 

Southern States had that law never been passed. 

The Government at the clo o of the war improvised a claims com- mi ion, for what purpose¥ The people who were in the So~thern 

States within the rebellious districts, were presumed to have been 

rebellious during the war; but after its clo e the Government out of 

tender rega.rd for those people, and not to do them injury, held out an inducement to the people in the rebel States to come here to prove 

that while the war went on they were loyal to the Government of 

the United State. The Government here laid ;t>n inducement for 

perjury that has been felt and that I have seen working itself in the 

Southern State . Of course the people there were under the pre umption of rebellion against this Government; they could not have 

avowed nion sentiments and remained in that country during the 

war, for the confederate government. tolerated no disloyalty to it 

there, as there was no disloyalty to the United States Government . tolerated here. You invite a man who for four long years in the 

South under the sound of the cannon's roar aw the battle go on and 

stood with his fellow, to come forward with his witne es and prove 

that he was a loyal man to the Government of the United State. 

There were certain loyal men down there who stood this test, and I 

believe from all the testimony I have at my disposal that this claimant was one of them. I can say, however, that many of tho e who 

have made proof of loyalty to this Government were certainly 

guilty of acts of more disloyalty to the Government than this man seems to be charged with. This man's ca e has been tried, and he 

has been tried by a tribunal that was set up by you and that has, 

whether it wa-s intended so or not, acted the part of an inquisitorial 

tribunal for the purpose of probing the heart of every person who came before that boa.rd, to see whether they could not nose out some evidence of disloyalty. . An honorable friend nea.r me asks me to let the Senate vote. I re- peat to him, for I believe he was not present when I made my opening remark, that the impatience which the Senator from Pennsylvania manifests on this occasion, I trust, will not be charO'ed to me. I owe courtesy to my fellow-Senators, and I will never while I occupy a seat in this body speak against time ; I will nev~r speak to annov any one; but I will, in discharging my duty to my constituents, address the body and claim to be heard when I feel that it is proper for me to speak. 

I say that this commission pa sed upon this man's ca e. They ex- amined and scrutinized his witne es. That was done by this inquisitorial board who make publication to the country of the fact 

that they do not allow more than about 10 or 15 per .cent. upon the 

claims presented before them for adjudication. \Vhen people have 

come up from the South claiming that the Government owes them 

money, that here is a demand of 1,000, for instance, they proclaim 

"here is what we have permitted him to h, ve, ten cent on the dollar." That is what they publish. · The claimants are all glad to got 

what they can. They have had to bring their witnesses here from 

the Southern States, and so far as the South is concerned it has been 

made poorer by this claims commission than it was when it began. 

The lawyers around this city-a very reputable class of lawyers, I 

admit-have fattened and grown rich on the claims commission, but 

the people have in truth been made poorer by it. 

But the court probed this case. They examined it closely. They 

scrutinized it. They examined the charges; they took the proof · and they found this man Ba.iley to have been loyal throughout, and 

they sent their judgment and adjudication here. Now after the 

adjudication has been had they send in a protocol, a sort of codicil to 

their will; they grab for this man. Having stripped him before the 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5151 

court of everything that it wa.s possible they could carry away from 

him, they run their arms into the doors of the Senate Chamber and 

say to the Senate, "Give us back Bailey once more that we may put 

him through." I do not want to let them have Bailey any more. Tlley have han him once, and I am for keeping him away from them 

now. But what do they say¥ They come here with the plea that they 

h ave discovered new te timony. I will take these statements as if 

they were in the form of affidavits to sustain a plea, and I enter my 

demurrer to the plea. Admitting the facts as set forth, I claim that 

they are not sufficient in law to bar the right of Bailey in his action 

here before the Senate for this money. Was it disloyal to sell cotton 

to the confederate government f In what did the disloyalty consist f 

Here was Dailey in the State of Louisiana. The rebellion had established itself; the armies of the Government of the United States were a thousand miles away; the gun-boats were at Charleston, and 

the :fight went on. The Government of the United States had blockaded the ports. The commodity that Bailey had raised, cotton, he 

h ad no means of sending abroad. He was forbidden by the confed- erate government to send it into the lines of the Federal Army; he was forbidden to send it to Liverpool for sale. What should he do 

with itt He had it. It was necessary that he should convert the 

cotton into something that would enable his family, while the war wa going on, to subsist. \Vho else·was a purchaser but the government of the Confederate States f Nobody else. There was no other 

purchaser. Was it disloyal for Bailey under such circumstances to 

sell to the confederate government his cotton f Where was the disloyalty f Had the Gove1nment of the United States declared at the 

time that this was an act of disloyalty! Where is the proclamation 

of your Government declaring that an act like that was disloyal¥ 

The!'e is no such statute; there is no such proclamation; there is no such military order. It was no act of disloyalty in Bailey to sell his 

cotton to the confederate government. 

The Government of the United States through its President sent 

agents to the Southern States to buy cotton. Was it disloyal for the 

President of the United States to send agents to the Confederate 

States to pm·chase cotton'and say to those ao-ents, "Yon may buy the 

cotton from the confederate government, you may buy it from Jeff Davishim~;elff" The President of the United States used language 

like this: he sa.id that we must have cotton. Why did he say soY Be- ca nse the neces ities of the Government of the United States com- pelled it to purchase cotton from the Confederate States or the people of the Confederate States. Baileysold to the Confederate States 

b ecause his neces ities compelled him to sell his cotton to the Confederate State for the purpose of obtaining the means of subsistence 

for himself and his family. Would a court of justice anywhere hold 

jt to be an act of disloyalty for him to have sold cotton to the con- federate government or anybody else in order to procure a subsist- ence for his family~ Why did he take confederate bonds f He took 

them because the confederate bonds be knew would be good for 

something while the war went on. He knew the cotton was within 

the grasp of the confederate government; he could not take it away; 

it was in the power of the confederate government. The confederate 

government held it. He could not sell it to anybody else. And yet 

t.be .Senator from New· York says there was no dure s here; he was free a air; he could have sold or not sold. There was nobody else 

he could sell to, there was no one a purchaser of cotton but the con- f ederate government. WM it not duressf Yes, sir, duress present 

and menacing at the time. There was nobody there to say "You 

t>ball sell this or I will take your life," but there was the menace and 

there was that standing before him which showed him that if. this ·cotton was not sold by him, perhaps the torch would be set to it, perhaps the government Inight say they woulcl not pay for it but take 

it ; and in the. frugal way that a man has a right to do he said "Yes, 

I will take it." 

But" 0," says the Senator from New York- and so important was that di covery that he had to ask the Senate to listen to him a second 

time that he might make his point-" I have discovered that the man McKee, who was Bailey's son-in-law, absolutely gave him two cents a pound more for his cotton than he gave anybody else." What does 

that prove T The Senator from New York adduces the testimony to 

prove one fact, and I use it to prove another. It shows that Bailey was les inclined to sell his cotton, and that he was more difficult to 

(leal with by two cents a pound than any other man in that country 

around him. It shows that Bailey was not ready to sell his cotton ; 

it shows that Bailey did not run out to meet the purchaser; it shows 

that Bailey bad to be dealt with, and they had to give him two cents a pound more for cotton than they gave anybody else before he would 

come to terms and make the tr~de; and now because he thus stood 

out, because wit h the necessity surrounding him he stood out andre.- fused to capitulate until the inducement was offered him, it is here 

urged as testimony against him ! 

Mr. WEST. I hope the Senator from Mississippi will at the same time not lose sight of the fact that another Senator said that they did 

not buy cotton from anybody else but Bailey; they went to him and 

got it. l\1r. ALCORN. They bought it from everybody. That is a histori- cal fact that the Senate judicially knows, that the confeder ate government bought cotton from every one. The philosophy of all that was this: the confederate government simply refused to allow cotton 

to go outside their lines; their ports were blockaded; they refused to 

pass it into the Federal lines ; and then to allay the clamor of the 

people the government itself became a purchaser and a purcha-ser at a price to satisfy the wants of the people at the time. 

But, sir, it is said that Bailey showecl disloyalty in this, and yet he swore that be had been guilty of no disloyal act. I claim that yon 

cannot convict him of having borne false test.imony on the mere fact 

that he did sell cotton to the confederate government. I have made my argument on that point. But suppose that Bailey had denied 

that fact which stood out and existed at the. time; suppo e when he was before this inquisitorial commission he had uoncealed the fact 

from them that be had sold these bales of cotton, will you condemn 

him for that T Considering the weakne s of human nature, can you 

condemn him for that~ Go back to sacred history ; look at an ex- ample which I venture to bring before the Senate, the case of the 

great ann good Peter, no common man. He had left the presence of 

his blessed Redeemer but some ten hours before; he had seen Him 

perform His miracles ~ he knew He was the Son of the living God and 

that He had come to save the world from death and from eternal damnation; but when Peter was surrOlmded by his enemies, when his life was in danger, he denied the fact that he knew Christ or that he be- longed to the soldiers that marched under his banner. Did the good 

Lord on this account di card Peter ' Dicl He say that he was not to 

be trusted f Did He say that on account of that act of disloyalty He 

would not recognize him as having been true to His standard 0 

no; but he said: Peter you have but exemplified the weakne s of 

mankind; come now st and by me, unuer my banner, bles ed still of 

the Lord ; you shall go forward in the way that good people all move. I am now supposing that Bailey, when before this court, may have 

conceale<d the fact. Bailey, whose property had been swept away 

from him; .a man of fortune, with all bisslavessurrounding him, had 

been stripped of all these; and now, bending down with age, poor 

and penniless, he makes his way up to the capital, and before this 

claims commission, almost from the very house of starvation, be comes before this inquisitorial court, and most piteously he begs that the 

Government will do him the courtesy of giving him a pittance that 

his old clays may be soothed with the reflection that he has some- thing upon which he can subsist until be can make his journey to 

The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn 

No traveler returns. 

He conceals the fact that he has sold these six hundred and eighty 

bales of cotton, and now, ba\ing purcha en the e I'eCords from the 

confederate government, you discover that he concealed the fact. 

Admitting, I say, that b e did conceal the fact, it does not show that 

he was guilty in concealing that fact of any disloyalty to,the Gov- ernment of the United States. It does not show that old man Bailey was guilty of any wrong to the Government of the United States at 

the time the act was committed. He knew perhaps the weight that 

would be given to that act by this claims commission, and it was this 

which caused him to conceal the fact, if in truth he did conceal it. 

If in truth the fact existed, it was these circumstances which led the 

old man Bailey to conceal the fact. 

Sir, I say again that here was duress existing, present and menacing, 

and that he could not sell his cotton to any other pnrcbaser than the 

confederate government. Now, when you say it wa wrong for him 

to sell cotton to the confederate goyernment and that it wa an act 

of disloyalty, I produce here the fact that the President of the United 

States sent officers to the South to buy cotton from the citizens and 

from the confederate government, giving protection to that cotton 

through the lines; that the Government of the United States ex- changed for cotton clothes and blankets and meat and bread, and 

they were sent through the confederate lines and exchanged for cotton; and not only those article , but Colts pistols, powder1 and ball were sent to the South in exchange for cotton by officers ot the Government of the United States. 

What caused the United St ates to do this f The neces ities of the 

Government. The cotton wa necessa,ry for the Government of the 

United States. They could not get along wit hout it ; and the Secretary of the Treasury in 1869 !Said t his with r egard to it, and I refer 

to it now to show t ho n ecessities that exist ed : 

The great staples of the South have for many years ooustitu ted a large portion of our exports. But for the cotton held in that section at the close of the rebellion 

the for i~n exchanges would have been so largel.v· against the Uuited States that a. commerCial convulsion would have been imminen t if not unavoitlable. Even in the deplorable condition of ~ho e States, la-st year more than two-thirds of our exports consisted of their productions ; and which is the crop of the present year small 

though it may be, that is to save us from rnrnous indebtedness to Europe. ' 

Such were the straitened circumstances of the Government of the 

United States that its credit was threatened; it had to have cotton, 

and every means was used to get cotton. When General Bailey saw the Government of the United States trading with the confederate 

government, buying its cotton, giving provisions in exchange, when 

there wa no law existing to forbid it, is he to be held as disloyal, because, forsooth, in the hour of his trial, in the day of his necessity 

he sold to the confederate government cotton that he could not dispose of in any other way, sold his cotton and then escaped into the 

Federal lines T The proof shows that he came into the Federal lines. 

1\!r. SCOTT. The Federal lines came to him. 

Mr. ALCORN. It was all the same. They came to him. But I can tell you that if Bailey had kept his cotton and had refused to 
5152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

sell it to the confederate government, when the United States Army Mr. SCOTT. AB the Senate has voted in the manner in which it 

got there the cotton would have been missing, the flames would has done, I now wish to make a. very brief statement in regard to 

have already devoured the cotton; but the confederate government this case to see how far this principle is to be carried. ThiB case inbought the cotton and removed it away, and afterward the cotton volves the same principle. Letitia Elsey and Maria H. 'furpin are was brought back to the Federal Government and became valuable two of the nieces of a man named Whitty M. Sasser. 1Vhitty M. 

to the United States. Sa ser lived in the same parish of Louisiana, the parish of Rapides, 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does the Senator say that the proceeds of this where General Bailey lived. He is now dead. The report of the 

cotton came into the Treasury of the United States Y commissioners in this case finds that he was disloyal. They find, 

Mr. ALCORN. We cannot trace the cotton; I know nothing of however, who his relatives are, his brothers and sister , and they find 

this particular cotton. J. know nothing of this ca-se except what has that the e two of his nieces were loyal women, and they gave to them 

been stated here and what I see in the testimony. This man's loyalty the two-fifths of one-half, finding that the other brother or sister, 

is attested by General Sherman; and remember that General Sher- whichever it was, was eli loyal also. These two loyal women, deriv- man had no recent acquaintance with Bailey; remember that Gen- ing their title through a disloyal source, are brought into this report. 

eral Sherman had resided in that district of country. General Sher- The only thing that >:sa ser's <lisloyaltywas based uponwaa the sale of 

man, I believe, was in the South at the time the secession ordinance three hundred and thirty-one bales of the cotton; for he is proven was passed. He immediately went away. Bailey was acquainted to have been at the same Union meeting that General Bailey presi<led 

with him and knew General Sherman's sentiments, and General Sher- at in the same parish. The motion is to strike this out also. Of 

man, I presume, knew Bailey's. He testifies tQ his loyalty, and says course, after this statement, the majority of the Senate, to be consisthat during the whole period while the war went on he was loyal. tent with itself. ought to keep this clause in. 

Ten thousand heart in the South were loyal; yes, ten times ten thou- Mr. COl\"'KLING. This man has the advantage of having two 

sand were loyal to the Government of the United States. The-y were nieces, besides. 

not responsible for the revolution. But the armies gathered round Mr. SARGENT. I concur entirely with the Senator from Pennsyltbem. Do you tell me that they did not act under duress f Yes; vania that the Senate, to be consistent, ought to keep this in, and I 

thousands and thousands of men who to-day would suffer themselves think it is perfectly proper to keep it in, provided the only point 

to be impaled before they would confess the fact; thousands and tens against this man is that he old some bales of cotton. The court 

of thousands of them went into the confederate cause under duress. say, in thecae of Bailey, that he admits that he sold five hundred 

This man Bailey stood there under duress all the time; he sold his bales, and they neverthele s report that he was loyal; and now they 

cotton under duress. · report another person, who, as I understand the Senator from PennTo prove that he sold it under duress allow me to state a fact. sylvania, was similarly situated was disloyal. It looks like inconThat cotton was worth in Liverpool twenty cents a pound in gold, sistency on th.e part of the commis ion. 

when it could be taken to Liverpool for less than two cents a pound. Mr. SCOTT. Permit me to correct my friend--

Would Bailey, if he had not been under duress, have sold it to the Mr. SARGENT. With pleasme. 

confederate government for ten or twelve cents a pound in confeder- Mr. SCOTT. General Bailey was examined and swore before the 

ate bonds, the value of which depended upon the result of the war Y comrriission that he old by compulsion. Mr. Sasser is dead, and his 

The very sale that he made, the funds that he obtained, the manner representatives are the claimants. The commission found him disof the sale, all show very conclusively that the man was under dure , loyal on the sale of the cotton. 

and it was" sell here or sell not at all." Mr. SARGENT. Which seems to me, as I was stating, an inconSuppose now, il', that I had come to you telling you that I had left sistent thing. The Sena.te, of course, will be consistent. I do not 

my plantation or my home in :Mississippi, that I had sold to the con- wish to go over the debate again, but I think these persons were in a federate government my horses, that they were valuable for the cav- very unhappy region of country at this time, subject to a. severe alry; that I bad sold my cattle_, that I ha~ divested. myself of every- pres ure. If the commis ion could find that a person who stated he 

thing I could, and had escaped mto your lines; would the fact that I had sold five hundred bales was loyal, they ought not to hold that a had sold these things to the confederate government have been taken person who sold thirty bales was disloyal. But the persons who a an act of di loyalty f Would I have been reproved by a single man are benefited by this little provision are unquestionably loyal and 

in all the broad land of having been guilty of an act of disloyalty in are women. I think that is an additional reason why we should s lling my property before I left the rebellions States Y Certainly concur with the previous action of the Senate and keep them in. I 

not. \Vhy ¥ Because there was no one else to whom I could sell it; trust the Senate will not commit the inconsistency of striking out this no other power, no other authority, and I must have some means of item. 

subsistence. Under the necessities of the case, for subsistence' sake, :Mr. DAVIS. '!'his case is rather a peculiar one and unlike the Bailey 

Dailey sold his cotton. It was liable to be burned up any night. He case. The commission awarded two-fifths of one-half to the two lailies 

knew that he was held to be a Union man, and he knew that the sur- named in the clause of the bill, leaving of cour e eight-tenths yet to be 

roundings were such as to endanger his cotton. He sold it for money acted upon, the cases of the claimants for which were not properly p1'eaud bonds, knowing that the bonds had a value in Liverpool at that sented before the commission as I understand. While the facts in 

time, and even though he might have to escape into the Federal lines regard to the cotton of the two men may have been the same in both 

he could send his bonds there and realize something upon them by cases, yet the surroundings of the two men might have been very difwhich to subsist his family. And yet you say that this was an act of ferent and probably were very different. I looked through this case disloyalty on the part of Bailey. Where is the evidence of disloyalty Y as a member of· the committee, and I think it ought to be referred 

how me the taint of disloyalty that shall touch a man because in back to the commi ion. Therefore I hope the amendment will be 

the hour of his trial, in the hour of his tribulation, in the hour of his agreed to and the committee sustained. I believe the committee was nece sity, he sold that which he had to di pose of in order that he unanimous on this claim. 

might find a sub istence for himself and family. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. CLAYTON in the chair.) The of the committee to strike out the item. 

question is on the amendment of the Committee on Claims striking The question being put, there were on division-ayes 28, noes 13. 

out the appropriation for the claim of William Bailey. Mr. ALCOR.t~. I call for the yeas and nays. ["Not" "no!"]\ 

Mr. SCOTT. I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. ANTHONY. I hope we shall not have the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to Mr. ALCORN. I defer to the will of the Senate. I will not insist · 

caJJ. the roll. on it, but I do trust this section will not be stricken out. 

:Mr. HOWE, (when his oo,me was called.) On this question I am The PRESIDENT p1"o tmnpm·e. The ayes have it on a division, and 

pail'ed with the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. SPE~CER.] If he were the amendment is a !!reed to. 

here he would vote against the amendment, and I should vote for it. Mr. SPRAGUE. f ·ask for another vote. ["Too late."] 

The roll-call was concluded. The PRESIDENT JYI'O tempore. The next amendment will be read.. 

Mr . .ALLISON. I desire to say that Senators THUBMAN and STEW- The CHIEF CLERK. On paRe 31, line 741, the Committee on Claims ART are paired on this motion to strike out ; one of them would vote propose to strike out "Feltz' and insert "Felts." 

"yea," and the other "nay," [laughter,] ·which one I do not know. The amenclment wa-s agreed to. 

The result was announced-yeas 21, nays 33, aa follows : The next amendment was in line 850, to strike out "Ryon" and 

YEAS-Mesflrs. Allison, Anthony, Boutwell, Buckingham, Carpenter, Chandler, insert "Ryons." Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Ferry of Michigan, Frelixigbuyse_n, Hamlin, Ingalls The amendment was agreed to. 

Morrill of Vermont, Oglesby, Pratt, Scott, Sben:rum, WadliDgh, Washburn, and :Mr. SCOTT. The next amendment, from line 1367 to line 1371, was 

Wrightr-21. a proposition to strike ont. I desire.to ofl'er a substitute for that, an<l NAYS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Bogy, Boreman, Conover, Cooper, Davis, Dennis, I 'll ak his 1 t' f 't Th t · d d t th 

Goldthwaite, Gordon, Ha"er, Hamilton of Maryland, Johnston, Kelly, Lewis, Me- W1 m e t exp ana IOn o 1 · a 1S an a war rna e o e · Creery, 1\ferrimon, Mitchell, Morrill of Mlline, Norwood, Patterson, Pease, Ramsey, estate of John Fox, decea-sed, of Virginia. John Fox made a. 'vill 

Rans9m, Robertson, Sargent, Saulsbury, Schurz, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton, about the year 1859, in which he provided for his slaves, providing 

W.fk\~~.fV"~4~:~ B:rownlow Cameron, Dorsey, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of that the land in Virginia was to be sold and land purcha-sed with the 

Connecticut, Flanagan, Gilbert, Hamilton of Texa., Harvey, Hitchcock, Howe, proceeds in Ohio for the use of his slaves. The estate has never been 

Jones, Logan, Morton, Speno&, Stewart, Thurman, and Tipton-19. settled, and is now in the hands of an administrator de bonis non, anu all ega tiona were made that he refused to recognize -properly the proper So the amendment was rejected. rights of these colored legatees, now freemen. On that allegation the 

The next amendment reported by the Committee on Claims was on House committee struck out the name of the administrator de bonis 

page 2"2, line 535, to strike out- · tWn and put in the name of John .A.. Seaton, claiming to be an attorTo Letitia Elsey and Maria H. Turpin, each $3,563.(8. .ney in fact for these colored legatees. John .A.. Seaton is tqe lf~I:e 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5153 

almost giantlike colored Capitol policeman that we see about here. 

He produced a power of attorney signed with the mark of some eighty or ninety legatees, and very informally executed and acknowledged. 

There are other parties who allege that they are attorneys in fact for some of the legatees. There are certificates here showing that some of the negroes have been paid in full their share of the legacy. For 

the purpose of obvi..<tting a difficulty on both sides, with the agreement of trhe counsel for the administrator and those who claim to 

represent the negroes, I offer an amendment, that this money shall go 

to the estate of John Fox, deceasecl, to be paid to John T. Burns, re- ceiver of the circuit court of Fauquier County, Virginia, to be by him 

reported to said court ancl distributed according to the will of John 

Fox, deceased. This receiver is a bonded officer, and this will make 

it the interest of both administrator and legatees to get it out of court 

as soon as pos ible. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be reported 

from the desk. The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out on page 56, com- mencing in line 1il67, the following clause: 

To John A. Seaton, attorney in fact for the colored legatees of John Fox, deceased, 7,545: Provided,, That said Seaton shall file with the Secretary of the Trea~ury proper evidence of his authority to receive said sum. 

And in lieu thereof insert : 

To the estate of John Fox, deceased, to be paid to John T. Burns, receiver of the 

circuit court of Fauquier County, Virginia, to be by him reported to said court to be distributed according to the Will of John Fox, deceased. 

The amendment was agreed to. · 

The next amendment was of the CoqLIDittee on Claims, to insert as an additional section the following: 

SEC. 2. That the case of William Bailey, the case of Whitty M. S.er, which was reported allowed by the commissioners of "claims to the extent of the interest 

therein of Letitia Elsey and Maria H. Turpin, and the case of John Campbell administrator of the estate of Stephen S. Springer, deceased, be, and they are hereby 

referred to the commissioners of claims for re-examination and report ; and tho 

said commissionel'9 of claims are hereby authorizecl to r eopen, examine, and con- siller the said cases, and to make report thereon to Congress. 

Mr. DAVIS. I take it the Senator from Pennsylv:tnia will ask to 

strike out the Bailey case from that amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. The name of William Bailey occurs there. The n,mendment striking out that ca-se in the body of the bill has been voted 

down. While I do not think the claim ought to be struck out of the 

section, of course it ought to conform to the action of the Senate. 

Mr. STEVENSON. I move to strike out the words "the case of 

William Bailey." 

The PRESIDENT pro tmnpore. The question is on the amendment 

of the Sen..<ttor from Kentucky to the arnenclment. 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be 

read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIG ffiD. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed 

by the President pro tempore: 

A bill (S. No. 4 2) to authorize the construction of a brido-e over the Willamette River n,t Salem, in the State of Oregon; 0 

A bill (S. No. 716).for the better goverDillent of the Navy of the 

United States; 

A bill (S. No. 758) to authorize and provide for the construction of a substantial iron and masonry bridge and a causeway across theAnacostia or Eastern Brauch of the Potomac River, at or near the site 

of the present navy-yard bridge·; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2450) to provide for the apportionment of the Territory of 'Vyoming for legislative pmposes; 

.A. bill (H. R. No. 2384) to change the name of the pleasure-yacht 

Planchette to that of Lax en; 

A bill (H. R. No. 440) to amend the act entitled "An act transferring the control of certain territorial penitentiaries to the several 

Territories in which the same are located," approved Jann::try 24, 

1873· 

A bill (H. R. No. 203) to create two ::tdditionalland districts in the 

State of Kansas; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3606) granting a pension to Mary E. Grosvenor; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2670) granting a pension to MaryS. Howe; 

A bpi (H. R. No. 2671) granting a pension to General A. C. Voris; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3591) to change the name of the brig Sidi to Sea 

Waif; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3539) to admit free of duty merchandise sunk for 

two years and afterward recovered ; 

A bpi (H. R. No. 2463) for the relief of JosephS. Read; 

A b1ll (H. R. No. 1507) to create an additional land district in the 

Territory of Colorado ; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3351) to ascertain the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company and other British subjects within the liniits which were the subject of the award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, under the treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, and for other 

purposes; 

323 

A bill (H. R. No. 3421) making appropriations for the payment of 

invalid and other pensions of the United States for the year ending 

June 30, 1875 ; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3678) for the relief of savings institutions having no capital stock, and doing business solely for the benefit of depositors; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 3741) to authorize the issue of an American register to the ship Alhambra. 

RIVER .AND HARBOR BILL. 

Mr. CHANDLER. I move to proceed to the consideration of the 

river and harbor bill-House bill No. 3168. 

Mr. KELLY. I move to amend that by-- The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. An amendment to the motion is not 

in order. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There is about half an hour before we adjourn. In that time the bill which I calJed the atten~ion of the 

Senate to this morning can be disposed of. It is a bill that H amended as it ought to be must be sent back to the House, and I think we had 

better take that up. I hope this motion will be votell down, and that 

then we shall take up the bill for the enforcement of the laws in the 

Territory of Utah. 

Mr. CHANDLER. I hope we shall go on with the river and ha,rbor 

bill. . . The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from Michigan. 

The motion wa-s agreed to; there being on a division ayes 34, noes 

not counted. . Mr. ALLISON. I ask the Senator from Michigan to give way and see if we cannot pass the bill relating to the District of Columbia 

to-night. 

Mr. CH.AJIITDLER. I have no objection to laying this aside infor- ma.lly, leaving it the unfinished business, and allowing the Senator 

from Iowa to proceed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the river 

and harbor bill will be considered as laid aside informally, and the 

Senate will proceed to consider the District bill. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is the bill subject to call by any Senator t 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempm·e. The regular order is subject to call 

by any Senator at any time. Mr.'FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not like to object, and yet I do not 

think that is exactly the right wa,y to present the order of business. 

The Senator from Michigan opposes the bill which I am instructe!l to 

present, and which is of importance, and then gives way to another. 

I must object. The PRESIDENT pro tem.pore. The Senator from New Jersey calls 

for the regular order, which is the river and harbor bill. 

Mr. HAMLIN. There are some matters upon your table, sir, of an executive chara-cter, which ought to be referred to the proper com- mittees this day. ~hose committees will meet probably to-morrow morning for the last time. They are important. I therefore move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of executive busi- ness. · The PRESIDENT p1·o tentpm·e. Before submitting that motion, 

with the permission of the Senate the Chair will dispose of the 

business on his table. 

Mr. HAMLIN. Very well. 

PUBLIC MARINE SCHOOLS. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tentpore laid before the Senate the amendment 

of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 176) to encourage 

the establishment of public marine schools, which was to substitute 

for the bill the following: 

That the Secretary of the Navy, to promote nautical education, is hereby authorized and empowered to furnish, upon the application of the governor of a State, a. suitable vessel of the .r avy, with all her apparel, charts, books, and instruments of 

navigation, provided the same can be spared without detriment to the naval service, to be used for the benefit of any nautical school, or school or college havin~ a nautical branch, established at each or any of the ports of New York, Boston, Philallelphia, Baltimore, Norfolli, and San Francisco, upon the comlition that there shall be 

maintained at such port or school or branch of a school for the instruction of youths 

in navigation, seamanship, marine enginery, and all matters pertaining to the proper construction, equipment, and sailing of vessels, or any particular branch thereof; 

and the President of the United States is hereby authorizecl, when in his opinion 

the same can be done without detriment to the public service, to detail proper ofticers 

of the Navy as superintendents of, or instructors in, such schools: Provided,, That if any such school shall be discontinued, or the good of the service shall require, such vessel shall be immediately restored to the Sect·etary of the Navy aml the 

officers so detailed recalled: Ana provided furthe-r, That no person shall be sentenced to or received at such schools as a punishment or commutation of punishment for 

c1i.me. 

~Ir. SARGENT. I move to concur in the amendment of the House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

LA...~ DISTRICT L."\" MO"NTA....~A . 

The PRESIDENT p1"o tempo1·e laid before the Senate the bill (H. R. 

No. 3740) to create the Bozman land district in the Territory of Montana. 

Mr. RiliSEY. I hope the Senate will pass the bill at once. 

1\fr. KELLY. I trust it will be acte(l on now. 'I'he PRESIDENT p1·o tempm·e. Is there objection to the present 

consideration of the bill T . Mr. KELLY. It is a House bill similar to one reported by our Committee on Public Lands. 
5154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

Mr. RAMSEY. It is recommendeu by our Committee on Public 

Lands. 

The bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole, reported to 

the Senate, ordoreu to a thiru reading, reau the thiru time, anu pas ad. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. No. 3145) to remove the disabilities of James Howard, of B:1ltimo1·e, Maryland, wa-s ren,u twice by its ti~le, and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill (H. R. No. 2834) granting the right of way through the 

public lands to the ArkaDBas Valley Railwa,y Company was read 

twice by its title. 

Mr. BOGY. I ask that the bill be put on its passage. ["No!" "No!"] 

There will be no objection. I will sttlte in one woru that I am perfectly satisfied the bill will pass. It is recommended as au absolute 

necessity to enable the roa<l to be built. It only gives a right of wn,y 

of one hnn<lred feet on each siue of the roau anu no appropriation, 

and nobody will object. . The PRESIDENT pro "WnJpOPe. Is there objection to tho present 

con ideration of this bill . Mr. SHERMAN. I object to thi'> moue of doing business, · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being m.a<le, the bq.I will 

be referred. 

Mr. BOGY. We have reported the same bill already. I move that 

the bill be referred to the Committee on Territories. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The bill (H. R. No. 3479) in relation to parties in the Court of 

Claims was"l·ead twice by its title, and referreu to the Committee on Claims. · The bill (H. R. No. 3747) to amend the act entitled" An act for the 

erection of a public building for the use of the United States in Covincrton, Kentucky," was read twice by its title, anu referred to the 

c<fmmittee on Public Buildings anu Grounds. 

PENSIONS TO SOLDU<RS OF 1812, 

Mr. STEVENSON. I desire to give notice to the Senn,te ~hat I 

shall ask to-morrow that we have a nirrht session for the purpose of 

disposing of the pension bill. It is a bW of great importance. If the 

gratitude of tho country was ever due to anybody, i.t seems to me to 

be due to the soldiers of the war of lt312, very few of whom now sur- vive. This is an a.ct of justice to them, and I hope to-morrow night 

will be set apart for that purpose. I will submit my motion to.mor- row morning. 

• THE DISTRICT GOVE8.-~MENT. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Chair will lay before the Senate the bi.ll (H. R. No. 3680) for the government of the District of 

Columbia, and for other purposes. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask for the immedia.te consideration of that bill. 

!\Ir. DAVIS. I do not think that ought to be done. The last bills 

that come here pass first. .Mr. ALLISON. This is a very important bill, and unless it is early 

disposed of it will be impossible to pass it at this session. 

'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from West Virginia object 7 

Mr. ALLISON. The bill has passed the Rouse almost 1manimously. 

I do not desire to debate it. It is well understood by the Senate, and 

I think it will occupy but a brief moment. 

'l'he PRESIDEN'l' pro tempore. If there be no objection the bill 

will be read. 

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, ·proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 3680) for the government of 

the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the bill. Mr. HAMLIN. I want to discharge my duty and then the responsibility my go somewhere else. Our session, I think, is limited in its 

extent. I therefore must insist on my motion to go into executive 

session. Mr. THURMAN. I hope the motion will be voted down. 

The PRESIDENT 1n·o tempm·e. The question is on the motion of 

the Senator from Maine that the Senate proceed to the consideration 

of executive business. 

The motion was not agreed to. Mr. CONKLING. I venture now to make the suggestion to all 

Senators that although the order is to adjourn at six o'clock, the Senate can extend the session. 

Mr. THURMAN. There is no ordeh 

Mr. CONKLING. Such au order was made ; but my suggestion is 

that it is within the control of the Senate. Any Senator can move when six o'clock comes to extend the time for half an hour or an hour. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.._ The Chair will inform the Senator 

that no such motion is necess3>li-.1 The order of yesterday wa8 that 

the Senate. should sit from eleven' until six, but not that it should 

adjourn at six. 

Mr. CONKLING. And therefore the time can be extended without 

any difficulty. 

!lfr. THURMAN. It does not~ require any motion to extend the 

time. The reading of the bill was concluded. · Mr. ALLISON. I only desire to say that this bill is the result of 

th careful deliberations of the joint select committee, tha.t it meets 

the a.pproval of that committee, and has pa ed the House of Representatives by an a.lmo t unanimous vote. The committee have no amendments to offer to the hill, and therefore, loUll.ess some amendment-s are oifercd, I ask for the vote. Mr. WINDO::\I. I offer the following as an a<ld.itional section: 

That the sum of $250,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any 

money in the TrC!lsury not otherwise appropri.::ttccl, for tho payment of the workingmen employed on public imp1·ovements on the streets and excavations of Washin"ton, under tho board of public works of tho District of Columbia, or the con· tractors of the same, or any or nil of them; and tho board of public works is her by authorized a.nd ordered to retain, from the several contractors who nro indebted to the workingmen, and whose accounts have not been settled by the board of public works, the several sums d.ne the workingmen; ~d th~J.t an 11mount equal to the amount appropriated by this act shall be ?educted. from any future appropriations made by the United States for public improvements in the District of Columbia, 

a.nd the same be paid into the Treasury of tho United States. The money hereby 

appropriated shall be disbursed under t4e s~pervision of tile Commissioner of Public 13uildings and Grounds. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Is that amendment in order to this bill f 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·o. It is. 

Mr. ALLISON. I desire to say to the Sena,tor from Minnesota that 

in the report made by the joint committee we have recommended an appropriation of not less than a million dollars, which appropriation 

shall be used first to pay the in~erest due July, 1,1874, and Mterwru:d 

to pay the employes and laborers of the District government; n,nd 

the committee have recommended that to the Committee on Appropriations, to be inserted in the mi cellaneous appropri:ttion bill. 

Therefore it would be well not to incumber this bill with any appro· 

priatiou. 

Mr. WINDOM. I was not aware that any such recommendation 

had been made. I withdraw the amendment. 

Mr. SARGENT. I offer the following amendment: 

In line 4, section 2, strike out the word "who" and insert "n.nd to designate one of these as the presiding officer thereof, to be styled the governor, whicli said 

conp:nission." 

Section 2 providesThq,t the President of the United States, by and with the advice ancl consent of 

the Senate, is hereby authorized to appoint a. commis ion, consisting of th.reo per- sons, who shall, until otherwise provided by law, exercise aJl the power and authority now lawfnlly vested m the governor or board of public works of said District. 

Now I propose that the President shn,ll designate one of the' e per- sons as presiding officer of the board, and that this person shall be 

styled the governor, which gives him no additional power, does not 

vary his powers, simply makes him presiding officer. The nece ity 

for the amendment is that the governor ex officio is a member of quite a large number of boards, as for instance the school board, the fire 

commissioners, &c., which are mutilated. 

Mr. THURl\I.Al.~. The ninth section provides for that. 

Mr. SARGENT. Section 9 provides that the boards shall continne 

in his absence, and it mutilates all these boards. On some of these 

boards whatever governing power is left in these commi ioners 

should be represented. Take the board of public school, i{ake the 

fire department. This is the common ligament between them and 

the District, the only representation, and in order that they may not 

be mutilated, it is neces ary that some one be designated who can act upon these boards. If this amendment be adopted, I shall propose when we come to the ninth section to strike that out, as it will 

be unnecessary. 

Mr. ALLISON. I will say by way of suggestion to the Senator 

from California that these three commissioners are intended only to 

be temporary; that we have provided, as the Senator very well knows, 

for the selection of a joint committee of both HoUBes with a view to 

prepare a plan for a permanent government, and the ninth section 

wa8 inserted for the very purpose of providing that these boards 

should be independent of this commission, and in order that it might 

be the duty of this commission to supervise and control and direct 

these several boards. All the various boards provided for in the District are virtually U.nder the control and direction and supervision of 

these three commissioners, so that they all now can exercise supervisory control over these boards. . Now, with reference to the public schools there are some forir district school organizations in this District; there are forty-nine trust- ees ·who are managing the schools of the Di trict of Columbia.; and 

the laws relating to the public schools are the most imperfect laws 

of any that are on the statutepbooks in this District, and there is no greater necessity for the revision of any lawH than of tho e relating 

to the public schools. Thart was one object we boo in requiring this 

joint committee to revise the entire government here. Mr. SARGENT. Ihavenoobjection to the supervision. Myametl.dment is not at all hostile to the idea of the bill as explained by the 

Senator. I do not oppose there being any such supervision over every department of the ~overnment by these commissioners. But 

the Senator says this is mtended for a temporary purpose. That 

may be; but that is no reason why it should not be complete while 

it lasts. It may la8t· six months, it may last a year; it may work so well that it may last longer than the committee now anticipate; 

probably they builded better than they knew. Certainly there must 

be a presiding officer of the board, and thero is no real:lon why in addition to the general supervisory power of the commis ion the presiding officer of the commission ex officio should not have power to 

act on these separate boards as is now the case. 
1874. · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5155 

I flo not want to take up the time of the Senate at this late hour 

in advocating the amendment; but I call a.ttention to the fact that 

this does not increase the power of the commission or of any incliviclnal member of the commission. · It simply provides in a proper and rcasonn.ble manner for a presiding officer of the commission. 

f.r. THURMAN. The amendment itself, it is true, does not add to 

the power of the board or any member of it. It is simply the creation 

of a dignity. It is the creation of the word "governor," in this 

board of three plain, honest, active, intelligent men such as we hope 

will be appointed by the President of the United States. Sir, there 

is a county in the State of Ohio that has six times the area of the 

District of Columbia, and in that county is a city that has nearly 

three times the population of the city of Washington, and the afl'airs 

of that county are administered by three simple, honest men, calle<l 

county commissioners; and three such men are capable of administering the affairs of this District without any such dignitaries as gov- ernor. 'fhere is no necessity whatever for this. 

I do not say that this bill is perfect, but I do say that your com- mittee, after fom· months of such toil as perhaps was never performed 

by any committee of Congre.ss, have unanimously recommended the 

passage of this bill. There was not a dissenting voice; diU it with 

full knowleuge of the facts and after the most careful consideration, 

and as their report will show after a consideration of this subject in 

which there was not the slightest partisanship or politicswhateverI call upon every member of the committee to say if that statement 

is not true-they unanimously adopted this bill and recommended 

it to the two Houses. It has passed the House of Representatives with 

but twenty-three dissenting votes, two htmdred and odd against 

twenty-three·; and I do hope, :l'tfr. President, unless there is some great 

and overruling necessity, the Senate will accept the bill as it passed 

the House. 

I say again I do not pretend that the bill is perfect; but I do 

know that eight men never labored more honestly than did that com- mittee to make a bill worthy of adoption by Congress, and I do know 

that tempor<~>ry as it is, it is most likely to. be beneficia,] in its effects; 

and the permanent form of government which will be provided by 

the joint committee that is to be appointed under this bill will be 

one, I ha;ve no doubt, that will be a blessing to the people of this 

District, a.nd will be a benefit to the whole Union. The idea of this 

bill is that we shall do something to lift this bankrupt District out 

of its present distress. That is an immediate necessity. That is 

what in the French Assembly would necessitate a vote·of urgency, 

that we shall do something to lift this bankrupt District out of its 

distress, a.nd for that purpose appoint a. temporary government, a. board of audit to audit the n.ccounts of this District, which for 

three yea.rs, ever since this present government was formed, have never seen the face of an auditor, have never been audited a.t all, the 

books of no depa.rtment compared wit.h the books of the other 

departments. It is to arrive a.tthe very truth of t.he matter that this 

temporary government becomes a necessity, and then we may safely 

trust to a committee of Congress framing in the recess, and the presentation to Congress at the next session of a permanent form of government for the District, simple, economical, without dignitary, 

without governor, without titles, of simple, honest, economical men, 

who will have some respect for the interests of this people, and ellscharge their duty in simplicity and with economy. That is the idea 

of this bill. 

I know very well that there are difficulties in this subject, a.ud you 

cannot take a step without meeting with a difficulty. \Ve have long 

pondered over those difficulties ancl have a.rrivecl at the best solution 

of them that we could. Anu now I venture once more to express the 

hope that this bill will be passed as it came from the House. I again 

disclaim a.nypretensethat this bill is perfection. Not.hiugis perfection 

that comes from the human mind. All I can say is that it is the re- sult of the labors of eight men, 'intent upon nothing but to discharge 

their duties faithfully to benefit this people and also to take care of 

the interests, the honor, anu the reputation of the United States. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. One or two Senators having in the 

debate a.lluded to the vote by which this bill passed the House of 

Representatives, the Chair thinks that is out of order. 

Mr. SARGENT. I should have made the same remark, but it is 

not necessary for me to repeat it. I do not think that the fact which 

I certainly cheerfully conceded to--

Mr. THURMAN. Allow me one word more in respect to these 

boards. The governor never ought to have been a member of one of 

them. Does the Senator from California know that at this very mo- ment there is scarcely a.n officer in all this District, unless he were appointed by the President of the United States, who is not remova- ble by the governor T The very associates on some of these boards 

with the governor are removable by him. Talk of that being an independent board, when he can set his fellows in that board aside 

by a. wave of his hand! There never was any necessity for his being 

a member of any of these boards. 

Mr. SARGENT. Tha.t consideration ha.,s no weight; for whether 

he was on the board or not, he had the same power. The fact that 

he was a member of the board gave him neither more nor less power, 

and he could remove a.ny of them if he desired to do so, and it made no difference whether it was in their presence or anywhere else. That 

is not of any consequence. 

I che~rfnlly concede tha,t this committee have la.bored diligently 

and Jlatiently, and that they have done the Senate very great service. 

I remember that Ire isted all solicitations made to me to undergo 

these great labors, believing that they were enough to break clown 

any Sena.tor and that I could not afford~ the time. I thank the gentle- men who have worked on this committee so faithfully and dilif?ently 

for having given up to it time whlch I did not think I could aftord to 

give myself. 

But with reference to the proposition I make, it is simply to provide a presiding officerfor this board. It makes no difference whether 

you call him president of the board, which is a. higher title, or governor, whiQh is a lower title. Take the case of county commissioners 

of which the Senator speaks. I have no doubt in every county of 

his State, as it is in my own State, these officers are elected alternately for three years, one going out ever.v year, and the oldest mem- ber of the board is the presiding officer, and he may be called by this or that title. So it is with the judges of the courts in my State and 

in many other States. In our Stat-e the judge who holds the longest 

term under the elective system is cnief justice. Nov you pTOpose to 

appoint a board without any head. They a.re all appointed imulta.-

neonsly and all go out together; so that there is no opportunity for 

this relative arrangement a.mong them. There is no one who can call 

them to order, no one who can preside, no one who can direct the deliberations of the board; and I simply provide a method by which 

this may be done. It is an innocent proposition. The only objection 

that is made to it is that under it somebody or other, we do not know 

who, I trust an honest and energetic man, will be styled the president or governor of the board. I do not think that is a very atrocious 

thing, or an un-American, or unrepublican or a.n undemocratic title. 

I simply ask to have a vote on the amendment, and shall not take up 

the time of the Senate. 

l\Ir. HAMLIN. I wa.nt to say just one word. I concede to this 

committee all that they claim to have done, that they have acted 

faithfully, and that their bill is on the whole a.n excellent bill. There 

is, however, one provision in it which I should like to see amended. 

I shall not offer any amendment. I think there ought to have been some qualification in rela.tion to the funcling of the floating debt that 

is not found there. I think if any individual in this District could 

present the evidence to the board that he ha.cl been obliged to pay 

uollar for dollar for t.he indebtedness which he held in his possession, 

he should have it funded at what it actually cost him. But let that 

pass. 

It is suggested thn.t this may be temporary. It is so designed. The . bill provides for the appointment of a commission or committee who 

shall prepare a bill a.nd pres,mt it act the next session of Congress. 

Now, Mr. President, yon and I and we all know that there is no as- surance, no man can give an assura.nce, no man can know wha.t will 

be the action of Congress at its next short session. What is called a temporary organization of this government may be one that is pretty 

long for a. thing that is tempora.ry, and being so, subject to being 

elongated, I think the amendment offered by the Senator from California is most appropriate. I ha.ve no sympathy 'vith ilignity or dignitaries; but I do think that that bo:1rd ought to have a presiding 

officer, and I think the law ought to provide for that pre idino- officer. 

If it is offensive t.o my friend from Ohio that he should be called governor, call him president of the board, or chancellor, or anything else, so that when strangers come here they may know who is the execu- tive officer of"this government temporarily, for that t,emporary period 

of time, but which IIL.'tY run into years. I think it would be wise to 

anop.t that amendment, and I sha.ll therefore vote for it. 

The PRESIDENT p1'o tempore. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from California.. 

Mr. SARGENT. I a-sk for the yeas and nays upon it. 

The yeas and nays were ordered ; and being taken, resulted-yeas 

12, na.ys 36 ; as follows : 

YEAS-Messrs. Bogy, Clayton, Conover, Hamlin,J"ohnsron, Kelly, Mitchell,Mor. 

rill of Maine, Oglesb.v, Patterson, Sargent, and Windom-12. 

NAYS-Messrs. Alcorn. Allison, Bayard, Boreman Bout1vell, Ch.andler, Cooper, Cragin, Dennis, Ferry of Michigan, Flana.gan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Goldthwaite, 

Gordon, HU{!er, llamilton of Maryland, Hanillton of Texas, :J;[arvey, Hitchcock, 

Howe, Ingalls, McCreery, Merrimon, Pease, Pratt. Schurz, Scott, Sherman, 

Sprague, Stevenson, Stewart, Stockton, Thurman, Ti~ton, n.nd Washburn-36. 

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brownlow, Buckin.-rham, Cameron, Carpenter, 

Conkling, Davis, Dorsey, Edmunds, Feriton, Ferry o~ Connecticut, Jones, Lewis, 

Logan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norwood, Ramsey, Ransom, Robertson, Saulsbury,. Spencer, Wadleigh, West, and Wright-25. 

So the amendment was reject-ed. 

Mr. SARGENT. I offer another amendment as a. substitute for 

section 6. To save the Clerk the trouble of reading it, as it is quite 

long, I will state that I have retained nearly the whole of the original 

section, changing only a few lines·, makin~ in fact but two smnll 

amendments in the section; but for converuence, tomakeoneamendment of it, I offer it as a substitute. I will read the part. I have chan~ed, and then the whole amen<lment may be reported at the 

desk if Senators desire it. 

The section in the original print rea.ds: 

That it shall be the duty of the First Comptroller of the Treasury and the Sooond 

Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States, who are hereby constituted a board of audit to examine and audit for settlement, &c. 

The First Comptroller and Second Comptroller of the Treasury, as 
5156 CONG-RESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 18, 

is very well known, are Mr. Tayler and Mr. Brodhead, t~o of tJ;te 

hardest-workinO' men in the Treasury Department .; one of them m f;eble hen.lth an°d both overwhelmed. Or course it is impossible that 

they can dis~harO'e the multiform duties which you proceed to lay 

upon them. They are to exaiD.ine into all ~hese matters, both matters 

growinO' out of dama.,.e and matters growmg out of contract, and to 

audit e~erything. Tg show that th~ co~tte~ did not expect them 

to do it, they provide furt~er along m this sec~1on that they may ap: 

point accountants and a ststants, &:c., to ex rr~me books and pn,pers , and then they say, it seems to .me With. a peculiar forge:tfulness of the 

kind of duties they had previously laul on these parties, that these 

assistants--we do not know who-shall "discharge their other duties 

under this act." If Senators will look :1t this section they will find 

how grave these duties are. .Some un~own persons may be appointed to discharge these d~1t1es. The ~1rst and Second Comptrollers are to discharge the duties under t.his act, and then they are to 

go on and appoint these assistants and ~ay the~ a~ything they s~e 

tit. There is no limit. There may be a bill commg m here under thts 

section of two, three, or fi:ve hundred thousand dollars. 

Instead of sa yin 0' that the First Comptroller and Second Comptroller 

shall constitute a board of audit, I propose to place this matter under 

the charge of the Secretary of the Treasury whom we have just con- , :firmed I am not allowed to say under the rules, I suppose, unammously; 

but I ~au say I think that Senators from all I!arts of the country, and 

especia.lly from his own State, who know him best, have the very 

highest confidence in him, and I believe it .is ~ell deserved. . I propose 

therefor6 to insert these words at the begmnmg of the sectwn: 

That the Secretary of the Treasury shall designate three of his subordin::ttes who 

shall constitute a board of audit, &c. 

He may appoint the First and Se~onu Compt~ollers, if he sees fit, or any other of his subordinates, he bemg responsible to the Congre s of 

the United States for the appointment of proper officers; n;ncl th.ey can be selected with due regard to the amount of other pubhc <lubes 

they have on hand. Then instea~l of the First :.md Se?ond Comp~rollers devolvinO' these duties, which are merely nommally put mto 

their hands by appointing a miscellaneous lot o.f assistants without 

any restriction a.s to their number or pay, I provide : 

That such assistants shall be appointed by this bo::trd, subject to the app:r:ova~ of 

the Secretary of the 'l'reasury, as they may deem necessary to make xam~atw~ 

of such books, vouchers, and pap r~, !lnd may inspect Ol' .Procure .the. inspectwn of 

such bank-books and papers pertainmg to tho affairs of tl1e DIStnct as may be 

necessary; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hm·eby authorized to pay for the 

services of such assistants such sums as he may deem proper. 

I simply stlike out that portion of the section whic~ gives these 

extraordinary powers to somebody who may be appomted by the 

First and Second Comptrollers, I strike out from the section that 

purt.ion of it which makes their compensation unlimitecl ex~ept by 

the discretion of the First and Second Comptrollers, and reqmre that 

the number of these assistants shall be supervised by the Secretary 

of the Treasury. • Now sir .unless it is determined as a stolid fact, not to be controverted' h~t no amendments shall be made in the bill, or no change whate~er I ask a decent consideration for the proposition which I 

have ad>~nced. I a.sk that it may be voted upon on its merits; but 

if the policy is determin.ed ~p?n that there shall be ~o amen.dment 

whatever notwithstandinO' It IS shown that there are m the bill features whi~h will not carryo out the wise and beneficent intentions of 

the committee which reported it, then of course what I say can have no effect. · 

Mr. ALLISON. I only desire to say one word in reply to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator f!om C~lifornia.. The. committee carefully considered the very questiOn which he raises With refer- ence to t1Us board of audit. The First and Second Comptrollers of the 

Trea.sury are the proper officers of the United States to supervise all 

the accounts of the United States. Now the Government proposes, 

in a measure, to take charge of. this debt of the District of Columb.ia. 

We pledrre the faith of the Umted States to the payment of themterest olthis debt and to the payment of the principal at maturity. 

Again, we place no limitation ~p?n the ~mo~n~ of this debt .. 7V'e 

do not say that it shall.be five millwn or stx llilllion or three m1llion 

dollars· but we say that whatever it is, when these two accounting 

officers' of the Government, who have shown by their acts hitherto 

that they are faithful accounting officers, put their signatures to 

these a{)counts, these accounts shall go to the sinking-fund commissioners and the1·e and then be converted into a bond of the District, 

the faith of the United States being pledgecl for the principal and 

interest. 

Therefore it is that we want some responsible officers of the United 

States, known to Congress and to the Government, whose duty .it 

shall be to audit these accounts. We expect of course that they will 

do it with fidelity and by means of supervision in a large degree, but 

that they must themselves be satisfied of the correctness of these 

accounts. That is all I have to say with reference to the amendment. 

l\Ir. SARGENT. The Senator does not answer the point which I 

make. If the First and Second Comptrollers of the Treasury could 

attend to this matter, if there is any reason to hope. that they will 

attend to the matter and make this supervision, then that provision 

of the bill would be all right. Let me read the words which I pro11ose to strike out. After· laying down their duties, the section provides that they mayEmploy one or more skillful and impar¥al accountants, non-residents of the 

District of ColumbiaThat is a slur on the District of Columbia entirely unneces a;y, for 

there must be in this District of Columbia many skillful and rmpartia.l accountants, and this clause presumes there are noneand such other assistants as they may deem necessary, to make examination of 

said books, vouchers, and papers- -· 

That would be all1ight if it stopped there, but it goes onand discharge their other duties under this act, and shall procure inspection, &c. 

So that the very theory of the bill is that the e two officers you 

have named are not to do this work. Then there are these other 

duties, high judicial duties, accounting duties, auclitin.g lluties, to be 

performed by you do not know whom, b;v Tom, DICk~ o~ Harry. 

picked up in the streets, who may be acting under preJudice, who 

may be entirely incompetent. That is what you propose. On the 

contrary what I propose is that the Secretary of the Treasury sh~ll 

appoint three men, under his supervision, whom he has confidence m, 

and we have confidence in him, to perform these duties, and he is to 

limit the compensation and the number of those who shall be 

employed. It is not limited in the bill. 

The PRESIDENT ]1'1'0 ten,po1'e. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from California [Mr. SARGENT J to the sixth section of 

the bill. 

The amendment was rejected-ayes 4, noes not counted. 

:Mr. SARGENT. I now move to strike out the words which I last 

read. If the First and Second Comptrollers are to have these duties 

confided to them, let them rf~rm them. Sir, I s.peak here un~er 

my right a-s a Senator of the Umtecl States. I pomt to these ilifficulties I point to the fact that you are about to confide to somebody, 

you dd not know whom, all the i__n;lportant duties provided in this ~ct, and I l'aise my voice of warning on this matter. I move to strike 

out that provision which allows a miscellaneous crowd, you do not 

know who, to co~e in and discharge all the duties required to be per- formed under this a{)t. 

:Mr. THURMAN. I have one word to say. The Senator entirely 

misconstrues the bill. It is not to provide that these subordinates 

shall discharge the duties of their principals at all, but only that 

these Comptrollers may appoint as many assistants as are nece ·s:uy 

to enable them to make the examination and to enable them-these 

Comptrollers-to discharge their duties. 

:Mr. SARGENT. Has the Senator any objection to striking out the 

words '' and discharge their other duties under t.his act " 

Mr. THURMAN. The meaning of the bill is sufficiently clear to 

enable them to discha,rge their duties. 

Mr. SARGENT. If that is the meaning of the bill, then two and 

two make six and black is white. The language is, "and discharge their other duties under this act." 

ML'. ALLISON. The Senator will allow me one moment. The object of that provision is s.im~ly that t.hese .skillful ac?ountants sh~ll 

be non-residents of the D1str10t of Columbia, and I will say the ch1ef 

object of having t.he e skillful accountants is to examine the accounts 

of the treasurer of the board of public works; and that is all there is 

in it. I would have no material objection to striking that out if it were not for the fact i.hat it would compel the bill to go back to the 

House. I do not consider it very material. I trust the Senator will 

not press the amendment. · Mr. SARGENT. I certainly do press the amendment to strike out 

the words "and discharge their other duties under this act," aml the 

Senator confesses it is correct. If the bill simply required these per- sons to examine the books, that would be all right; but that is not it. 

The accountants and assistants are all mixed togethm·, and they are to discharge all the duties imposed upon the First and Second Comptrollers. If any Senator believes that isright,let him vote t\gainstthe 

amendment. If any Senator believes we are at a stage of the session 

where we cannot listen to reason, let him vote me down. I do not believe auysuch thing. Wecansithere allsumme~ifitisnece~sa~y. \Ve 

have ample time between now and the 2'2d to dispose of this bill, and 

of all the le!ritimate business before Congress. There is no necessity 

for 1mdue h~ste, and there is no necessity for putting this important 

judicial power in the hands of a rabble, you do not know who, and 

whom you do not name in your bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tmnpo1·e. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from California. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered 

to a third reading, reacl the third time, and passed. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I now move that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of executive business. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me-- 1\Ir. HAMLIN. I will not give way to anybody. 

The PRESIDENT p1'o tempore. The question is on the motion of 

the Senator from Maine. 

The motion was agreed to. 

POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF 'l'HOMAS CLAIBORNE. 

Mr. COOPER. While the doors are being closed, I ask the Senate 

to proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 3417. . 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5157 

By unanimous consent, the l?i!-1 (H .. R. ~?· .341_7) to relieve T~omas 

Claiborne, of Tennessee, of poht1eal ilisab1littes Imposed upon him by 

the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered 

to a third reading, read the third time, and passed, two-thirds of the 

Senators present agreeing tberbto. 

EXECUTIVE SESSION. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I insist on proceeding to the consideration of exec- utive business. I object. to doing any legislative business in execu- tive session. 

The Senate thereupon proceeded to the consideration of executive 

business. After five minutes spent in executive session, the doors wore reopened. IESSAGE FROl\1 THE HOUSE. 

..A me aO'e from the House of Representatives, by Mr. :McPHEnso~, 

its Clerk, ~umouncod that the House h:td pas ed the bill (S. No. 595) 

for tho relief of Benjamin Cooley and James W. Boswell. 

The message also announcc<.l that the Honse had passed the bill 

(S. No. 784) authorizing the transfer of golU Inint bars from the 

bullion fund of the assay office, New York, to the assistant treasurer at New York, with an amendment in which it requested the concur- rence of the Senate. 

The messa O'e further announced that the. House had passed the 

following bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

..A bill (H. R. No. 2032) to amend the act entitled "An act to promote the development of the Inining resources of the United States," 

approved May 10, 1872; 

.A bill (H. R. No. 2700) amendatory of the act entitled "..An act for 

the relief of the heirs and next of kin of James B . ..Armstrong, deceased," approved March 3, 1873; 

..A bill (H. R. No. 3163) authorizing the Secreta.ry of War to deliver 

certain condemned ordnance to the municipal authorities of Lexington, Ma sacbusetts, for monumental purposes; 

.A -em (H. R. No. 3182) for the relief of the heirs of James Barnett, 

deceased; 

.A bill (H. R. No. 3309) granting to the Nevada County NarrowGauge Railroad Company a right of way through the public lands 

for a railroad ; 

.A bill (H. R. No. 3756) to appoint a comlni sion to establish the 

rights of the former slaves in the Choctaw and Chickasaw countries, 

a1Hl their de cendants and to submit the same to Congress; 

.A bill (H. R. No. 3749) to provide for the reapportionment of the 

Legi lative .A sembly of Idaho Tenitory; and 

..A bill (H. R. No. 3757) for the transfer of twenty condemned bronze cannon for the erection of a statue to the late :Major-General George 

Gordon Meade. 

The message also returned, in compliance with the request of the 

Senat-e, the bill (S. No. 311) for the relief of Joseph Montanari, and 

for other purposes. JOIL~ W. NORTON. 

On motion of Mr. R..Al\ISEY, the Senate, as in Committee of the 

"Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 95) 

authorizinO' the Postmaster-General to perfect title to certain real 

estate obtained from John W. Norton, a defaulter to the postal 

money-order bureau. 

The preamble recites that John W. Norton, a clerk in the moneyorder division of tho post office at New York, known and styleu a.s superintendent of tho money-order department of that post-office, 

did, on or about the 3u of .August, 1871, acknowledge himself to have 

embezzled and appropriateu to his own use .certain moneys of the 

United States, being money-order funrls, amountin?, to $115,428.71, more or less; that John W. Norton, and Marian 0. Norton, his wife, 

did, by cleed dated Augt"lst 4, 1871, convey to .Abram ·wakeman, of the 

city of New York, certain mal estate sitnated in and ncar the city of 

Plainfield, in the State of New Jersey, with the intent and object that 

the same should be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of 

this indebtedness; that .Abram Wakeman, and Mary H. Wakeman, 

his wife, (lid, by deed datedMay12, 1873, convey the same real estate 

in trust to Patrick H. Jones, of the city of New York, which trust is 

expressed in the following words : 

In trust, neverthelPss, and t~ and for the followin~ uses and purposes, to wit: 

To take possession of and control of said premises, and without delay and with all reasonable diligence to sell tho same at public auction or 11rivate sale for tho most moneys that can be reasonably gotten therefor, and with and fTOm the proceeds of 

such sale, after payment of ail lawful costs, charges, and expenses in and about 

said trust, to pay to Hon. John A. J. Creswell, as Postmaster-Genoral of tho 

Uniteu States of America, or to his successor or successors in offict', all indebted- ness of said party of the secoml part to said United States, incurred by him as late 

deputypo tmaster of the United States at the city of New York, by reason of any 

and all defalcations of said John W. Norton as such superintendent as aforesaid, so far as such moneys will pay the same. 

The resolution, in order to confirm and make valid the sale or sales 

of the real estate made or thereafter to be made in pursuance of tho 

trust, authorizes the Postmaster-General to join Patrick H. J oues in 

the conveyance or conveyances of the real estate in pursuance of the 

trust, ret.aining the liability of Jones and of his sureties upon lris 

official bonds a postmaster at New York by reason of the defalcation, 

except so far a-s the amount may be diminished by the amount re- ceived by the United States from the real estate. 

Mr. RAMSEY. The Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads move to amend the joint resolution by striking out all after the enacting clause anu inserting the following : 

That whenever any such sales under such trust shall be ma.de, the Attorney- Gem~ral of the United States may, upon the written a~rrecment of the aid Jones 

and his sureties and the sure tie. of said Norton, that the same may be done with- out diRchar~.~ or in any wiso atrectini.! their respective liabilities in the premises, discharge the purchaser of any of saiu property under such sales from any obliga- tion to see to the application of the purchase-money thereof. 

Ur. D..A VIS. How much is involved' 

Mr. RAMSEY. One hundred and fifteen thousand dollars. This 

bill is to secure ittotheGovemment. The aruenclment was agreed to. ) 

Mr. D.A VIS. I should like to know how we sball get buck that 

amount by this bill . 1\Ir. R.A 1SEY. I will tell the Senator. This is a House bill; it is 

not [L new bill of our own, but it is approved by the committee. The 

subject has been examined by t.he Senator from Vermont [1\lr. ED1\iilli"DS] who is absent, anu everybody knows how eminentlycritioal that Senator is. 

l\Ir. DAVIS. Hacl we not better let it lay aside until the Senator 

from Vermont comes back~ 

Mr. RAMSEY. That Senator approved and drew up the substitute. It is the only wa.y you can get back the money. 

1\fr. D..A VIS. I have not yet understood how we a.re to get the 

money back. 

Mr. RAMSEY. I will tell the Senator. The Senator from Vermont 

is absent anu the Senator from \Vest Virginia has taken his place in 

being critical. This man Norton was the money-order clerk in the 

post-office in the city of New York. He became a defaulter for the 

amount of about $115,000. He bad sureties of course which be gave to 

t.he postmaster of New York. He conveyed this property to his sure- ties and they in turn conveyed it to the postmaster of Now York, 

General Jones. General Jones now has an opportunity of selUng the 

property conveyed to him in trust and realizing money out of it so as to save the United States. The purchasers say, "Unless you make it secure that this money \\ill go to the United States, we will nottake 

the property." The bill and amendment are to provide for that. That 

is all . 

Mr. DAVIS. ..As the Senator has put me in the place of the Senator 

from Vermont, let me ask, diu the Senator from Vermont examine the 

bill and approve it¥ 

1\-Ir. RAMSEY. Yes, sir; he drew the substitute which the committee reported. By no possible means can the Unite<.l States lose money, 

and the securities will not be released till the Government is indemnified. 

Mr. D.A VIS. What committee does it come from f 

1\Ir. RAMSEY. The Comlnittee on Post-Offices and Post Roads. 

Mr. D..A VIS. How diu the Senator from Vermont come to lle con- nected wil:h it¥ 

.. :Mr. RAMSEY. The Senator from Vermont is a very critical gentleman, and for fear t.hat ho might make objection to the language of 

the resolution, I submitted the matter to him and he gave it his approval. 

Mr. D.A VIS. I understand the Senator from Vermont approved it f 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. 

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and 

the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the joint resolution to be read a third time. 

The joint resolution was read the third time, and pa-ssed. 

WILLIAM G. JONES. 

Mr. GOLDTHWAITE. I move to take up for consideration House 

bill No. 2701. . 

The motion wa-s agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 2701) to relievo 

William G. Jones, of ..Alabama, of political disabilities wa-s considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill wa-s reported to the Senate, ordered to a third rea-ding, read 

the third time, and passed by a two-thirds vote. 

CONGRESSIO:NAL ELECTIO:N IN MISSISSIPPI. 

Mr. PEASE. I move to take up House bill No. 3332. It is a simple 

bill to fix the time for holding the election of Congressmen. ., The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 3:~32) to fix the 

time for the election of Representatives in the Forty-fourth Con- gress from the State of Mississippi was considered as in Committee 

of tho Whole. It provides that the election for Repre entatives in the 

Forty-fourth Congress from the State of Mississippi shall be holden on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1875, anything in the constitution or laws of that State to tho contrary notwithstanding. 

The bill was reporteu to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read 

the third time, and passed. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and (at six o'clock and fifty-four minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned.